It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Flight 93 : Shot down & covered up

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Fair enough. Forgotten.

I believe flight 93 was shot down by a US fighter (confusion of orders, on direct orders etc) but was shot down and did not crash into the ground like the OS states.




posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by mikelee
 


I have seen many bomb craters and I have watched the use of dynamite in road construction.
Either one of these two were used at Shanksville to create a crash look- alike scene,
Only thing missing----da plane-da plane boss.The widely scattered debris were most likely dropped by the aircraft that dropped the bomb.
The passenger flight was a Northwoods type set -up. (See Operation Northwoods)
If you think the aircraft needed to be destroyed, then you believe box cutter camel jockeys or aliens had control of it.
They did not.


This is how you find out if you are on ignore.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee

Any 'conspiracy" was manufactured the day the public and yourself was hood-winked into falling for the OS lies and half truths.

Eveything I have presented is a fact and is documented. But instead of proving me wrong people such as yourself come into these threads and make comments and statements for everything under the sun except for the thread and it's contents. I call that dis-information.


Sorry, but bait and switch games don't work on me. What I posted was the irefutable truth- the Bush administration DID issue a shoot down order on flight 93, and military officials DID admit to the 9/11 commission that they were actively hunting flight 93, and would have destroyed it had they found it. It is likewise the irrefutable truth that it's completely absurd for these supposed conspirators of yours to openly announce that they wanted to destroy it and were actively looking to destroy it...but then turn around and deny they destroyed it.

Then there's the REAL irrefutable truth: there isn't a single thing you've said that even remotely refutes anything I said, becuase we both know you can't. Thus, I don't need to prove you are wrong. YOU proved you are wrong. Sooner or later, it WILL dawn on you that those damned fool conspiracy web sites of yours are pulling your leg, dude.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
Of course don't take my word for it. Let's hear from the Secretary of Defense in 2004 about what happened to flight 93.



Notice he's reading from a script which means it was written down for him to say. he went on just as nothing unusual was said because it was the truth, so why correct himself?


so this donald rumsfeld guy, how much credibility does he have?

he don't lie a lot, right?



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Fair enough. Forgotten.

I believe flight 93 was shot down by a US fighter (confusion of orders, on direct orders etc) but was shot down and did not crash into the ground like the OS states.


so where did it crash?



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


irrefutable truth


Hearsay information is not irrefutable truth.


But instead of proving me wrong people such as yourself come into these threads and make comments and statements for everything under the sun except for the thread and it's contents. I call that dis-information.


Because you disagree you call that “dis-information.”

I call it, pot calling kettle!



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by wholetruth
 


Comment retracted. Already been down this road.

[edit on 23-1-2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



to openly announce that they wanted to destroy it and were actively looking to destroy it...but then turn around and deny they destroyed it.


Of course they wouldn't dare admit to it. BUT they shot it down on 911 then did the two step after the fact while considering the ramifications of admitting it.

Your statement makes no sense what-so-ever:

were actively looking to destroy it...but then turn around and deny they destroyed it.

They never admitted to it. It was covered up (badly but nonethelesss covered up) and they only deny it when asked about it and opresented with overwhelming evidence that supports strong speculation that it was shot down.

This what Mr. Farmer is referring to Dave. The evidence NORAD gave the panel is NOT the truth..he stated that...What he means is they lied about shooting it down because of the public outrage it would caused not to mention that other nationales were on that flight as well.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 



But instead of proving me wrong people such as yourself come into these threads and make comments and statements for everything under the sun except for the thread and it's contents. I call that dis-information.


Yes I do. Its disinformation at hand in the moment, when he is talking about aspects not related to the topic/thread then when he gives superfluous comments unrelated to anything I have stated.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 01:00 AM
link   
I'm watching the film "united 93" as I'm posting this. In the beginning of the film they're showing the airport crew refueling flight 93 for a good minute. Seems they wanted to show that the hijackers we're really fast at getting to their target with enough fuel to still burn for a while.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Too many nagging questions that just don't fit within the official story line.


"The U.S. government insists the plane exploded on impact, yet a one-ton section of the engine was found over a mile away and other light debris was found scattered over eight miles away.

Passenger Edward Felt made an emergency call from the plane. He spoke of an explosion and seeing some white smoke. The supervisor who took the call has been gagged by the FBI.

UA93 was identified as a hijack at 9:16 am. At 9:35 am three F-16s were ordered to 'protect the White House at all costs' when it turned towards the capital. At 10:06 am it crashed at Shanksville, less than 10 minutes flying time from Washington.

The last thing heard on the cockpit voice recorder is the sound of wind - suggesting the plane had been holed. ZM trial.

The FBI insists there was no military plane in the area, but at 9:22 am a sonic boom - caused by a supersonic jet - was picked up by an earthquake monitor in southern Pennsylvania, 60 miles away from Shanksville.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 


Well it was a cross country flight according to the logs so that does make sense that they would top it off. I'm unclear as to where it would go once it reached the west coast. Maybe thats why they were filling it up.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Agree, Better be safe then sorry and I don't know if all airliners refile or might return to were they came from earlier.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   
On the Sept. 16, 2001, edition of NBC's "Meet the Press," Vice President Dick Cheney, while not addressing Flight 93 specifically, spoke clearly to the administration's clear policy regarding shooting down hijacked jets.

Vice President Cheney: "Well, the -- I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft."

NBC's Tim Russert: "And you decided?"

Cheney: "We decided to do it. We'd, in effect, put a flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up a long time...

"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate."

Russert: "So if the United States government became aware that a hijacked commercial airline[r] was destined for the White House or the Capitol, we would take the plane down?"

Cheney: "Yes. The president made the decision ... that if the plane would not divert ... as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 01:15 AM
link   


The plane above, flt 593 Russian Airbus March 1994 crashed nose first into the ground at a high rate of speed like flight 93. Gosh look at all that debris there.

[edit on 23-1-2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 01:36 AM
link   
From the NTSB records section Chief. Even the NTSB cannot establish what happened on 911 to an aircraft, be it shot down, hijacked then intentionally crashed or whatever. It can't be determined. Know why?

Because its a cover up....Thats why. otherwise they would have determined it already. This proves further that the OS is a lie!!


NTSB Identification: DCA01MA065.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Scheduled 14 CFR operation of United Airlines
Accident occurred Tuesday, September 11, 2001 in Shanksville, PA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 3/7/2006
Aircraft: Boeing 757, registration: N591UA
Injuries: 44 Fatal.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.


The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by mikelee
 


So if it was shot down by the govt, then that means there was an actual terrorist threat, there were actual terror attacks at NYC and DC, and all of this "inside job" bunk is a load of hooey. Shooting down Flight 93 does nothing for the Truth Movement and rather shoots it down (pardon the pun).
If it all was staged, the attacks in NYC and DC, then how hard would it have been to have a plane under their control go into a nosedive and crash? I mean if the impacts of both towers and the Pentagon were orchestrated by the "inside-jobbers", then logically Flight 93 was also under their control. And shooting it down is pointless, if they just could have had it flip over and do a nosedive. I know what you are thinking, what if "they" somehow lost control of the plane and it was flying on its own. So what? They could have let it fly on its own and crash where ever and just say the terrorists got lost and ran out of fuel. Boom, another airtight alibi. Why go through the trouble of shooting it down and THEN covering it up? Hell they even could have come out and said, we shot this plane down cause it was hijacked and a threat. Its not easy to admit to. But to do a coverup and keep it hidden for so long, makes no sense.

I am not with the "truthers" but I do think this plane was shot down. I also am unsure if Americans had any part in the destruction of the towers, even with the paper trail between the Bush and Bin-Ladins. The truthers damage the reputation of people like me. I am not an expert but my training in air search and rescue has helped me to decide that there is a conspiracy to decieve us about FLight 93.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
It is interesting to note, the shooting down of this airliner may have been the only thing the last administration did right, and it was covered up.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by earthdude
 


I hear ya. I believe the truther movement is important and it IS needed. Its just some of them take it to the extreme relmn and it turns people off then they lump everyone who does not agree with the 911 report into that. And with skeptics or OSer's they tend just to be argumentive and thats it. I don't like it nor agree with it as there many people who have valid and crediable points on what may have or didn;t happen on 911 but are placed into that "label" if you will then discounted for that alone.

I don't reveal who I am because of that labeling that people do because they cannot handle the truth or the possibility that their world may not be as peachy as Mr. Rogers taught them it was. I genuely believe there is an on going effort to discredit people who speak out against the OS and its done so because of those who participated in the cover up of 911. Just my opinion and while it may not fit into mainstream attitudes, it is nonetheless to me an important issue I plan to ask questions about for years or until the truth is learned.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by earthdude
 


I agree. But those who defend the OS can't understand that. Either one that is.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join