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.

 

Too many 9/11 conspiracy theories. Let´s narrow it down.

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
How I see it:



* 2 planes hit the WTC Towers that were pre-rigged with explosives.




The events of 911, in my opinion were foretold to the US gov by many foriegn governments (again, well documented now) and the likes of Bush and his clan sat back, allowed it to happen so they could run amuck in the world.



Do you see your contradiction here??
In order for planes pre-rigged with explosives to hit the towers, Bush and his clan would have done a little more that seat back, allowing it to happen, would you not agree??





posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   
The independant criminal investigation never really addressed 'QUO BONO' or 'who benefits' somewhere amongst the list of beneficiaries is the culprit,was it the pentagon covering up a 2 trillion dollar hole,the Israelis to start a neverending war against muslims or the owner who insured the building or another beneficiary?.For 20 million you can go to the middle east and buy a group of suicide bombers the CIA,Mossad and others have both 'bought' terrorists from time to time,who did it I do not know but I do know that the torch was never shone on those who stood to benefit the most where the answer most probably lies.



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Airport records, along with the statements of passengers, confirm that the plane that landed was actually Delta 1989. It was confused with Flight 93 somewhere along the grapevine because of the rumors of it being hijacked.

It was thought that Delta 1989 might have been under terrorist threat for several reasons. First, it was an 8 am flight from Boston to LA, just like Flight 93, which actually was hijacked. Second, crew members reported a man on board who would not stop talking on his cell phone, despite orders from the crew. Third, the passenger roster listed two men with the same Arabic name, but only one was present on board.

This is from your source: www.associatedcontent.com...

So I gues there goes one of those theories. Can we now discount the theory of UA93 landing at Cleveland??




posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
Can we now discount the theory of UA93 landing at Cleveland?


No, because why would a mayor formally announce that a plane thought to be hijacked had landed when it hadn't? Just to get peoples' hopes up? To further confuse people? Because he himself was confused? I don't think so. I think something slipped out from The Associated Press that shouldn't have and was quickly covered up.



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 



So, which is it?

The WCPO report is actually the result of the 'perfect storm' of confusion that was the rule of the day on September 11. According to Liz Foreman of WCPO, the person whose name is associated with the story, their information came directly from the Associated Press - a report that was retracted just minutes later.

As it turns out, there really was a 767 on the runway at Cleveland that morning: Delta Flight 1989, which also was en route from Boston to LA, and also was suspected of having been hijacked.


suspected of having been hijacked? This is News to me!


The misidentification of the plane comes from two separate stories, reported by Peter Jennings of ABC News one right after the other. In typical journalist style, the AP shortened up that story for the news wire:


I don’t know about that, you see I got the story from CNN twenty minutes before they announced that flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania I was watching the whole event unfold on television that very morning. The News story that you just presented is doing nothing more but damaged control for the Bush administration.


Mayor White of Cleveland was credited with saying that a 767 out of Boston had made an emergency landing, and had been evacuated. The next line says that United (not Mayor White) had identified the plane as Flight 93.


This is a lie, and that is not what the Mayor said, in fact his story completely surprised all of us that was watching his announcement, we talk about it for weeks, because it didn’t make since the Mayor and a liaison for the airlines confirmed the story. The Mayor would not have gone public before checking the story out himself, these are important people and they are not going to made fools of by misinformation.


Airport records, along with the statements of passengers, confirm that the plane that landed was actually Delta 1989. It was confused with Flight 93 somewhere along the grapevine because of the rumors of it being hijacked.


Really, and where are these records? Can anyone please find them and these eyewitnesses?


It was thought that Delta 1989 might have been under terrorist threat for several reasons


www.associatedcontent.com...


It was thought? It was thought? But no fact, or records to back this claim, heck this story has just contradict itself. I don’t need to go any further this article is about as credible as the National Inquire.

Here is a fact, this story was not retracted that Moring, if it had been, we all would have seen it. This is nothing but lies to fool those that did not see the original Press release, nice try.

Talk about damage control, wow!


[edit on 10-4-2010 by impressme]



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 


Delta 1989 & Flight 93 both make Emergency Landings in Cleveland on 9/11




Actually in this case, everyone is correct. Both Flight 93 & Delta 1989 landed at Hopkins International in Cleveland on 9/11. There is a great deal of confusion about these two flights. And one would expect this as well, because if people were told the clear facts, the mystery of the passengers would never have been. People would have figured it out years ago. And yes, the Mayor of Cleveland & United BOTH confirmed that Flight 93 landed. The entire story didn't fit, there is a link at the bottom for the entire story.

Hope this helps!

Cheers-
Phil




We can conclude that Delta 1989 landed at 10:10, and at 12:30 the 69 passengers were taken into the FAA headquarter. Flight X landed at 10:45, and at 11:15 the 200 passengers were taken into the evacuated NASA Center. Cleveland Hopkins Airport - note that the blue runways were in planning yet on 9/11. The big black rectangle in the South is the I-X Center 5) The exact location of the plane This is the final proof that we have to do with two different planes. Both planes were sitting on a runway, but miles away from each other. One plane was at the west end of runway 28/10 near the NASA center (point 10 in the map). This is confirmed by Associated Press and an eyewitness (5A). The other plane was sitting at the south end of runway 18/36 near the I-X-Center (point 36), also confirmed by two eyewitnesses (5B). The geographic conditions on the airport suggest that the passengers at the West end were taken to the NASA Center and the passengers at the South end to the FAA headquarter.

We summarize our findings:

...........................................................Delta 1989...................Flight X

Moment of landing................................10:10...... .....................10:45

Begin of evacuation...............................12:30.... .......................11:15

Number of passengers..............................69...............................200

Passengers brought to...........................FAA/Airport...................NASA


Exact location........................................Runway 18/36 ............Runway 28/10

...........................................................near I-X Center..........near NASA Center



2) The begin of the evacuation of the passengers

The Akron Beacon Journal writes in an extra edition from 9/11 that the passengers were released from the plane at 11:15. This is confirmed by internet postings describing the events in real-time (2A). However, a passenger from Delta 1989 relates that she had to stay more than two hours in the plane before the FBI started to search it and took the passengers away for questioning. The Plain Dealer has learned about a evacuation time of 12:30, confirming the witness' statement. (2B).

Thanks to the most valuable statement of the passenger, we can conclude that Delta 1989 landed at 10:10 and was evacuated at 12:30. Flight X landed at 10:45 and was evacuated at 11:15.

3) The number of passengers

The first press reports tell us that the plane carried 200 passengers. Mayor White mentioned this number on his 11 o'clock conference (3A). He did not say how he got the number. The passenger of Delta 1989 however, she must know it, made an estimation of "sixty or so" passengers. This is confirmed by later reports - the story changed quickly. Now, 69 passengers have been released from the plane, going well with the "sixty or so" (3B).

We can conclude that Delta 1989 landed at 10:10, the 69 passengers being evacuated at 12:30. Flight X landed at 10:45, the 200 passengers being released at 11:15.


To see the rest of the story, click here for the "Mystery of the "4" flights


[edit on 10-4-2010 by Phil Jayhan]



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Phil Jayhan
 


Phil, I can't trust any of your articles because they aren't properly cited.



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Phil Jayhan
 


Thank you, and a great find
and I knew I was right because I saw that Press release that Moring by the Mayor of Cleveland I remember it like it was yesterday.
I have never seen that website before, I have saved it, so I can read it tommow, thanks.


[edit on 10-4-2010 by impressme]



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Not a problem. I am glad that some here appreciate all the time, hard work and effort I put into it. It's nice to be appreciated rather then getting a blanket condemnation of every single post I make.


Cheers-
Phil






[edit on 10-4-2010 by Phil Jayhan]



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Phil Jayhan
 


I'm sorry, but evidence is all that matters. A theory will get you nowhere without the proper evidence.



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by kiwasabi
 


It's all there in the article. About as condensed as it could possibly be, You speak as though if this article somehow lived up to your standards, that something would change. Believe in your fairy tales if you want to.

I am not your personal research assistant. if you find something is missing why don't you offer your time and effort to fine tune rather than condemning it altogether?

Let me answer that for you. Because if you finally got answers & solutions to what really happened, you wouldn't have anything to argue about. Maybe had you simply asked for something you felt you wanted cited, I might have been willing to dig through my notes and see if I could supply you your answer. But that would rob you of all your joy of picking apart someone else's hard work and research.

Which is really what most people in 9/11 are all about anyways, The vast majority never lift a finger doing and work or research, and sit back and maul & condemn others work rather than simply asking a question or asking for a reference.

Fine, stay in your confusion. Your choice. I offered what I have discovered. Not interested in any of my work, fine, don't read it.

Cheers-
Phil






[edit on 10-4-2010 by Phil Jayhan]



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
It was confused with Flight 93 somewhere along the grapevine because of the rumors of it being hijacked.


Actually flight 1989 was confused with flight 93 because 1989 nearly crossed flight paths with 93, and with 93 having the transponder off they confuesed the 2.



[edit on 10-4-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Well. This thread is changing into a discussion into UA93 now.
That doesn´t bother me at all, but I just want to clarify that UA93 is not one the theories that were meant to be discussed.
Now... as long as we are into that...I fell that it has been established here, there was a mixup between two flights, UA93 and DELTA1989.
It was believed for some time during 9/11 that DELTA1989 was also being hijacked, which turned out to be wrong.
And this is the flight that landed safely at Cleveland, and some people thought that it had been UA93.
Thus the confussion.
I hope we can throw away the:
"UA93 not a hijack, landed in Cleveland, the Mayor said so." Theory.



[edit on 10-4-2010 by rush969]



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Two planes, on two different runways, with radically different numbers of passengers, with far different landing times, with radically different evacuation times, on two different ends of the airport. One at the IX exposition center the other by the NASA Glenn hangar, MILES AWAY.

What part of two different planes don't you guys understand? Which part? I guess believe what you guys want to, because you don't care about any of the evidence.


Cheers-
Phil


We summarize our findings:

...........................................................Delta 1989...................Flight X

Moment of landing................................10:10...... .....................10:45

Begin of evacuation...............................12:30.... .......................11:15

Number of passengers..............................69...............................200

Passengers brought to...........................FAA/Airport...................NASA


Exact location........................................Runway 18/36 ............Runway 28/10

...........................................................near I-X Center..........near NASA Center






[edit on 10-4-2010 by Phil Jayhan]



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Phil, I respect you more than anyone here probably, and think your theories are very consistent and thorough. But they read more like fiction than research papers because they have hardly ANY links to news stories of any kind. The proof I'd like to see the most is that Flight 93 landed safely and the Mayor of Cincinnati officially stated that, but I have yet to see it. And the live footage of that being broadcast on CNN (according to impressme), doesn't seem to exist, I watched from 10:50am-12:30pm.



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Phil Jayhan
 


Phil....your so-called "source" is not. Not a source, that is.

It is merely a posting, on the blog, that YOU operate!

While it is nice of ATS to be an excellent, well-moderated and fair clearinghouse for these discussions. there is a line being pushed, inmy opinion, by bringing this, and touting it as some sort of valid, evidenced source material. It isn't.

Now, I could very easily destroy this allegation regarding United 93 at Cleveland. I have already, but it continues to be ignored, apparently.

The OP, just a few posts back, mentioned he didn't think this was really a thread about UAL 93, but in any event, the OP agrees it was simply a mis-identification.

Mistakes are made, it does happen. Mistaken identities, especially in the hectic pace of the event, and the confusion surrounding it, in immendiate aftermath.

ONE glaring mistake is the comparison of United 93 to Delta 1989, as cited by a source "impressme" used, as they both being Boeing 767s!!! That is an obvious error, yet it seems to also be ignored, by those who so profoundly want this mistake to be 'true'.

Another mention, this time by OP, was also a misstatement, however unintentionally...regarding the confusion of DAL 1989, when it was siad that 'both' were "Boston to Los Angeles" flights. Again, this is mistaken, and I think we can all agree to that fact, as well?

My point is, there is a lot of 'cross-talking' going on, and the calm, sober and actual facts are taking a beating, here.

"REMISNE" hit it best, right on the head, with his comment....the transponder off on UAL 93, and targets (on radar) being confused.

Don't know how else to explain it, to those who aren't in the field of expertise we are discussing. It seems some people find it hard to beleive such things happen, but they DO!



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwasabi
 



The proof I'd like to see the most is that Flight 93 landed safely and the Mayor of Cincinnati officially stated that...


This brings up points I was attempting to draw attention to....

THAT (what I quoted from 'kiwasabi') is what ATS member 'impressme' wrote.

WHY would the mayor of Cincinnati be making statements, anyways, about goings-on at Cleveland-Hopkins Airport?


This is what I've been pointing out.

People are confusing different cities in Ohio.

People are confusing the types of airplanes involved (B-757 vs. B-767)

People are confusing the origin/destination cities of the two flights (DAL 1989 vs. UAL 93)

Etc, etc, etc......

The OTHER so-called "information" about the NASA hangar in Cleveland, and the "PLANE-X", all of that?

Hogwash, I am afraid. ALL made up, by someone, I know not who.

When it comes to the EVENTS of that morning, after the NOTAM was issued for ALL airplanes to land as soon as practical, it was extremely chaotic and confusing.

Every airborne commercial and other civilian airplane (or other aircraft type) had to be handled, usually to what's called "nearest suitable" airport.

Instead of this outlandish (and unsubstantiated) claim of "United 93 at Cleveland" with no actual evidence except what just amounts to a 'theory', there ARE ways to obtain actual records of the events, and WHICH flights landed at KCLE, after the NOTAM was issued.

A certain focus was directed towards DAL 1989, as mentioned, because of concerns (unwarranted, as it turned out) of a disruptive/uncooperative passenger onboard...the cellphone guy...(which brings up a 'nother con-o-worms, right?? The folks, in the 'CT' camp, who question the legitimate calls made onthe victim airplanes that day...THIS guy, on DAL 1989 was talking on HIS cellphone....
But, of course, when it's a 'conspiracy', we don't wish to have inconvenient facts that refute the 'theroy' get in the way....)



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Sorry if I redirected this thread towards Flight 93 too much; it's just one of the events with the most confusion. That's why I pressed Phil for proof. It also seemed suspicious to me that The Associated Press ran a story about Flight 93 landing then immediately pulled it. The government obviously heavily manipulated the media on this event, which is why I'm skeptical of anything that was said, then immediately changed/covered up. Thus, absolute proof is needed which shows what happened for sure (no matter what it was).



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Is there conclusive proof either way about there being passengers, pilots, hijackers, crew on these flights? I infer that since they hurt nobody with the Pentagon incident, they would also not hurt anybody in the planes. But maybe they loaded them up with their enemies or something. Or some people they had already killed.



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwasabi
 


This is a very confusing question, perhaps it seems unclear because of the way you asked it?


I infer that since they hurt nobody with the Pentagon incident, they would also not hurt anybody in the planes.


The identities of the crew and passengers on all four airplanes is known.

Additionally, workers in the Pentagon were victims. And, there were initial victims in the WTC, from the first impacts, then of course those lost during the buildings' collapses.

There is no way to distinguish, at WTC, the manner and time of death of building occupants, whether from the airplanes' impacting, or the subseguent fires, or the collateral from the falling elevators when THEY impacted at various levels, nor the final collapse events.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join