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.

 

HOT! FOX news report: 93 shot down by F-16 from DC National Air Guard

page: 1
35
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+7 more 
posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Recently discovered hot stuff! Genuine FOX news report where it is openly stated that 4th passenger aircraft was shot down by an F-16 from DC National Air Guard!
No mistake - Wing No. and name and rank of the official are mentioned as well. This is reall hard evidence.

Just watch! Here on YouTube now:

www.youtube.com...

Enjoy !




posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   




The first clip mentions that a D.C. ANG fighter had been called for an intercept. Where is the mention of a shoot down?

The second clip mentions a D.C. ANG fighter deterring a plane. Where is the mention of the shoot down?

Wing number was not mentioned. You are lying. This thread should be labeled as a hoax or removed.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   




113th wing, D.C. Air National Guard requested by the White House. He is NOT lying and you didn't listen very carefully. FOX News hoaxes quite often, perhaps this is just more or their propaganda. The FBI and Pennsylvania State Police were hoaxing too when they said flight 93 appeared to have been shot down. Same for the eye witness who saw the fighter flying away into the sun (east, to get back to DC I assume). The lights flickered when they jammed all electronics in the area, yet another hoax.
They were very careful to not say "shot down", but aside from destroying it I know of no other method to deter a Boeing 757.
Rumsfeld admitted it was shot down, probably just to confuse all those truthers out there.
My entire post is a hoax.
LET'S ROLL!!


Great find! This is amazing stuff, I vaguely remember reports similar to these being broadcast and later contradicted. This is extremely good evidence of what might have really happened to flight 93.
I mean no disrespect to the passengers of flight 93. Perhaps they were actually gaining control of the aircraft and that's why it had to be shot down. We'll probably never know for certain what happened to those people on board but we may yet establish the truth about what became of the aircraft.
Star and flag



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
this was in the early times on 9-11, there were tons of rumors and stories going around about other planes being shot down by AF fighters, all which are completely false, like this BS story
So either I am deaf or they never mentioned the name/rank of the officer...or am I wrong?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I've never had any doubt that this plane was shot down. I remember seeing these stories as they were reported. I believe we've seen most of this before. Not sure about the woman at the beginning of the video in that military cap though.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals

113th wing, D.C. Air National Guard requested by the White House.


First of all... it is the OP that is doing the hoax... (lie) not Fox ...

WAIT, it was the media that was in on too... ESPECIALLY Fox... "wing number" I was assuming he was speaking of the identifier on the plane. Funny you didn't mention that a shoot down was not mentioned in either segment.

Again...this thread is an attempt to get the OP more hits on his YouTube video.






LET'S ROLL!!





Pissing on Todd Beamers grave does nothing to support your fantasy.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
I've never had any doubt that this plane was shot down.


Then you have failed in gathering all the evidence


I remember seeing these stories as they were reported. I believe we've seen most of this before.


Yes, as mentioned above, there were hundreds of story's that were reported without checking for days. Remember the truck bombs at the mall? 8 missing planes?


Not sure about the woman at the beginning of the video in that military cap though.


Her name and rank are on the screen briefly.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by HomerinNC
this was in the early times on 9-11, there were tons of rumors and stories going around about other planes being shot down by AF fighters, all which are completely false, like this BS story
So either I am deaf or they never mentioned the name/rank of the officer...or am I wrong?


Her name and rank are on the screen briefly.


just trying to help.

This is new to me, so thanks for posting.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
I was under the impression from my research that there was not enough wreckage for a plane , more like a cruise missel .



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   
ya shot down i think it was over the indian river



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 02:26 AM
link   
Flight 93 was shot down. There were three debris fields. The one near Shanksville was the one they deemed as a sole site. Initial news media reports stated specifically that the crash site was deep in the Pennsylvania woods and it would take hours to reach.....

Then they "found" Shanksville. The rest is untrue history!

[edit on 8/20/2010 by mikelee]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:01 AM
link   
I always believed 93 was shot down. They had a good idea it was hijacked and after the NYC and DC attacks they had little choice. It may sound harsh but if I was in the same position I would have shot it down also.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   
What is getting tossed aside like last weeks salad is, this flight 93 WAS hijacked and the military had a tough choice to make if they did take them out.

Is this not the flight that was supposedly diverted from a major city like
Cleveland and a Mayor was involved in the reports? A lot of strange stories surrounding this. It does not make them true but so many things about this point to why it had to be done if a choice was made by NORAD.

Either way it was a mess and I can only pray it did happen as the glory version of the story goes but I suspect that is not the truth. There are too many dots that point to sabotage of NORAD's response initially that day. There is nothing to really discredit the story about an ANG F16 taking them out at this point in what is actually known. Too many unanswered questions no matter who is spinning the tale.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:40 AM
link   
I was under the impression that this was already common knowledge. Now I know that there are many Americans who believe whatever the government spews at them, but I figured everyone on ATS already knew this. Good post and good find regardless.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by Imightknow]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   
I think it's possible that the plane was shot down. But of course that invalidates quite a significant number of other Truther theories, so I doubt it'll be popular.

This snippet doesn't exactly state what is claimed for it in the OP either. On that basis the text ought to be changed.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 07:10 AM
link   




The "wing number" (116th Fighter Wing) was stated. You must be confused with a tail number. However, the newscaster must also be confused. The DC ANG Wing is the 113th, the "Capitol Guardians." There is a 116th, but it is an Air Control Wing at Robbins AFB, South of Macon, Ga. in Warner-Robbins.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by 4nsicphd]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Frankly, if this passenger aircraft was indeed shot down by a US military jet, under the circumstances on the day, it would be understandable, tragic, but understandable and necessary.

Not much consolation for the families of the victims, after all, their loved ones are still dead, regardless of exactly who 'pulled the trigger', but at the very least they could take comfort in the knowledge that in this particular instance the plan was foiled, and the aircraft never reached it's intended target.

Assuming of course, that passengers were actually on the aircraft at the time, as there has been plenty of speculation over the years, that they were not. (don't ask me, look it up on the search function) Mysterious passenger phone calls, strange statements made to relatives by passengers, first on the scene air crash investigator stating on the record that it was the strangest air crash he had ever witnessed in decades of being a crash investigator, no blood found at the stated (OS) crash site, a large white STILL unidentified aircraft circling Washington on 9/11, well withing the P-56 (no fly zone) area, much to the dismay of the secret service, who would have been immediately informed of an aircraft with clearance to be there (but were not) and so on.
Incidentally, if this all white aircraft was an AWACS, perhaps this was the one tasked with remotely controlling F93, towards the capitol.

IF this was so, we can only speculate (again) that either the systems developed a fault(s), or the crew on the AWACS (if that's what it was) rebelled against their orders. If either of these scenarios transpired, it would then become crucial that the aircraft be shot down, for the reasons already given.

Whether all or indeed any of this is actually so, is of course open to debate - endlessly circular debate it seems.

What puzzles me is why ptb decided to cover a ANG fighter's involvement..after all, it's unfortunate but innocents die during combat all the time, whether those innocents are civilians on the ground, or 'friendly' troops targeted in error.

It seems reasonable to assume, a lot more people would have lost their lives if the aircraft had not been shot down, so although passengers (according to OS) lost their lives, stopping the aircraft was still a victory of sorts (if going along with the OS of Terrorists ) even if it was a tragic and hollow victory.

My feeling is there is more to this story.

Perhaps ptb lost control of the aircraft, and couldn't take the chance it would remain relatively intact after crash landing, as if it did, obviously the gig would be up for them.

Investigators pouring over a more or less intact aircraft, rigged for remote control via AWACS or similar, would mean no terrorists and complicity by the authorities and prove the false flag operation that sent our countries into Afghanistan.

Blow the thing up mid flight, and the evidence is dispersed and covered up.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
I agree, doesn't believing that the plane was shot down invalidate all the other conspiracy theories of 911. If it was an 'inside job' and the gov't was responsible, why would they shoot down their own remote controlled plane or whatever it might be?



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by rufusdrak
 


Read above, for just one hypothesis as to why.

Second line.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by rufusdrak
I agree, doesn't believing that the plane was shot down invalidate all the other conspiracy theories of 911. If it was an 'inside job' and the gov't was responsible, why would they shoot down their own remote controlled plane or whatever it might be?


It may be (and this would really be a kick wouldn't it?) precisely BECAUSE the passengers were getting the upper hand.......that they had to shoot it down.

Obviously, if they landed successfully, all evidence onboard would be preserved.

Oh man....if this is what happened........

[edit on 20-8-2010 by Boxman]




top topics



 
35
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join