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: 2
35
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:06 AM
link   
I have a question for all you "Truthers" out there.

If the 9/11 planes were any of the following:


  • Holograms
  • Cruise Missiles
  • Radio Controlled
  • Not Really Hijacked


Then why would they have an F16 shoot one down? For sport?


Also - isn't it strange that every whack-job on this planet happens to have a camcorder handy when they see a "flying saucer" or something like "Big Foot", but not ONE SINGLE person who CLAIMS to have seen 93 get shot down had the brain stem to think "Maybe I should be getting this on Camera!" ??




And then you have the 9/11 calls and eye-witness testimony of the family members who were called right before the crew took control of the airplane.

You do them great dishonor with your heathenism heartless propaganda. Just remember - what goes around comes around. And for you truthers out there spouting this kind of bull #, it's gonna come around to you 10 fold




posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

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.



And flags & stars. Don't forget those. That explains the misleading headline and the complete lack of substance.

There are FAR too many flag/star seekers out there who are contributing nothing to the site.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   
They got away with murder, again. The truth may come out 100 years from now but by then it will be too late....Arent the classified kennedy files supposed to come out in 2031 or somewhere around there.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Fidel Castro fascinated by book on Bilderberg Club



news.yahoo.com...



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boxman

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]
It is an idea that would fit into a movie script.

Seriously, I always felt that Flight 93 was shot down. It was the only option, imo.

The government didn't want to admit it for whatever reasons, but I don't believe that it was shot down because it was no longer going to crash. I believe that the government thought at the time the plane would be crashed into the Capitol Building or the White House, so they shot it down.

They found out later about the passengers attempt to retake control of the plane and wove it into their deception about the shootdown.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:43 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?


No, it does not invalidate 9/11 being an inside job. There are two alternatives:

1. The small group of 9/11 plotters did not have control of the full US military. Someone not in the black op loop gave the order for Flight 93 to be shot down as part of legitimate, emergency plans for a hijacking.

2. The plans went wrong and the plotters had to get rid of the remote-controlled plane masquerading as Flight 93 because for some reason (some have proposed because the departure of the plane was delayed and it became too late to crash it into the WTC7), they could no longer fly it into WTC7. That's why WTC7 had to be left burning for a few hours to give plausibility to its collapsing due to collateral damage and fires. Its controlled demolition was always part of the 9/11 plan, but only after Flight 93 had crashed into it.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by 911thology
 


Lt. Col. Phillis-Barnes didn't say many words, but she did say a lot with what words she spoke!

and debris found 6 miles away was also mentioned.

The "Powers" That Be wouldn't tell us about the true nature of one soldier's death in Afghanistan for years (Pat Tillman/friendly fire), it stands to reason they may not tell us the true nature of a commercial plane full of civilians' deaths either.

isn't the above rational thinking?

Fact:
1 minus 1 = a lie & a cover-up

then:

182 minus 182 = a bigger lie & cover-up, probably



or maybe my math is wrong?

paying people to lie to us is not taxes well spent, imo.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Snarf
You do them great dishonor with your heathenism heartless propaganda.


do you believe the public has been adequately informed about all the information surrounding the details of what led up to that days occurances, that days occurances, and all of what has occurred because of that days occurances?

do you not believe it is in the best interest of national security to get the military's financial support from the taxpayers in order to be able to afford for all percieved needed actions to further an agenda by all means neccessary if need be?

do you think the public has the right to be informed if we are under any measurable degree of marshal law?

i wonder how history teachers will be teaching that day's events 100 years from now after the lawmakers get done deciding, editing, revising, what is appropriate to be taught in american history classes to fifth and sixth graders.

even the presidential speeches are written at an 8th grade level.

see? even after you are an adult, the leader of the free world still treats us like we are not even freshmen in highschool.

Snarf,
you will be told what they need you to believe. period.
there is my two cents.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   
HOAX. Go to Fox News and conduct a search. There is no existing video for Flight 93 being shot down.

www.foxnews.com...

Why be misleading or make a liar out of yourself?



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


And the debris fields stretching over 6 miles? I have heard 15 miles. Also hoax?



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Snarf
 



Then why would they have an F16 shoot one down? For sport?



I have always suspected that Flight 93 was collateral damage, and destroyed by an air to air missile.

Just due to the fact that it was in so many pieces, none no larger than a briefcase as well as being strewn over a 6 mile radius.

If the plane had merely crashed as a result of the heroics of the "Let's Roll" gang, even if it had broken up on the way down into pieces then it still would have impacted with considerably larger pieces of the plane would have survived and subsequently found at the crash sites.


But in answer to your question:

Perhaps since the other three attacks on WTC and Pentagon were already successful, with all evidence of the missing Trillions already destroyed.

This 4th plane aka Flt 93 was the designated backup, in the event one had failed.. AND was planned to be destroyed in the event the other primary targets had been successful to cover the evidence ?
Perhaps.....


As far as not being caught on camera....
Interesting how the witness points out how the lights flickered as well as how the plane departed into the sun.

Hence minimizing the possibility of being caught on tape by any local witnesses with video cameras.

This is one of the oldest tactics in the history of air combat, dating back to Baron Von Richthofen, who would always attack by flying out of the sun to surprise his enemy.



9/11 in itself was a massive coverup. Trillions missing, and evidence pointing to the cooked books all destroyed underneath the rubble of WTC and the Pentagon. And now Americans incensed against ALL Muslims....just as the Zionsts have always planned. Remember the attack on the USS Liberty ? To be blamed on the Egyptians....911 is simply more of the same.
We Americans are being lead by the nose to fight the Zionists wars.... And they and their Bankster financiers reap all the profits.


The Scam of the Century !!








posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   
The plane in question is the plane that nosed into the ground making a sizeable hole? Is it typical for an airplane that has been shot down to nose into the ground at such a rate that it creates a huge hole? Flight 93 was not shot down, the report accurately says that the plane had become a non threat, that hardly means that it was shot down. Reports like these were quite common during the total chaos of 9-11 and to suggest that they might lend truth to an overstretching conspiracy is ludicrous.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   
it is truly sad how stupid the stories are that are just thrown out here as facts this story contains absolutely no proof that any plane was shot down in fact it is othing more then the usual look look i found the smoking gun owait wait my bad it was just a big ass pile of BS.

it is truly disgusting the way the truthers all beleive this crap i mean any story that fits their bill they just blatanly except then they start in with how we must be crazy.

so very stpuid to even read this crap but nice title it worked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ugmold
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


And the debris fields stretching over 6 miles? I have heard 15 miles. Also hoax?


Yes, hoax. There was no six mile stretch of debris. Some debris was found some distance from the site of the crash, however, there was no "field" of debris stretching contigously from the point of impact to the debris.



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

Originally posted by triplescorpio
it is truly sad how stupid the stories are that are just thrown out here as facts this story contains absolutely no proof that any plane was shot down in fact it is othing more then the usual look look i found the smoking gun owait wait my bad it was just a big ass pile of BS.

it is truly disgusting the way the truthers all beleive this crap i mean any story that fits their bill they just blatanly except then they start in with how we must be crazy.

so very stpuid to even read this crap but nice title it worked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You miss the point. Here is hard evidence that what YOU and your ever-diminishing group of believers in the official 9/11 story thought was concocted by 9/11 conspiracy theorists was actually reported by the mainstream media! And you are so desperate not to lose face that you now have to ignore the discovery of this news item as though it had no significance.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by 911thology
 


They sent f-16's after Payne Stewarts plane. Did they shoot him down too? Maybe Clinton hates golf



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by astrogolf
reply to post by 911thology
 


They sent f-16's after Payne Stewarts plane. Did they shoot him down too? Maybe Clinton hates golf


That would have been funny if the question had not been so absurd. Maybe, just maybe, they realised that Payne Stewart was not likely to be a terrorist? Gosh! You never thought of that?



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
if the flight was shot down the plane would have been scatered all over the place not in one big hole



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
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.


Because of the long string of hoax titles I watched the Youtube clip expecting to agree with you. Go to 1:05 in the clip and notice this quote:


It is possible that there was a second aircraft that was headed toward the Pentagon, and because of the Air National Guard that situation was taken care of.


The quote implies that if there was a second air craft headed toward the Pentagon, it was taken care of because of the Air National Guard. We now know there was a second air craft going to Washington DC, and therefore it was taken care of because of the Air National Guard according to Fox News.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by truthquest]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrJay1975
HOAX. Go to Fox News and conduct a search. There is no existing video for Flight 93 being shot down.

www.foxnews.com...

Why be misleading or make a liar out of yourself?


i was working at nellis air force base that day (Las Vegas Nevada).

i was stationed there with the 99th Civil Engineering Squadron, as a firefighter from 1999 to 2009, minus 3 years in warzones.

that day i was leaving my dorm room from the barracks, turned on my car just as the first reports were coming in. i was heading to fire station #4, a building extremely close to the flightline/airfield, next to the flightline.

we had aircraft LOADED/ARMED WITH MUNITIONS and READY TO LAUNCH within 8 minutes after the second plane hit the world trade center. I saw this happen with my own two eyes. pictures or video?sorry, no film.

very few aircraft are usually armed and ready to launch in threatcon-alpha.

now, there is a simple rule of thumb with guns. two simple little rules:

1) Never aim a gun at anything you do not intend to shoot.
2) Never load a gun you do not intend on aiming.


now, i'm not suggesting that i know for a fact those aircraft (4 types of aircraft that i saw) were loaded and armed with the intent on having to possibly shoot down a civilian aircraft. that is not what i am proposing as fact, and it would be irresponsible of me to do so. i may joke around alot, but i do have me some of that integrity. i wish it was more contagious.

one fact is that aircraft did launch that day fully armed, but were sent to help escort Air Force One, at least that is what i understand from trusted sources.

thought i would share that with you.

i shared that, wholeheartedly it is true to the best of my knowledge.

maybe you can return the favor, and when you get the opportunity to do so, help some of us help make an ATS that is a place where our mods can still have fun, too. appreciate it.

thanks,
john paul

[edit on 20-8-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join