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: 4
35
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I remember all these reports on that day and the Bush Administration has never denied that a shoot-down order had been made for the last plane, so it would make no sense to cover it up and say that it wasn't shot down. When it did splash, even those in the government thought at first it had been taken down by one of our jets.

It turns out that by the time the shoot-down order was actually made, Flight 93 was already down, but nobody knew it at the time because events were happening so fast and intel wasn't clear on what was going on with everything.

I'm not a fan of the Bush Administration, in fact I think they are the worst we've ever had, but I don't fault them for how Flight 93 was handled, I don't fault Cheney for having made the shoot-down call (it was him, not Bush who did so).

This seems to be one of the most pointless lines of inquiry on this subject to me, since there's no good reason for them to cover up a shoot-down since pretty much everyone was and is in agreement that such drastic action was absolutely warranted in this situation.




posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
So an f-16 was scrambled when the government realized the threat that was occurring on 9-11. It may or may not have shot down flight 93. Would the f-16 have known that the passengers were gaining control of the plane? And if the passengers did actually gain control of the control of the plane, would they have been able to land it successfully? Had the pilots already been killed by the hi-jackers?

And if the plane was not going to be able to make a successful landing, could it have been shot down for this reason?

Or could it have been shot down to destroy evidence? This hardly seems likely because when the investigators sifted through the debris, some evidence of a conspiracy would have surely been found. You can't do anything without leaving a trace.

And if the government conspirators who were "in the loop," ( as was previously mentioned), wanted to destroy the Twin Towers in order to cover up the theft of trillions, why would they need to destroy the entire structures? Certainly if they had the power to do this right under our noses, wouldn't they also have the power to destroy those so called records in a more decisive and surgical manner?

And why would the government do this to cast a shadow on Muslims? If this is so, then why did Osama Bin Laden take credit for the disaster? If he is on our payroll then he is surely hiding out in the wrong part of the world.
He must be a pretty good con artist then. Because if those Radical Extremist buddies of his ever got wind of this, bye bye Binny.

Perhaps flight 93 was shot down, and the Government covered up the incident so that Americans would only have the remembrance of what the heroic passengers had managed to accomplish on that terrible day.

Perhaps the only trillions that have been stolen from us are the monies that our Congress has spent foolishly over the years.

Perhaps the real perpetrators of 9-11 are if fact Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 20-8-2010 by MY2Commoncentsworth]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


GIVE IT UP THERE IS NO EVIDENCE .!!!!!!!

just plain crapola and thats a fact



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Does anybody remember the Wikileaks 9.11 pager records? At 11.a.m. somebody sent a message referring to a (IIRC) CNN report that F16s had been scrambled to intercept a second plane heading for the Pentagon.
This must be what that report was about :- didn't mean much when Wikileaks disclosed it but now there is a second source.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 


That is true actually.

Why, if the aircraft went straight down into the soft and yielding earth of the 'crash site', and is buried only a few ten's of meters down, was it never recovered?

Surely, if it wasn't excavated to recover body parts or personal effects, it would have been done to recover evidence of this notorious crime?

If BP can dig down four miles into the GoM, i'm sure the US government can dig down a few meters.

It seems they are not particularly concerned with evidence..what with sealing off the trade center and flogging the evidence containing steel to China as fast as possible.

And they won't even dig up the remains of a jet they say is buried in SOFT earth, only a few 10's of meters down, when almost every other civilian airliner that crashes, is painstakingly recovered and pieced back together to determine the exact cause of the crash, but NOT this one..in one of the worst crimes to befall us in recent memory.

You're right daddio...it doesn't make sense IF the OS is to be believed. It makes perfect sense though, IF the OS is a work of fiction.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
...Of course, let's not ever forget this doozy of a Freudian slip by Mr. Rumsfraud.




[edit on 20-8-2010 by OnTheFelt]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by OnTheFelt
 


It seems there have been quite a lot of Freudian slips where 9/11 goes.

Rumsfeld with the F93 being shot down.

Bush with the 'blowing up' of the twin towers.

Silverstein with the 'pulling' of building 7.

There are probably a whole lot more of these admissions..ahem..*slips*, too but quite frankly, although these criminals virtually admit the OS is a fabrication with their little *slips*, there are millions of idiots, i mean trusting citizens that will argue for the OS, despite logic and admissions from the perps themselves.

These arguments will circle around and around and around, as expected by the creeps that did this, and will never end.

A patriot is not one that blindly follows and believes what his or her government tells them to, a patriot is one who questions everything they tell him to believe.
The government is NOT the USA...the citizens are.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


Well said, Spikey



I'm witchya brother!



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Snarf
 



Originally posted by Snarf
I have a question for all you "Truthers" out there.


May I just remind everyone that there is NO Truther Movement. Sure there are plenty of groups pushing for a proper investigation based on one or many key flaws with the OS but definitely no joined-up movement. Groups or individuals are entitled to believe in scenarios or theories that conflict with others much as different denominations of Christianity neither proves nor disproves the existence of a god.

The only theory that HAS to hold water is the OS and there's plenty of proof that it doesn't. (Unless you're a believer in extreme coincidences and miracles!)

I'm also amazed at the number of members who state in their profiles that they dislike 911 threads but can't get in quick enough to start belittling those who want to discuss the subject.

I'm also disappointed that so many members continue to post statements that they cannot possibly be the first hand source for but provide no corroborating evidence as in this statement posted on page 1:


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


Moving on to your question...



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?


IMO, this is proof that the complete US Military was NOT in on the conspiracy and that humans were in charge. I'm convinced that this was the biggest mistake on the day. Despite the reported diversion of F-16s out to sea, this one (it seems) managed to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and was able to shoot down a rogue jet for whatever reason.

Now, suspend disbelief for just a moment and say that WTC1, 2 and 7 were fully rigged for demolition leading up to 911. Planes hit 1 and 2, big fireworks show - big piles of smoking ruin - shock and awe. Then the finale' - a third plane hits 7, another fireworks show, curtain closes, job done.

But something's gone wrong and the 3rd plane's been accidentally shot down or disabled enroute. You now have this 3rd tower all wired up but no explanation for its unexpected demise. You can't leave it standing with all that evidence in it so you make sure it catches fire, smoke it out for as long as you can get away with and then bring it down and just hope nobody notices.

They know that they can get away with it because they got away with the OKC bombing even though several bombs didn't go off and had to be dearmed in the aftermath. Despite all the press reports on the day, nobody seemed to remember them when Timothy McVeigh was found guilty of destroying the building with a single truck bomb.
9/11 Shock Opera… Act 4 – Building 7 and Flight 93: The Grand Finale that Wasn’t

This scenario doesn't have to be correct or proven. It just indicates a possible scenario that helps make sense of the pieces. Don't forget to reactivate your disbelief.



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.


David Ray Griffin debunked the 9/11 calls in 9/11: LET'S GET EMPIRICAL. I cannot rule out the possibility that he's making it up but I found the argument very persuasive.



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 -----, it's gonna come around to you 10 fold


I must disagree. The evidence is mounting up against the OS but so many people refuse to believe anything that isn't delivered to them by the MSM. I'd say those people are the ones who dishonor the victims and their loved ones.

Anyway, I hope that I've given you food for thought without causing offence. (Definitely no sarcasm intended!)



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by OnTheFelt
 


Cheers mate.

Appreciate it.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


Good, well put together post John (hope that doesn't sound patronising)

Really good, sensible information and to the point delivered in a courteous manner.

You're a credit to ATS and our country mate.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by nh_ee
 



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.....


Ahh. The ever-moving goal post theory-crafters at work. Luckily for the rest of society, there's this ideal called Occams Razor, and it pretty much says that anyone who has to speculate loudly with wild speculations is often wrong.

You seem to subscribe to the ideal that lack of evidence is not cause for dismissal...no matter how absurd and outlandish a particular ideal might be.

As long as it's Anti-US-Government, you, and other truthers, are for it.



So much for deny ignorance.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnJasper
 



The only theory that HAS to hold water is the OS and there's plenty of proof that it doesn't.


Well, I guess this is where the truth non-movement kind of falls apart. The lack of any "proof", other than personal incredulity, that the OS does not hold water as it were.

Nothing has ever been presented by any person or group that will contradict any significant part of the "official story". Oh, there has been many an attempt but usually those attempts fall flat because these people are generally confused about what is accepted as "proof".



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 



maybe one day we will have the pilot who did
the shooting come forward and say that he
was ordered to shoot it down. I have a feeling
that won't ever happen as he/she is probably fish
food by now.


No way would this person ever come out and say what he did. He would be humilitaed and demonized or at least feel that way. Whoever did it, if it was done, would feel like a monster and I'm sure he has inner conflicts with himself. The last thing he would ever want to do, is shame his family and himself. Somethings are almost better left unsaid and I would fully support this person not coming out publicly. It must eat at him, doing what we think he did. You know?

As far as speculation as to why it was shot down, maybe something didn't go as planned. Maybe the passengers were starting to fight back and TPTB didn't want to risk these passengers taking over the cockpit and thus talking to the control tower or even worse, landing the plan safely for all of the passengers to tell their story and let the cat out of the bag that it wasn't Islamic terrorists.

Maybe the pilot got cold feet and was looking like he didn't want to go through with it and TPTB didn't want to risk have the plane land safely and the public to ask questions.

Maybe the plane was taking to long, as to not have a viable excuse for lack of interception when it hit DC.

Maybe it was hijacked just as the OS says it was, but TPTB, being the good and sincere leaders they are, figured that it would be better to shoot the aircraft down before it hit DC but didn't want the PR nightmare of having to explain why they shot down an airliner without going through every other option first.

Maybe this last scenario played out and if it had, the public would demand a real investigation if they learned that the aircraft was shot down, that could have exposed or blew open the real conspiracy behind 9/11.

It's fun to speculate would could have happened, though we will never know for sure without a truly independent and transparent investigation. The fact that we simply don't know and continue to speculate after 9 years is sad and is the reason that we should be demanding a real investigation.

If I had to place money on which scenario lead to the demise of flight 93, I pick the first scenario listed in my post here. To me, this makes the most sense and would explain the official story of what they say happened. Of course it's better to have a lie based on truth, than one pulled out of thin air (no pun intended).

These are just my 2 pennies.

--airspoon



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth
So an f-16 was scrambled when the government realized the threat that was occurring on 9-11.

No. The faction within the government responsible for 9/11 ordered the shoot down of the plane because it was NOT Flight 93 but another plane without passengers. It could not land at an airport otherwise the ruse would have been noticed and so it HAD to be shot down.

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth
It may or may not have shot down flight 93. Would the f-16 have known that the passengers were gaining control of the plane?

You assume passengers were on board. This is incorrect.

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth
And if the passengers did actually gain control of the control of the plane, would they have been able to land it successfully? Had the pilots already been killed by the hi-jackers?

All misconceived questions because no passengers were on board.

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth
And if the plane was not going to be able to make a successful landing, could it have been shot down for this reason?

Is the government into mercy killing? I hardly think so! LOL!

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth
Or could it have been shot down to destroy evidence? This hardly seems likely because when the investigators sifted through the debris, some evidence of a conspiracy would have surely been found. You can't do anything without leaving a trace.

All "evidence of a conspiracy" would have been destroyed by the missiles fired at the plane and its subsequent crash into a billion small pieces. The plotters would NOT have been inhibited by a concern for leaving evidence.

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth
And if the government conspirators who were "in the loop," ( as was previously mentioned), wanted to destroy the Twin Towers in order to cover up the theft of trillions, why would they need to destroy the entire structures?

Because the towers had an asbestos problem and were losing money. It would have cost more money to remove the asbestos than to demolish them, so demolishing them for free was an excellent idea. Trouble was, there were people inside them at the time.....

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth
Certainly if they had the power to do this right under our noses, wouldn't they also have the power to destroy those so called records in a more decisive and surgical manner?

What more decisive and surgical manner could there be than being blown up with hundreds of tons of high-explosives?

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth
And why would the government do this to cast a shadow on Muslims? If this is so, then why did Osama Bin Laden take credit for the disaster?

But he did not take credit. The Neocons instantly blamed him, but he denied responsibility. Get your facts right.

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth
If he is on our payroll then he is surely hiding out in the wrong part of the world.

Tim Osman WAS on the CIA payroll. But he died in 2002, murdered by Omar Saeed Sheikh, MI6 agent now in Pakistani prison for the murder of Daniel Pearl.

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth
He must be a pretty good con artist then. Because if those Radical Extremist buddies of his ever got wind of this, bye bye Binny.

The man is as dead as a dead parrot.

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth
Perhaps flight 93 was shot down, and the Government covered up the incident so that Americans would only have the remembrance of what the heroic passengers had managed to accomplish on that terrible day.

AH! Give the man a prize for getting it right at last.

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth
Perhaps the only trillions that have been stolen from us are the monies that our Congress has spent foolishly over the years.

You forget the $2.3 trillion Rumsfeld announced the day before 9/11 was lost by the Pentagon.

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth
Perhaps the real perpetrators of 9-11 are if fact Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

Nope. They were the patsies.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


So they shot down a plane that didn't have any people in it.

Let's analyse this a bit. They bothered to empty the plane despite not caring about the people they were going to kill in the twin towers. Then they shot it down because... why?



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   
That's interesting at the end of this clip where the guy talks about the lights in his house flickering just before he heard the explosion in the air. I hadn't heard this before. He says this happens when they "zap" the radar just before firing.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   
How do you get "... that 4th passenger aircraft was shot down by an F-16 from DC National Air Guard!" from an F-16 was requested to deter a 2d plane?


Originally posted by 911thology
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, 20 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


Hello micpsi.

If you believe that there were no passengers on flight 93, would you be prepared to knock on the many doors of the surviving families of those passengers and tell them to their faces that their loved ones did not die on that day?

Asbestos is expensive to remove but it would cost much more to replace the towers than it originally cost to build them back in the early 70's. The numbers don't add up,....even if they did get free demolition.

And how could the Pentagon loose $2.3 trillion? Who has $2.3 trillion? Nobody has that kind of money. And if they did loose it, why didn't they just get their friends down at the Federal Reserve to print up a fresh batch? I can smell the ink and the paper right now. Ahhhhhhhhh aroma.

And if they had lost all that money, why would Buttfelt even say anything about it?

And if Osama Bin Laden or Tim Osman or whatever his name is, is dead, then who is the guy in my avatar?

[edit on 20-8-2010 by MY2Commoncentsworth]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


sadly the corporations run the USA now.

They have the politicians in their back pockets.




top topics



 
35
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join