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: 6
35
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by LifeInDeath

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.


Thats not quite right. The public is in agreement that it would be necessary. Not necessarily the people in charge, many of which could have had it shot down without authorization and then covered that fact up to the degree possible.




posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi

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.


This is the BEST explanation yet for 93 being shot down.

Likewise a normal type crash would leave most victims identifiable.
hmmmm no muslims....

I can't believe that there are still people who think that this whole plane was swallowed by the Earth. Must have been using the same majik used by the one that went thru that tiney hole at the Pentagon.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone

This is the BEST explanation yet for 93 being shot down.


You mean it's a desperately contorted piece of logic but at least it allows the conspiracy fantasy to limp on a little longer.




Likewise a normal type crash


"Normal" crash? You understand that this wasn't normal? In most aviation accidents the pilots are trying to slow the plane down and land normally. Not exactly what was happening here.




would leave most victims identifiable.

hmmmm no muslims....



Weird. Because the victims were identified.

I don't understand how Truthers constantly boast about the quality of their "research" when opinions like this can still have traction. I mean, where are you getting this nonsense from?



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Obviously you haven't done your research and just believe what the government tells you.. so dad.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Morpheas
 


So which of the points I made is incorrect? Son?



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   
Glenn Beck's mentor gets owned:
www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 05:34 AM
link   
glenn beck making fun of President Obama's daughter:
www.aolnews.com...



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 05:51 AM
link   
Quite a few reports place a white, unmarked fighter jet in the region of the time 93 dropped off the radar.

There even is quite a few people who have called Howard Stern Show to report that and one even claims to be a witness to it.

I have no clue where the items are mentioned on the web, but they do exist.

93 failed it's mission and had to be "put down". However, for those 44 souls who were abord only 40 were good guys. Islam did not cause 9/11, TPTB did.


[edit on 22-8-2010 by TheImmaculateD1]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
 



Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Glenn Beck's mentor gets owned:
www.youtube.com...



Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
glenn beck making fun of President Obama's daughter:
www.aolnews.com...


ET - What is the point of 2 back-to-back off topic posts? Are you starting a new line in derailing threads?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
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.


And so people will believe that there was DNA found, body parts recovered and so on.... I didn't see any, did you? Will I believe what the media reports? Absolutely not.

The NTSB did NOTHING here. TWA Flight 800 was recovered from the OCEAN!!!!! They went so far as to DIVE FOR PIECES!!! Come on now, am I to believe that the earth swallowed a hollow aluminum tube with wings and engines......WHOLE!!!!?????? Yea, okay, I have some change, I'll buy that.......NOT!!

It amazes me how people can actual be drawn into believing this BS.

Let's dig up Shanksville, that would expose the whole days events as FRAUD!!! One huge lie to decieve the public into supporting a phony war to garner the Elite billions of acres of land and natural resources, allowing them to test new weapons they developed to get rid of the rest of us.

Real nice.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
look not for nothing but there is no proof there is not going to be some great info disclosure on a tabloid type forum this site is so cool for fun and some convo but this whole proof source nonsense is kinda childish at best i am waiting for someone to prove darth vader exists and is apart of the US government.



off topic below ...

and man i hate this icon
there is no
here only
lol well not all
but no
and if your trying for
you come across like
no matter what you say sooo
and
to all the 9/11 truthers.




posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Anyone who actually believes that Flight 93 was shot down by a fighter jet, is absolutely clueless when it comes to the subject.

First, US fighter jets have two weapons for intercepting aircraft, missiles and their cannon. For the missiles, you have two types, infrared and radar guided, of which neither was used that day. An infrared missile, would have slammed into one of the engines and exploded it into a few thousand pieces. Wreckage that was found of BOTH engines do not support this. A radar guided missile would have hit the fuselage and caused it to come apart into some rather large pieces...again, the wreckage recovered does not support this. In addition, the debris fields would have been much larger.

Which brings us to the cannon. Quite frankly, you could empty the gun drum on an F-16 into an airliner and not necessarily cause enough damage to bring it down. Not to mention, you would leave a trail of wreckage to the crash site IF you managed to cause enough damage to bring it down.

Finally, the most telling piece of evidence that proves Flight 93 was not shot down...the passengers/crew/terrorists.

Had Flight 93 been shot down, they would have recovered quite a few basically intact bodies. The pitiful condition of the remains that WERE found, only supports a high speed impact with the ground. The relatively tight grouping of wreckage supports an intact airframe at the time of impact. Combined, they show that Flight 93 was not shot down.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 





First, US fighter jets have two weapons for intercepting aircraft, missiles and their cannon. For the missiles, you have two types, infrared and radar guided, of which neither was used that day. An infrared missile, would have slammed into one of the engines and exploded it into a few thousand pieces. Wreckage that was found of BOTH engines do not support this. A radar guided missile would have hit the fuselage and caused it to come apart into some rather large pieces...again, the wreckage recovered does not support this. In addition, the debris fields would have been much larger.


Well thats what those who wish to argue with information that is readily avalible on the internet for the sake of those sheeple who read it then wish to check it out. The facts are that:

* The track of flight 93 was direct line to DC. The actual target was never determined, only specualted.

* The Secret Service using a VHF radio in AM mode told the fighter pilots to "guard the house at all costs". To interpret that during the events that all involved were already aware of, needs no explanation.

* The national media reported that the crash site was "deep in the Pennsylvania woods and would hours to reach". Then, the learned of Shanksville and that people were already on scene because it was near roads and residences.

* There were three debris fields yet much of the public knows of only one.

History Commons


However, there are other factors that lead to the suspicion that Flight 93 was shot down by the US military. For example, a number of early news reports—published hours before the three fighters landed back at Langley—stated the possibility of a plane having been shot down (see 11:28 a.m.-11:50 a.m. September 11, 2001), and what appears to be debris from a plane is discovered far away from the main Flight 93 crash site (see (Before 10:06 a.m.) September 11, 2001 and September 13, 2001). [TCM Breaking News, 9/11/2001; CNN, 9/13/2001; Philadelphia Daily News, 11/15/2001; Mirror, 9/12/2002]
History Commons



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Why refer to early news reports from 9/11 or just after to try and support your position ? As you must know, confusion abounded and there was masses of misinformation flying around.

We have now had 9 years to examine the matter and it is clear UA 93 was not shot down. Witnesses, including another aircraft, saw UA 93 in one piece shortly before it crashed. The cockpit voice recorder, which has been played to the relatives of the victims and which is widely available in transcript on the net, has the hi-jackers discussing putting the plane down. The flight data recorder shows that all the aircraft's systems were operating correctly up to impact.

I fail to see why some truthers wish for the plane to have been shot down. Surely, if it was, that would be proof positive that there was no "inside job" and that drastic measures were being taken to minimise damage by ensuring UA 93 didn't reach Washington.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Information readily available on the internet...

You are kidding me right? You trust everything you read on the internet.....wow....

I would do more actual research on the three "debris" fields if I were you....and maybe from the actual sources. And when you do, you will realize there is no way Flight 93 was shot down.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Its OK to have a different viewpoint. But the facts regarding flight 93 and its downing will one day, be in the news.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Its OK to have a different viewpoint. But the facts regarding flight 93 and its downing will one day, be in the news.



Lol..its okay to have a different viewpoint..thats a funny one. Other than the internet, what are your beliefs based on? Have you ever seen the results, in person, of what happens when an airliner is hit by an air to air missile? I have. I have also seen, in person, what happens when an aircraft augers into the ground at high speed. Of the two, Flight 93 resembles the latter.

You can spout off about your "facts" all you want to. But the actual FACTS do not support anything other than Flight 93 hitting the ground, fully intact, at high speed.


By the way, the tagline about John Farmer in your signature line, is an out and out lie. He did not say the Commission Report was a lie. Try actually reading his book.

[edit on 28-8-2010 by vipertech0596]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 05:48 PM
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?


If they shot it down, what possible reason is there not to admit to doing that? Most families of victims can understand the government not wanting to allow terrorists to hurt more innocent victims. Most people really can handle the truth when it comes to disastrous events in their own lives. In fact, knowing the complete and total truth helps to ease the pain, and allow one to recover.

Is the story of the passengers storming the cockpit true, or partly true, or false? If they shot it down, surely they would not do so, if they knew the passengers were trying to retake the plane. Did the FAA not know what was going on, since some of the families contacted them, and informed them of their telephone conversations? Or, was there not enough time to notify the FAA from when they were planning the attempt, and then storming the cockpit?

How sad would it be if they were storming the cockpit, and then it was shot down? Maybe that is the true story, and the coverup? I have no clue.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Tell ya what. With your crappy attitude I think anything differing from yours will just be met with more of the same. The forum doesen't need it. Relax. Go to take walk, on a pier.......



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Im sorry, did I hurt your feelings by pointing out the truth? Reality does suck occasionally.

Suggesting someone commit suicide by taking a walk off a pier....suggests a really crappy attitude on your part.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join