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.

 

TA-HISTORY: Flight 93 Was Not Shot Down 9/11 Commission Reports

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Well there are reasons we should be told this. This gives us the abilility to toss the idiots running/ruining this country out on their rears. But this is the reason we are not being told. Its not for confidence but so a few morons can keep their jobs. Just my opinion.




posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 09:33 PM
link   
So basically what I get from all of you respondents is that the 9/11 commission report is crap - is that right?



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Phoenix... you have to consider the source
These people cannot think their way out of a wet paper bag. And they CERTAINLY are interested in protecting the people that pay them.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Good thats exactly the answer I wanted to hear, the future will tell why.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Awe cmon Phoenix. You gotta elaborate a little. At least drop a hint at what you are thinking on this.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
So basically what I get from all of you respondents is that the 9/11 commission report is crap - is that right?


I am not one of the earlier respondents, but that is exactly what I was thinking as I was reading this thread.

I think the report is crap. Like I told my 14 year old daughter yesterday - she will hear about this 40 years from now just like we still hear about the JFK assasination - except what comes out later about 9/11 will be bigger. Much bigger.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Ok don't take this the wrong way. This is NOT what I think. This is just some crazy idea that came into my head.

Supposed peak oil is near/here. What do you do? Your entire existance is based on this product. If you do nothing you will see your country and your economy crumble. But how do you wage a war to steal the oil of other countries? You need a reason. You need to become a victim to justify the action. Unfortunately in this case you need to inflict a little damage upon yourself. What are 2,000+ lives compared to what will happen if we don't have heating oil for a long winter? 2,000 is nothing. That will be lost ten times over every winter from freezing. So you state a terrorist attack. There are plenty of people around the world that already hate you. Get one person the funding necessary to round up the people that hate you and inflict a wound against you that will get you the support you need to wage war. Its like shooting yourself in the foot to get out of the vietnam war. Its a wound that helps you get what you want. A wound that hurts but certainly a survivable one.

So anyway. We get hit. We get caught "off guard". Now we have the public support we need to invade a very oil rich region of the world. We started with Afghanistan (not sure how they are when it comes to Oil) but then we move quickly into Iraq and we are certainly looking at Iran. What next? Will we find an excuse to invade Saudi Arabia as well?

Is this also perhaps the reason why we still won't properly screen people at airports? Maybe because we are hoping for another attack so we can further dig ourself into this "war on terrorism"?



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by AmethystWolf

Originally posted by Phoenix
So basically what I get from all of you respondents is that the 9/11 commission report is crap - is that right?


I am not one of the earlier respondents, but that is exactly what I was thinking as I was reading this thread.

I think the report is crap. Like I told my 14 year old daughter yesterday - she will hear about this 40 years from now just like we still hear about the JFK assasination - except what comes out later about 9/11 will be bigger. Much bigger.


The same people that killed Kennedy are responsible for 911. If you are interested in who that is try 'Final Judgement' on google by Michael Piper.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Phoenix, I for one believe fully that the 9/11 Commissions report, on this subject at least, is 100% accurate.

It is very easy, if you start with the premise the plane was shot down, to twist the facts to jibe completely with your theory. Especially if you pick and choose the facts you want to use to support your theory.

For instance, Rick Gibney. People are ready to believe the reports this man shot down Flight 93 while the passengers were in the process of regaining control of the plane. They forget however, that the originator of the story said all the people on the plane were unconscious; it was being flown by remote control, and was shot down when it wouldnt respond to commands.

People report seeing a great ball of flame in the sky, thus confirming the plane was hit with fire from another aircraft. By the same token, closer inspection of these accounts say people heard an explosion then saw a great ball of fire. This would be consistent with what would be seen after the plane hit the ground.

The debris field is too large to be anything but a missile shot. Some debris was found as far as eight miles away. The FBI and the NTSB feel this can be explained by the debris cloud after impact and the winds at the time. I find no true evidence to the contrary.

I believe the terrorists in all the planes had prepared a plan for the situation of a passenger revolt. I think they had in advance decided that if their control over the plane was in jeopardy, they were to crash it immediately.

Finally and fundamentally, I see no reason for the United States to cover it up if indeed the plane was shot down. In the wake of events of earlier in that day, it would have been foolhardy to leave that plane in the sky. I challenge anyone to offer a logical reason as to why, were a fighter on scene, they should not have fired.

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one. The commissions report covers all the facts. The people that stormed that cockpit are heros that saved an unknown target from a terrible fate.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Im sorry but there is absolutely NO truth to this...

"The debris field is too large to be anything but a missile shot. Some debris was found as far as eight miles away. The FBI and the NTSB feel this can be explained by the debris cloud after impact and the winds at the time. I find no true evidence to the contrary."

Please show me an example where there has been debris found this far away from an impact site of a crash. DC? No. NY? No. Any other wreck? No. You want a simple explanation?

Look at the facts.
Fighter jet ordered to shoot down jet.
Explosion witnessed.
Debris found 8 miles away.

All consistant with a plane shot down.

Now lets look at what you want us to believe.
Fighter jet ordered to shoot down jet but didnt get there.
Explosion witnessed but we aren't supposed to believe it because NTSB doesn't think its right.
Debris found 8 miles away is from the jet hitting the ground when this doesn't happen anywhere else.

Now what is harder to believe? My version or yours?



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
Look at the facts.
Fighter jet ordered to shoot down jet.
Explosion witnessed.
Debris found 8 miles away.

All consistant with a plane shot down.

Now lets look at what you want us to believe.
Fighter jet ordered to shoot down jet but didnt get there.
Explosion witnessed but we aren't supposed to believe it because NTSB doesn't think its right.
Debris found 8 miles away is from the jet hitting the ground when this doesn't happen anywhere else.

Now what is harder to believe? My version or yours?


Yes lets look at the facts. You claim the plane was shot in flight and exploded. The debris found away from the crash contained bits of seat material, insulation, even some evidence of human remains. This would imply a major breach of the airframe. Yet the plane impacted the ground with sufficien velocity to create a 50' deep crater and contained 90%+ of the material from the plane.

It would seem to me that these two facts cannot be explained by an explosion in the air. For the plane to be that intact on impact the missles would have have to have impacted on the engine or the flying surfaces of the plane. But then how do you explain the type of debris found "as far eight milse away"? Obviously the body of the plane had to be blown apart by the missiles. Yet then why is there such a deep impact crater with so much debris contained inside? IF the plane was blown apart like that there would be much bigger fragments over a much larger area and a much smaller main impact site.

Sorry, IMHO no evidence exists to suport a missile hit.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 12:01 AM
link   
The warhead on an AIM-120 AMRAAM is 45 pounds. It's a radar-guided fire-and-forget missile. It would likely hit the body of the aircraft. A 45-pound bomb hitting a large passenger plane from the rear would not necessarily cause a huge amount of damage. It would likely blow apart part of the fuselage and may not immediately cause critical damage. An air-to-air hit would explain the debris field. The passengers overtaking the terrorists, the terrorists diving the plane, and the plane getting hit by an air-to-air missile all at nearly the same time makes sense to me. The fighters would have opened up with missiles at the first possible opportunity.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 12:49 AM
link   
If it hit the ground like it supposedly did it wouldn't scatter debris like that. What about the Pentegon crash? Why wasn't debris found 8 miles away? Or better yet the WTC where it had the ability to spread debris over a much larger area. Stuff wasn't found 8 miles away either. In every previous crash where a jet went down like that there hasn't been any case where debris was found that far away. Only time you ever hear of debris being found miles away is when something happened to the jet in flight.

There is absoloutely no proof to back up the governments claim. In fact I am sure most explosives experts would agree. There isn't enough force to propell debris 8 miles.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 01:47 AM
link   
If the flight wasn't shot down (and I believe it was) there were already orders to shoot it down. So, it basically boils down to the fact that the plane went down, due to the terrorists being overpowered by the passengers, before it could be shot down by fighter planes or it WAS shot down by fighter planes.
I know this is simplistic, but there were already orders to shoot the plane down. I don't really quibble with those orders..under those unique circumstances.
Did the government lie about what happened?
I feel that the government will do whatever they must to further their agenda. I imagine their agenda would include the scenario of heroic passengers (and they probably did perform heroic acts) rather than the scenario of having to shoot down an airliner to protect Washington. It's much better PR.
joey



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 09:30 AM
link   
It appears the consensus is that this aircraft was shoot down by an air to air missle. Some say the missle was radar guided orther feel that it was a heat seeking variety. I am of the opinion that it was a heat seeker.
If an engine was found miles from the actual impact site this supports my suposition. The missle locked on to the heat of the exhaust of one of the engines and upon impact the explosion separated the engine and its pod from the wing. This abrupt separation caused asysmetrical thrust which the pilot was not able to control. The aircraft rolled inverted and performed a parabolic arch into the ground. This arc can be compared to one half of a 360 degree circle. Traveling at a speed in excess of 400 mph probably put the aircraft at a distance of eight miles before it impacted.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 11:01 AM
link   
i remember on sep.11 being glued to the tv and seeing an interview with two rednecks who claimed they heard a bang saw the plane crash and saw two fighter jets fly overhead whithin seconds of the crash. that was the last time i saw anything of them . i believe they shot the plane down.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by joey
I feel that the government will do whatever they must to further their agenda. I imagine their agenda would include the scenario of heroic passengers (and they probably did perform heroic acts) rather than the scenario of having to shoot down an airliner to protect Washington. It's much better PR.
joey


I'm sure quite alot of things happen that we never know of or never know the truth about. To me, that's quite alright. Some things are best kept from the public eye. While I think that if this plane was shot down (which I doubt) there would be no reason to lie about it, we all know that if it were and the truth were told, there would be some bunch of idiots protesting and/or suing the government. There are an awful lot of people who can't see the big picture.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 12:57 PM
link   
The morning of 9/11 CNN made an actual oops because they reported it "Just once" that 2 f-16's were scrambled out of Washington DC to intercept the two remaining flights and then nothing was said afterwards. It was almost as if they got a slap in the hand by goverment officials saying you cant report this, Americans should not know we are shooting down planes filled with civilians on it. And the source of this report "Myself" I heard it as I was watching CNN with my child in my arms that morning and to be honest I know Im not nuts, a little bit of thought out of the box some times but I do no what I heard.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by dexbiafra
i remember on sep.11 being glued to the tv and seeing an interview with two rednecks who claimed they heard a bang saw the plane crash and saw two fighter jets fly overhead whithin seconds of the crash. that was the last time i saw anything of them . i believe they shot the plane down.


Thats actually an easy one. All the government has to do is tell those two guys that the location of those fighter jets is classified for reasons of national security so if these two "rednecks" spoke of it again they would be arrested.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 04:37 PM
link   
I see it as a government coverup. Three planes had already crashed into buildings and it was obvious that this plane was a threat, seeings as the FAA could not contact the plane. The government sent two military jets to see what was going on. They then shot the plane down in order to prevent a larger loss of life. Then blamed the crash on the terrioists because shooting down a civilan plane wouldn't exactly make the government look good now would it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join