It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 01:10 PM
On the morning of 9/11, I was listening intently to the radio at work. The newscaster was giving a minute by minute account of the situation as it unfolded. At that time, he declared that a plane in Pennsylvania had just been shot down by one of our military jet fighers. I believe he said an F-15/16, but I can't remember exactly. Then approximately 15 minutes later, the newscaster came back on to say that he had made a mistake and that the plane had not been shot down by a jet fighter...

I've always been critical of the story that came out during the aftermath of the passengers' unrivaled heroism. It has always seemed a little too far from the truth.
I understand why the government wants to cover up the true story by making heroes out of the victims. And if I had been on that plane headed for the White House, I would hope they would shoot me down too.
However, I just wish the government wouldn't insult my intelligence with such fantastic lies.

[edit on 24-7-2004 by chekme]

posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 05:53 PM
Our government is seriously interfering with the press. Remember the Fedex truck in St. Louis that supposedly exploded on the highway? It was breaking news. It was everywhere. Shortly after the story vanished. The last news bit I heard was that the fuel tank on the right side of the truck had ruptured and caught fire and thats what burned out the trailer. Couple problems with that. The fuel tank is located between the front and rear wheels of the tractor. If it ruptures the tractor gets taken out and NOT the trailer. The damage was also obviously caused by something inside the trailer because of the way the vehicle was burned out. Also where are the photos of the right side of the truck? I was NEVER able to find one. But regardless the tractor remained undamaged while the trailer was wiped out. A fuel tank does not do that.

posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 01:39 PM
The government only lets us hear and see what they want us to hear and see. The best we can do is read between the lines and then come togather and tell eachother, thats what so great about ATS.

posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 10:06 PM
Below are different news articles and websites on differet version of what really happened. Now please note how I'm only quoting exactly what it says off these sites.

Passengers brought down plane

"An FBI official said the crash "appears" to be an act of terrorism, but Pentagon officials firmly denied to ABCNEWS rumors that the U.S. military shot down the aircraft to prevent it from being crashed into Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland, or another government facility."

"Officials said that they believed that the plane took a dip and nose-dived into an abandoned strip mine."

"The plane went down after it was seized by four hijackers on Sept. 11. Some of the 33 passengers and seven crew members are believed to have struggled with the hijackers, preventing the terrorists from slamming the jetliner into the White House or U.S. Capitol."

"There is little doubt that the passengers on Flight 93 became aware that their hijacked plane was likely to be
used as a terrorist's weapon. The numerous heart-wrenching, last-minute calls are evidence of the passenger's
knowledge of the hijacker's intentions and the subsequent passenger plan to overthrow the hijackers."

"A quiet, grassy field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, was crowded with thousands of mourners today on the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Memorial services were held to honor the 40 passengers and crewmembers of United Airlines Flight 93, who died last year while trying to take back the hijacked plane."

"The passengers and crew of that flight have been hailed as heroes for challenging their hijackers and apparently keeping their plane from hitting its intended target."

Airforce brings down plane?

Hijakers bring down plane

"Cockpit tape recordings appear to contradict the popular perception that passengers forced the crash of Flight 93 to avoid the plane being flown into a landmark building in Washington, they say."

Now having put that information down I was unable to find many sources that state the hijakers or the Air Force brought down the plane. Now I could be wrong. If you could find some sources out there that would be very much appreciated. So what is my opinion in all of this? Do I believe the government is responsible? Absolutely not. I honestly don't know what to believe. All I want to know why there are different reports on what actually brought the plane down and what really brought the plane.

[edit on 8-8-2004 by mrmulder]

posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 01:07 AM
"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."

Sorry guys 45 lbs of high explosive fragmentation warhead into a pressurized fuselage would completely destroy the aircraft (remember Iran Air vs. the US Navy). It would drop it innards like a gutted fish. The spread of the debris is of course a function of the altitude at which the incident occurs and the weight of the debris. Light debris 8 miles from a 50 foot deep impact auger indicates an in-flight seal breach but no major structural failure. Gunshot through a window, door opening in flight etc...

posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 06:57 AM
Interesting to note.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was interviewed on 12 October 2001 by Lyric Wallwork Winik (yes, that's her real name), a columnist for Parade, the magazine that comes in many Sunday newspapers across the US. Although Parade is one of the most mainstream magazines imaginable (think People meets the Saturday Evening Post), Winik blindsided Rumsfeld with a question that few reporters/interviewers have the guts to ask:

"This is a question that's been asked by many Americans, but especially by the widows of September 11th. How were we so asleep at the switch? How did a war targeting civilians arrive on our homeland with seemingly no warning?"

Rumsfeld is apparently shaken by this young reporter's forthrightness. First, he admits what few else dare:

"There were lots of warnings."

Immediately after this sentence, though, the Secretary starts to qualify it. He subtly plays the "we didn't connect the dots" card:

"The intelligence information that we get, it sometimes runs into the hundreds of alerts or pieces of intelligence a week. One looks at the worldwide, it's thousands. And the task is to sort through it and see what you can find."

Although he doesn't directly say it, it would seem that Rumsfeld is insinuating that the poor, understaffed, shoestring intelligence and defense establishments can't put together intelligence in a timely manner.

Now things get really bizarre. After admitting that there were plenty of warnings, he says it was up to the FBI and especially state and local law enforcement to deal with the imminent terrorist attack:

"And as you find things, the law enforcement officials who have the responsibility to deal with that type of thing -- the FBI at the federal level, and although it is not, it's an investigative service as opposed to a police force, it's not a federal police force, as you know. But the state and local law enforcement officials have the responsibility for dealing with those kinds of issues."

Text YellowAnd here's something to kick around. Still answering this question, Rumsfeld goes on to make a strange statement:

"It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Text Orange"Missile"? What missile would that be? Did he let something slip? Or was this just a gaffe? A bad choice of words? A transcription error? Until we know for sure, it deserves scrutiny.

The article based on this interesting interview was "We Have to Defend Our Way of Life" by Lyric Wallwork Winik in Parade, 18 Nov 2001. The only part of the above exchange to be included is this:

posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 06:50 PM

I live near where Flight 93 crashed about 2 hrs actually from Flight 93.

Anyway I want to make a few points here about this area of 9/11 I know I am good at.

Ok 1st, when I was listening to everything that was going on on 9/11 on the local news cause I believe cable is evil.. Joke there.. anyway I was watching and the news people said they was going to have some main guy from the 911 center in Westmorland Country come on and talk about a 911 call he got from inside FLight 93. Now the thing is... They only talked about it 1 time. At some point in the day they was going to talk to this guy but never did altho they did give DETAILS on what happened in the plane.. which most of you already know but FBI Gagged that main dude at 911 and told him not to talk about it anymore...

Also in this case I have recently found out for fact that 93 was shot down.. there is a report on i believe or net or org cant remember last extention.. but Alex Jones talks to ones of them military guys and stay that we did shoot the plane down from some squad in North Datota or something...

Anyway this is what I have to say.. I am learning more about this also.. I am sure some of you have seen this site before if not take a look its got alot of good info on it..

It has alot of good info on there everything from actual facts to actual people where seen the plane go down.. its worth a look.

also a Side note to this.

I am guessing here, but I think 93 wasnt going back to DC. It dont make sense since everything already happened the WTC being attacked and pentagon attacked (also 2 other things i have serious doubts about) why would Flight 93 go back about 2 hrs later. I am thinking they was going to hit a nuclear plant over there. Where Flight 93 crashed is only a few hrs driving from 3 Mile Island.. I am only guessing this I have thought about this plane alot and DO not understand why it would go back to DC for an attack. just doesnt seem like something they wouldnt go back to a hot place after 2 hrs.. anyway that is my thoughts.

[edit on 9-8-2004 by ThichHeaded]

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in