Did Norad shoot down flight 93?

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.




posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by IceFlower
reply to post by maxella1
 


How does this even make sense???????

if I was ATS I would deny your resignation because I want to see what makes you so sure about what happened on 9/11.

I've been a member since long before 2011 (the date that shows in my history) - I have not clue what you are talking about.

Be that as it may - i'm don with this site. thanks for the good times.

IceFlower


Relax I just said that you shouldn't get banned and tell us what you know that made you 100% sure about 9/11..

I don't care how long you are a member.
edit on 30-10-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 




How did they KNOW the planes were going to be used as missiles? Cell phone calls, as always.... And most of us know all too well the problem with cell phone calls from high altitude at a good cruising speed. That problem doesn't exist today in all jets, but none of the 911 jets were equipped with that technology.

Seat back phones. Insert your credit card and dial your number.
You are not looking for verifiable facts.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by tanda7
 


Well, I for one believe you. It's much like the BBC reporting that WTC7 had collapsed whilst you could still see it standing in the background. It seems to me that on that day, the media were genuinely recieving this intel and reporting it as and when they heard it.

It was only later when the damage control was enforced, that they started towing the official line. It would have been very difficult to tie up every loose end with the magnitude of the event... They did pretty well though.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by JeZeus
 

If it was a threat from an outside source, coming into the US airspace, they would have the actual command of such, if not, then it would ultimately fall to any other military command that is in the area.

The main reason why I know about such, is that several years ago, I did work in that complex, to include finding out its mission statements and what their area of command was. Fighter commands are not in the perview of NORAD, for that they simply coordinate and communicate, but not give orders.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


The way I look at it is that they shot down the plane, but then they created a story that the passengers tried to take it back, so they could make a hero story out of an already tragic event.... And the family members can live with that instead of the alternative...



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by JrDavis
 


Yes, they can. Granted aircraft aluminum has a tensile strength higher than some steels, but it's still just lightweight aluminum. Slam it into the ground, and it's going to come apart, and you're going to have very small pieces, depending on how it hits.

United 585, a Boeing 737-200








USAir 427, a Boeing 737-300




Both were caused by a rudder control unit freezing at altitude, and when the hot hydraulic fluid went through the valve, it caused a rudder reversal, which flipped both aircraft onto their back, and they slammed into the ground in a nose dive. Neither left very many larger parts behind, and nothing that you could recognize as being from a 737.

As for your link to the Iran crash, no, it shouldn't have left a similar debris field, because the ground it impacted was totally different than the ground that the Iranian plane hit. Harder ground, softer ground, a steeper angle, and lower angle, all of those affect your debris fields. Unless you take another 757, or something of similar size, and slam it into ground that's exactly the same, at the same speed, at the same angle, from the same altitude, you aren't going to recreate something similar. And even then you might not get a similar debris field.


Not trying to be all conspiracy nutty, but the example you used seemed to have crashed in a heavy forest. wouldnt that affect how broken up the plain was?



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Renegade2283
 


It actually wasn't that thick where it crashed. The pictures make it look thicker than it really was. But trees would have some affect on the impact, but usually they would cause more bigger pieces to remain, as they would tear off pieces as the plane impacts.

In this case though, if the trees had played a role in the damage, the plane would have torn the trees apart, because the angle it was hitting, it would have hit the weakest part of the trees, and it would have torn them apart at the top. Since we don't see much damage to the trees, the trees didn't play a role in the damage pattern.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by jhn7537
 




The way I look at it is that they shot down the plane, but then they created a story that the passengers tried to take it back, so they could make a hero story out of an already tragic event....

Too many small variables for the gov to pull off successfully. Like the phone records on both the airlines and land lines. And the voice actors that sounded exactly like the passengers they portrayed. Just where would the gov get a good voice record of you on short notice?
Remember these are the same gov clowns that couldn't put two and two together just before the attack.
The same clowns that wasn't sure whos' in control "here at the white house".
The same clowns that said the air was safe when common sense says that breathing smoke from burning unknowns is a bad idea.

Nope, all the details (facts) of the 93 crash came out the day after and have held up for 10 years. The gov isn't that good.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by jhn7537
 




The way I look at it is that they shot down the plane, but then they created a story that the passengers tried to take it back, so they could make a hero story out of an already tragic event....

Too many small variables for the gov to pull off successfully. Like the phone records on both the airlines and land lines. And the voice actors that sounded exactly like the passengers they portrayed. Just where would the gov get a good voice record of you on short notice?
Remember these are the same gov clowns that couldn't put two and two together just before the attack.
The same clowns that wasn't sure whos' in control "here at the white house".
The same clowns that said the air was safe when common sense says that breathing smoke from burning unknowns is a bad idea.

Nope, all the details (facts) of the 93 crash came out the day after and have held up for 10 years. The gov isn't that good.



Who said the government had to be the ones behind it? Could have been a collaboration of foreign intelligence agencies. These intelligence agencies are capable of breaching the government and getting moles within the US government. If you have people of a foreign intelligence agencies working on the inside of the US gov't and another group working on the outside, posing as regular citizens, much can be accomplished. This could have been a plan in the works for YEARS. These people are capable of producing all kinds of false documents allowing them into the US. All they would need to do is collect intelligence on government protocols, the timing of the war games, and all would work out as planned. I'm sorry but the fact that the war games were going on at the SAME EXACT MOMENT that these planes were hijacked is way too coincidental. I don't think Al-qaeda would be capable of receiving this kind of information by themselves. People can argue that the war games had no impact on the FAA and NORAD but when there's thousands of commercial planes on the radar screens infused with fantasy planes used in the exercises a lot of mass confusion can occur, especially in a short time frame.

And not to mention how the planes used in these attacks entered radar gaps which hid them from radar for a while. How the hell would these "al-qaeda hijackers" know this? They didn't have maps with them, nor did they have their "fuel calculators".

All this makes me very suspicious.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wide-Eyes
reply to post by tanda7
 


Well, I for one believe you. It's much like the BBC reporting that WTC7 had collapsed whilst you could still see it standing in the background. It seems to me that on that day, the media were genuinely recieving this intel and reporting it as and when they heard it.



So even FOREIGN media outlets are supposed to be in on the conspiracy...?

It's now official- there literally isn't anyone on the face of the planet who isn't in on the conspiracy.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by jhn7537
 

Nope, all the details (facts) of the 93 crash came out the day after and have held up for 10 years. The gov isn't that good.


THANK YOU! This is exactly what I've been saying all along. An administration that couldn't even hand out bottles of water to hurricane victims in New Orleans or even expose a CIA agent without hordes of journalists tracking it back to them is supposed to have staged the most insanely complex and intricate conspiracy with the sheer perfection of coordination that rivalled a supernatural act, all without a microbe of evidence.

I'm sorry but this is stretching believability to absurd limits. Am I the only one who remembers this is the same gov't that once wanted to classify ketchup as a vegetable?



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 





Could have been a collaboration of foreign intelligence agencies. These intelligence agencies are capable of breaching the government and getting moles within the US government.

So foreign agencies inserted false records into the airlines and local phone companies? And no one found out?

You are verging on a poor plot for a grade "B" movie.

You need to have your story match up with the known facts.
or
You need to disprove the known facts and "present and prove" new facts.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by homervb
 





Could have been a collaboration of foreign intelligence agencies. These intelligence agencies are capable of breaching the government and getting moles within the US government.

So foreign agencies inserted false records into the airlines and local phone companies? And no one found out?

You are verging on a poor plot for a grade "B" movie.

You need to have your story match up with the known facts.
or
You need to disprove the known facts and "present and prove" new facts.


False records and phone companies? What the hell are you talking about? Have you considered the possibility of these "al-qaeda" hijackers having assistant from a foreign intelligence agency? Probably not. Why? Because it's not part of the OS.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by jhn7537
 

Nope, all the details (facts) of the 93 crash came out the day after and have held up for 10 years. The gov isn't that good.


THANK YOU! This is exactly what I've been saying all along. An administration that couldn't even hand out bottles of water to hurricane victims in New Orleans or even expose a CIA agent without hordes of journalists tracking it back to them is supposed to have staged the most insanely complex and intricate conspiracy with the sheer perfection of coordination that rivalled a supernatural act, all without a microbe of evidence.

I'm sorry but this is stretching believability to absurd limits. Am I the only one who remembers this is the same gov't that once wanted to classify ketchup as a vegetable?


And this is the same government who started the Vietnam war with a false flag statement as well as letting Pearl Harbor happen. Are you forgetting that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was completely untrue and that this all came to light not too long ago?

I'm not one to say the government orchestrated 9/11 but the truth behind 9/11 is not what we've been told. As stated in another reply on this thread, how do you know these hijackers weren't being guided by foreign intelligence agencies? Look at the MOSSAD, they pretty much shadowed the hijackers from Florida all the way to New Jersey. There's even reports of the MOSSAD running the Hamburg cell in Germany where Atta came from. NONE of this has been brought to light. Care to speculate why?



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by homervb

And this is the same government who started the Vietnam war with a false flag statement as well as letting Pearl Harbor happen. Are you forgetting that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was completely untrue and that this all came to light not too long ago?


...and are YOU forgetting that North Vietnam genuinely and truly did fight to conquer the south and unite it under their own communist banner? Those North Vietnamese tanks breaking down the gates to the presidential palace in Saigon weren't holograms and I daresay the US soldiers killed by the NVA aren't all make believe people who never existed. Plus I doubt it was the CIA who was responsible for changing the name from Saigon to Ho Chi Minh City.

The Vietnam war was a very, very real world event every bit as much as the 9/11 attack was, so if you're trying to introduce unsubstanciated theories and speculation into real world events you need to take ALL the facts into consideration, not just the choice tidbits of information that give the appearance of supporting your claims. For one thing, you can't NOT know islamic fundamentalists were already legitimately in the business of hijacking planes and staging suicide terrorist attacks long before the 9/11 attack, just as Communist countries already legitimately had the habit of trying to conquer their neighbors long before the Vietnam war (I.E. North Korea).


I'm not one to say the government orchestrated 9/11 but the truth behind 9/11 is not what we've been told. As stated in another reply on this thread, how do you know these hijackers weren't being guided by foreign intelligence agencies? Look at the MOSSAD, they pretty much shadowed the hijackers from Florida all the way to New Jersey. There's even reports of the MOSSAD running the Hamburg cell in Germany where Atta came from. NONE of this has been brought to light. Care to speculate why?


Yes I do- the "reports" you're basing your opinion on are coming from the con artists running those damned fool conspiracy web sites. I found that out after I looked up where this "pull it is industry lingo for Controlled Demolitions" came from and found out that was completely invented by that crackpot Alex Jones. The same goes for that Balsamo guy and his "no aircraft wreckage was found at the Pentagon" claim. Just how many threads and arguments did those internet myths give birth to here on ATS, may I ask?
edit on 31-10-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by homervb

And not to mention how the planes used in these attacks entered radar gaps which hid them from radar for a while. How the hell would these "al-qaeda hijackers" know this? They didn't have maps with them, nor did they have their "fuel calculators".

All this makes me very suspicious.


What do "fuel calculators" have to do with anything? What is a fuel calculator? Any calculator will do to figure out fuel, but they were taking flights with enough fuel to go coast to coast, and not flying half that distance. They wouldn't need to figure out anything to do with fuel.

As for the radar holes, it's easy as hell to figure out what radar sites are where. You just have to know which ones are primary antennas, and which aren't. And there aren't a lot of primary antennas out there, except around airports. There are a few scattered around the interior of the country, but not many. You can still find out to this day where they are. Just about all of the Centers only use secondary systems. Primary systems tend to pick up too many other things, like birds, and overwhelm the screen. So if the site even has access to a primary antenna, they usually have it turned down, unless there is a good reason to use it.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I see, thanks for clearing that up. Made sense after I looked it over a couple of times.





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join