AWACS crew member says Flight 93 shot down

You know it's a hoax because really, Skanksville? Who would name a town Skanksville?

reply to post by wholetruth
Hi WholeT,
Why is Ms McElwain's voice inaudible? there doesn't to be anything to say why. Can anyone here lip-read? This idea that the plane flew on to wherever is strange, although if it was partially destroyed in the air and the rest flew on to wherever, then that would make sense, but that would also indicate that the plane had been attacked in the air by an outside source, since what is known about the audio tapes implies that the hi-jackers are crashing the plane into the ground. I suppose also that the plane could have broken up in a high speed dive, but that would involve large parts being found pretty near each other.

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by wholetruth

 

Hi WholeT,
Why is Ms McElwain's voice inaudible?

its audible...i don't know why you are having a problem on your end.

there doesn't to be anything to say why. Can anyone here lip-read?

maybe you will have better luck with this one?

This idea that the plane flew on to wherever is strange, although if it was partially destroyed in the air and the rest flew on to wherever, then that would make sense, but that would also indicate that the plane had been attacked in the air by an outside source, since what is known about the audio tapes implies that the hi-jackers are crashing the plane into the ground.

there is no evidence to support a shoot down just like there is no evidence to support a crashed 757. therefor neither event took place.

the whole shanksville event was staged and planned out with as much detail as the world trade center and pentagon event. every part of the script down to 'lets roll' is my belief.

the plane did not crash but flew over indian lake. there is no crash site discovered anywhere else so therefor it never crashed and the whole thing is a massive hoax.

I suppose also that the plane could have broken up in a high speed dive, but that would involve large parts being found pretty near each other.

whether shot down, broken apart, or crashing into the ground there would have been large recognizable pieces of 757 debris. there are none.

there is no crash.

Originally posted by JJay55

Not sure you are aware that H1N1 is a worldwide pandemic... not just Mexico.


[edit on 31-1-2010 by JJay55]

The claims about this pandemic have since been show to be completely exaggerated ! Thus making the drug companies to profit hugely !

Originally posted by wholetruth
care to share this nsa document with the rest of the class?

I have an FOIA request in to get an unclassified copy of the document.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by wholetruth
care to share this nsa document with the rest of the class?

I have an FOIA request in to get an unclassified copy of the document.

In other words (primarily yours) you're lying.

Originally posted by hooper
In other words (primarily yours) you're lying.

I have shown the FOIA request and response many times for a long time.

i114.photobucket.com...

[edit on 1-2-2010 by REMISNE]

I can scan you a request I wrote for a personal visit from Santa Claus.

That is funny, and logical. Please change the title of this thread as it is misleading. It discredits our struggle.

Originally posted by wholetruth

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by wholetruth

 

Hi WholeT,
Why is Ms McElwain's voice inaudible?

its audible...i don't know why you are having a problem on your end.

there doesn't to be anything to say why. Can anyone here lip-read?

maybe you will have better luck with this one?

This idea that the plane flew on to wherever is strange, although if it was partially destroyed in the air and the rest flew on to wherever, then that would make sense, but that would also indicate that the plane had been attacked in the air by an outside source, since what is known about the audio tapes implies that the hi-jackers are crashing the plane into the ground.

there is no evidence to support a shoot down just like there is no evidence to support a crashed 757. therefor neither event took place.

the whole shanksville event was staged and planned out with as much detail as the world trade center and pentagon event. every part of the script down to 'lets roll' is my belief.

the plane did not crash but flew over indian lake. there is no crash site discovered anywhere else so therefor it never crashed and the whole thing is a massive hoax.

I suppose also that the plane could have broken up in a high speed dive, but that would involve large parts being found pretty near each other.

whether shot down, broken apart, or crashing into the ground there would have been large recognizable pieces of 757 debris. there are none.

there is no crash.

Hi WholeT,
When I saw your reply I wondered too as I'm am listening through a 1000 watts Studiomaster band amp, it turns out one of mine..brat! had panned out one of the channels, (the lady's voice is unusually only on one channel and the wind noise is on the other??) anyway, now that I've heard what the lady is saying, is what you are saying, is that a drone with flight 93's signature, and a black box, flew overhead and down to such a low altitude as to appear to have crashed..or something like that.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by smurfy]

Thanks for the vid. had not seen it before, also thanks for the thread.

reply to post by wholetruth

there is no evidence to support a shoot down just like there is no evidence to support a crashed 757. therefor neither event took place.

Ignorance at it's best.

Then where is all the passengers at then?



[edit on 2-2-2010 by mikelee]

No crash or shoot down theories that discount the very existance of the passengers really piss me off. Why? Because its not only ignorant to suggest that the passengers didn't exist at all but it demonstrates that some people have their heads in dark places as well.

There is enough evidence to suggest a shoot down compared to the stupid theory that "no plane crash or shoot down" occured at all.

According to your theory all of the witnesses, radar controllers, ATC radio operators didn't see nor track or even talk to anyone that day uh?

Perhaps Oliver Stone has a position for you in one his movies but your theory makes no sense and can't even be backed up with a single shread of evidence. Now if Rumsfeld had said "and the plane in Pennsylvania that didn't exist" then maybe..just maybe it would makes some sense but he didn't say that. He said it was SHOT DOWN. We have a whole dialog of Cheney & Bush in various media formats eluding to the fact that it was shot down. Give up your Play Station based hypothesis cause it makes no sense.

For those that are saying that the plane was shot down to save many more people, then okay fine, I might be able to believe that.

But why don't they just admit that then? Where is the shame if that is the truth of the matter and they had no alternative that day?

Why not pay a few billion in compensation to the victims families (they seem to have heaps of money to throw around on lesser causes) and the book can be closed, at least on the Flight 93 chapter?

If they GENUINELY had no alternatives that day, that's what they would do.






[edit on 2-2-2010 by Flighty]

reply to post by Flighty


My opinion is:

1) They got cold feet in the end. Plain & simple and instead of owning it they lied fearing mass anger.

2) It was shot down and they found out too late to announce it or retract the crash story and went with their original story that it crashed giving hero's praise to the passengers.

3) The pilot of the fighter jet stated he heard who he believed was the secret service come on the radio and tell them to "protect the house at all costs" menaning the White House. With that the assumption of the pilot was that that's where it was headed to. They shot it down being over aggressive & reactive to that radio traffic (wanting to be the one who "saved the house") then a cover story was invented.

But regardless, I know for a fact when it comes out that you will all learn flight 93 was shot down. All of the little rumors, theories and storys in between the truth as to what happened with flight 93 will then fade as the truth will finally be revealed. Just watch!



[edit on 2-2-2010 by mikelee]

reply to post by Flighty

But why don't they just admit that then? Where is the shame if that is the truth of the matter and they had no alternative that day?

Why not pay a few billion in compensation to the victims families (they seem to have heaps of money to throw around on lesser causes) and the book can be closed, at least on the Flight 93 chapter?

Because of the bravado of the Bush/Cheney admin, they simply will not admit when they are wrong. These are sneaky politicos who will stop at nothing to get what they want.

All of the fore knowledge they had that has been proven. All of the oppurtunitys they had to grab the terrorists before 911. They failed plain & simple and it don't matter what the causitive reasons were, it was, so to speak, as a direct result of their political style & administrative course why things turned out they was it did. They made it a failure and that one commerical airliner shot out of the sky was NOT going to end up in their history books.

[edit on 2-2-2010 by mikelee]

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I can scan you a request I wrote for a personal visit from Santa Claus.

Too bad thats not a request but a response from NSA.

reply to post by mikelee

3) The pilot of the fighter jet stated he heard who he believed was the secret service come on the radio and tell them to "protect the house at all costs"...

mike, is this from one of the NORAD recordings??

Because, while I listened to that (was it in another thread???), and I believe it was you who commented on how "interesting" the remarks near the end were, RE UA 93...

At first blush, what I heard, repeatedly, was that the fighter pilots (who, as of yet, had NOT intercepted UA 93...) were told that they were NOT authorized to fire, not yet anyway, per that recording.

Rather moot, since they had not yet acquired UA 93...they were repeatedly told to ID only, before the authorization to actually fire would be transmitted.

Remember, once, where one said "(blank) the code words!" He simply meant that they were speaking in the clear, since there was little risk of any of their transmissions being intercepted by the "bad guys", because they (we) know who the "bad guys" were!

But, again....must I repeat ad nauseum just WHY the 'shoot down' theory is so incorrect??

The FDR from UA 93 shows nothing out of the ordinary, at all, with any system onboard.

ANY damage, whether from the F-16's 20-mm cannon's training rounds (which may or may not have been the only armament for the ANG F-16s enroute), and certainly NOT from any a-t-a missile!!!

The evidence is conclusive, the airplane was intact, and operating normally, until intentionally flown into the ground. BY the terrorists. WHICH is not hard to comprehend, now, in hindsight.

However, since the threat of UA 93 was feared, it could have been ASSUMED, early on, that it indeed had been shot down, since in all of the confusion, and knowing what the Top Brass new of the orders they were already contemplating, that would be a logical assumption.

Hard to think that they'd reach a conclusion that the terrorists had done it on purpose, not that early in the scenario---not until more information was disseminated.

Lets look at some actual facts.

1. An NSA document states te at least one of the planes was intercepted, which disputes the 9/11 commission.

2. The Secret Service had acces to RADAR and told pilots to protect the area around the White House at all cost.

Originally posted by REMISNE
Lets look at some actual facts.

1. An NSA document states te at least one of the planes was intercepted, which disputes the 9/11 commission.

2. The Secret Service had acces to RADAR and told pilots to protect the area around the White House at all cost.

Care to back any of that up? And really, since when is the Secret Service in the chain of military command? What else is the Secret Service allowed to do? Can they call the captain of a submarine and order a cruise missle be launched?