Flight 93..the smoking gun.

The place to be for all Conspiracy Theories, photoshopping of pictures, IVF and Multiplie Babies, and many more other theories

Flight 93..the smoking gun.

Postby Tripz » Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:05 pm

THE FLIGHT 93 FRAUD- Smoking Gun Evidence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-59kouBgO_s

Did Flight 93 really crash in Shanksville? (Part One)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLJ7jEpmapQ

Air Traffic Control Recording of 9/11 Flight 93
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2FB2Y1BQs0

9/11:Flight 93 Eyewitness Says No 757 Crashed in Shanksville
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPigIuzXKcA

OPERATION NORTHWOODS

**Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft could appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the Government of Cuba."

a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and
numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered
aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the
Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be
subsituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be
loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under
carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered
aircraft would be converted to a drone.

b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual
aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of
Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying
aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly
into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will
have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the
aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft
meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When
over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the inter-
national distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he
is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission
will be interrupted by the destruction of aircraft which will
be triggered by radio signal. This will allow IACO radio

c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was
presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft
would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately
15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart. The pilots
retuning to Homestead would have a true story as far as
they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched
and parts of aircraft found.

(C) fits flight 93 tale.
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT

Re: Flight 93..the smoking gun.

Postby the slave » Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:40 pm

I always had my doubts about this flight. Because of all the passengers 'phoning home' . FROM A PLANE????!!!!
ON A MOBILE????!!!!
Can't be done.
Just one of a few 'smoking guns.'
the slave
Been Cautioned
 
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:57 pm
Location: upstairs

Re: Flight 93..the smoking gun.

Postby happymum » Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:17 pm

the slave wrote:I always had my doubts about this flight. Because of all the passengers 'phoning home' . FROM A PLANE????!!!!
ON A MOBILE????!!!!
Can't be done.
Just one of a few 'smoking guns.'



Yes, its been in the news recently that we will soon be able to make mobile calls in the air............


I did think well how was it done on 9/11 then?

Where they just not allowed to back then or did they not have the technology?
happymum
Suspect
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:25 pm

Re: Flight 93..the smoking gun.

Postby MoeSzyslak » Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:25 pm

The cell phone calls from the airplanes have always been a very dubious aspect of the flights.
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." - Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
MoeSzyslak
On Parole
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:14 pm
Location: Moe's Tavern, Springfield

Re: Flight 93..the smoking gun.

Postby happymum » Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:31 pm

MoeSzyslak wrote:The cell phone calls from the airplanes have always been a very dubious aspect of the flights.



Moe, was the technology there, but passengers were normally not allowed to use their phones because it might interfere
with the planes instruments........... or ............ was it just not possible?

How have the powers that be explained it?
happymum
Suspect
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:25 pm

Re: Flight 93..the smoking gun.

Postby MoeSzyslak » Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:34 pm

happymum wrote:
MoeSzyslak wrote:The cell phone calls from the airplanes have always been a very dubious aspect of the flights.



Moe, was the technology there, but passengers were normally not allowed to use their phones because it might interfere
with the planes instruments........... or ............ was it just not possible?

How have the powers that be explained it?

From what I have read, it was supposed to be virtually impossible to call from a cell phone while in an airplane. The reason being, the airplane is travelling so fast, that by the time you dialed your call, and it was picked up by a nearby tower, the plane would have sped out of range of that tower, and you would be dropped until you reached the next tower, and so on. So, you wouldn't be able to complete a call because you would keep being dropped.
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." - Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
MoeSzyslak
On Parole
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:14 pm
Location: Moe's Tavern, Springfield

Re: Flight 93..the smoking gun.

Postby happymum » Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:54 pm

MoeSzyslak wrote:
happymum wrote:
MoeSzyslak wrote:The cell phone calls from the airplanes have always been a very dubious aspect of the flights.



Moe, was the technology there, but passengers were normally not allowed to use their phones because it might interfere
with the planes instruments........... or ............ was it just not possible?

How have the powers that be explained it?

From what I have read, it was supposed to be virtually impossible to call from a cell phone while in an airplane. The reason being, the airplane is travelling so fast, that by the time you dialed your call, and it was picked up by a nearby tower, the plane would have sped out of range of that tower, and you would be dropped until you reached the next tower, and so on. So, you wouldn't be able to complete a call because you would keep being dropped.



Well, that's very interesting............ I just assumed you weren't allowed to.

I bet a lot of people did not question this because they did not understand the technology (myself included :oops: )
happymum
Suspect
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:25 pm

Re: Flight 93..the smoking gun.

Postby Tripz » Sun Apr 20, 2008 1:19 pm

A study proved that flying at 20,000 ft the signal would not be picked up...Passenger jets fly higher...A believe a small jet lire[sp] was used in this test... I'll try dig it up :wink:
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT

Re: Flight 93..the smoking gun.

Postby Hare » Sun Apr 20, 2008 1:41 pm

Tripz wrote:A study proved that flying at 20,000 ft the signal would not be picked up...Passenger jets fly higher...A believe a small jet lire[sp] was used in this test... I'll try dig it up :wink:


You wont get a signal on a plane. My understanding is that mobiles are constantly transmitting and recieving signals with the base stations. When the mobile cant get a signal, it incrementally increases its transmission power in an attempt to find a base station, if it still cant get a signal, the power goes up again, and its the transmissions at these higher power levels that "could" potetially interfere with aircraft electronics.

If you leave your phone switched on whilst flying, you'll usually find you have a flat battery on landing due to the massive amounts of power it uses trying to connect, a friend whose a pilot tells me they do notice interference with instrumentation, due to phones.

I generally notice interference with computer equipment a couple of seconds before my mobile rings, so I presume the signals are quite strong even operating under normal conditions.

From what I recall, one of the aircraft manufactures patented a technology that allows mobile phones to be used on aircraft, the patent was filed well after 9/11. I remember everyone in our office questioning the legitimacy of the mobile calls when the whole 9/11 thing was playing out.
Hare
Suspect
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: Flight 93..the smoking gun.

Postby MoeSzyslak » Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:08 pm

From an airplane a cell phone can connect to nearly any cell site in view below, causing much turmoil, especially with a jet moving 500 miles an hour, passing by one cell after another far more quickly than the systems were designed for.


http://www.privateline.com/Cellbasics/cellphonesairlines.html
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." - Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
MoeSzyslak
On Parole
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:14 pm
Location: Moe's Tavern, Springfield

Re: Flight 93..the smoking gun.

Postby Tripz » Sun Apr 20, 2008 9:49 pm

Sorry being side tracked...today...Will get the info tomorrow stating as a FACT that mobile phone use was incapable of operating at altitude and the speed of a passenger jet...also as anyone read the transcript from flight 93?...If you have what nonsense it says, a mother talking to her alleged son, the conversation is bizarre to say the least...boxcutters indeed... :roll: :evil:

Ultra-rare news footage from the crash site of United Flight 93 which has never been seen again since 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT

Re: Flight 93..the smoking gun.

Postby MCXLIII » Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:23 pm

Tripz wrote:Ultra-rare news footage from the crash site of United Flight 93 which has never been seen again since 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc

-------------------
No smoke, no fire, no orange flames like in the towers, no debris, and no wing marks around the crater?
Flight 93 aircraft must have been a very special one. No wings, no fuselage and no fuel.
And me thinking that an aircraft would need all three to fly.
User avatar
MCXLIII
You're Nicked
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:57 am
Location: Estoril, Portugal

Re: Flight 93..the smoking gun.

Postby Tripz » Thu May 01, 2008 7:03 pm

MCXLIII wrote:
Tripz wrote:Ultra-rare news footage from the crash site of United Flight 93 which has never been seen again since 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc

-------------------
No smoke, no fire, no orange flames like in the towers, no debris, and no wing marks around the crater?
Flight 93 aircraft must have been a very special one. No wings, no fuselage and no fuel.
And me thinking that an aircraft would need all three to fly.

What is startling is the crater looks just like a crater caused by a missile? :shock: Also if the scrapyard was not more than a few hundred yards from the crater...Could any old iron have been dumped into hole? Can this site be accessed now?
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT


Return to Conspiracy Theories - The Outer Limits - 911 (Day the World Changed)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest