http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/18...laim-original/
Its been speculated since day one....
Printable View
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/18...laim-original/
Its been speculated since day one....
Some of us never believed the story they came up with, nor the cartoon the CIA produced...
After I read James Sanders' book, for several years I was convinced we shot down our own plane and covered it up.
Since then, I've retreated back into the more plausible theory that electrical arcing from chafed wiring on a 25-year-old 747 tragically combined with the circumstance of a vapor-filled fuel tank that was adjacent to a/c packs that had been running for several hours on the hot JFK tarmac. Sooner or later, across a world full of aircraft under the same circumstances, your number comes up. Not saying that's what happened, just that it's more plausible. That, and the fact that after 17 years, not a single person has come forward with the damning evidence of a cover-up. I doubt this film is that evidence.
A neighbor down the block from where I grew up was a lead maitenance supervisor for TWA, and according to him he didn't by the theory of a chaffed wire and vapor from the fuel tank, but insisted that is was some sort bomb that brought the aircraft down. I personally think it was a cover up as well.
In the years after that happened I was working for an airline that had a furloughed TWA pilot in the training department. His wife was still actively flying for TWA at the time. I remember him telling me that some of the TWA ALPA accident investigators wanted additional access to some of the wreckage that was key in the "missile" theory. They had been given access to it once, but had some questions about what they had seen and wanted to look again. In a very unusual move, they, who were legitimate parties to the investigation, were denied access to the evidence. Cover up of a missile, or bomb, or little green men from Mars? I don't know...
I personally believe it was a cover up as well. Don't for one minute underestimate what the gov't is capable of hiding. And as long as we are on the subject, I think it was the US military that shot down UAL 93 over Pa on 9/11 in order to prevent larger collateral damage and major loss of life. Sorry if I offend anyone, but I don't buy the story that passengers fought the terrorists and reported the occurrence by cellphone. Have you ever tried to use a cellphone from an airliner? It simply doesn't work. The cellphone isn't capable of locking into a cell tower for transmission because it's picking up literally dozens of towers at that altitude. You'd be lucky stay connected for one second if it were even possible.
I have indeed made a cell phone call at altitude before (don't tell the FAA/FCC), but it lasted only seconds before cutting out. I also believe that making calls for any extended period of time just isn't possible.
While there were reports of cell phone calls from some of the hijacked planes, Todd Beemer and several other passengers on Flight 93 used an Airfone to make those calls:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aviation.High.Guy
http://old.post-gazette.com/headline...ainstoryp7.asp
If I remember correctly Betty Ong made a call from Flight 11 that lasted several minutes
Im sorry...Ill take the over 17,000 pages of official evidence and testimony over the "eyewitness" accounts from the same class of folks who cant tell the difference between an F-18 and a B-17 at JBAS in broad daylight.
How many people saw a missile hit the plane? Of course we shot it down with friendly fire. I mean it's not even close.
In-flight pay phone?Quote:
Originally Posted by megatop412
I thought about the UA93 theory too, I for one dont think those passengers actually fought the terrorist, where's the proof? It's all cover up. Im sure yes many made phone calls from the air phone etc, as Don said too, cellphone dont really work at high altitudes, and as for the TWA800 thing, I can't say for sure what if it was a missle or faulty wiring that caused that explosure but, It can still be possible that it was mainly the wiring that caused the explosion, I remembered hearing people say it was a missle. I actually thought it was a missle myself, I was 14 at the time it crashed, again where's the proof? Just because those that saw what looked like a missle dont mean it actually was as investigators think. Look at KAL007 back in 1983, there was proof of that flight being hit by a missle. Same for Iran Air in 1988.
There have been several fuel tank fires on the ground. A fuel tank fire on an old worn out 747 isn't hard to believe. I'm really surprised all the people believing the missile theory.
ALL eyewitness reports are for the last few seconds of a multi-minute incident according to the flight data recorders and radar tracking data from ground. Those who say saw a missile go up first are smoking unless we are being lied to about the flight data and radar data ...
I think to cover something up of this magnitude would be a HUGE undertaking. TOO MANY eyes on it, too many people to shut up... too many weak and poor souls that can be bought to leak the real info. I am not buying a cover up right up to the president. Like I said, too many eyes.
Even Watergate was a disaster in covering it up. Now we have Snowden... there are just too many links to keep in check... no way this could still be covered after 17 years LOL.
I bet most here who believe it is a cover up also think WTC was a planned internal demolition conspiracy? :tongue:
Also the friendly fire theory... that ship was recorded as being way way out of range... not even close to being in range.
SAMs from land would have left some sort of signature on the ground. There is no other ground nearby other than Long Island. You don;t think someone would have noticed a trail or debris of some sort? For a coverup, a far better way to have covered it up would have been to do it while 20 miles out at sea, not near JFK ... smart enough to have a perfect coverup but dumb enough to do it wrong? I am just not seeing the gaping holes covered up. Too easy to say conspiracy without proof of such.
Why do the folks in this new film come out AFTER their retirement? IF indeed this is such a bad thing, why not just come out? Some of them had Whistle-Blower protections to come clean. None ever did...
C'mon Manny, everyone know that was the thermite paint! Just ask Jesse Ventura! :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzalu
Good question, I don't know...I thought they got rid of the airphones long before this happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by RomNYC
As for UA93, wasn't there CVR tape that revealed the last few seconds of the passengers beating on the door and the hijackers deciding to crash it? Or are folks saying they believe that to be faked? After seeing the photos of the impact zone, it is a very localized debris field...inconsistent with what you would see with an in-flight breakup due to a missile strike
In my personal experience making calls in flight on a cell phone has been impossible. I’ve tried sending a text and making a call from an airborne DC3 putting along over a major city at FL3, let alone a 757 cruising at FL35, and could not get a signal. My cell phone has typically only picked up consistent reception in any plane of any type while on short final under 400ft.
It depends on the location. I have had signal strong enough for calls at even 1,000' near the airport on arrivals.. .Somehow during departure it always drops off faster.
Totally agree with this Manny!! Maybe years and years ago it could be done but not anymore!! Unless of course they blackmailed/paid off/murdered everyone involved!! :tongue:Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzalu
Hmmm... you have something there!! Muhahaha :tongue:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerard