It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   


www.whatreallyhappened.com...
And remember, we do not have ALL the tapes.
Audio tapes of interviews with air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 were intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building.

To which this looser attributed his actions as an 'error in judgement' ... that to me is perhaps the most damning, yet most overlooked piece of evidence in the whole 9-11 debacle, well that and pulling the bomb sniffing dogs off the job at the WTC complex the weekend before. And yet we continue to sit on our arses, this man wasn't even censured for his actions.
This thread has a wealth of related information, worth a read...
www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Just to chime in a bit, funny how the 757 accused of hitting the Pentagon went into quite a huge bank at "full thrust". The engines managed to stay on.

Try to refute it, I dare you.



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy


www.whatreallyhappened.com...
And remember, we do not have ALL the tapes.
Audio tapes of interviews with air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 were intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building.



that's absolutely hilarious twitchy....especially when you consider that the FAA has been using electronic recording of air traffic for about ten years now (ie no tape to "crush the cassette by hand" or "cut the tape"). where do you get this garbage?



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
Just to chime in a bit, funny how the 757 accused of hitting the Pentagon went into quite a huge bank at "full thrust". The engines managed to stay on.

Try to refute it, I dare you.


I'd like to see your information on this bank. An aircraft can turn at full throttle with no problem. I believe that Flight 93 did quite a bit more than a banking turn.



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 11:19 PM
link   
It was on the news bubba, if I remember correctly it was CNN, Newsweek, and the New York times I cited in the thread I linked originally, and who said anything about the FAA, it wasn't the FAA, it was ATC's (air traffic control) conversations with various pilots which were destroyed. Unless you contend the FAA records all the ATC's individual radio communications... I'm glad you find it hysterical though, the rest of the world found it pretty damned disturbing. Would you like some more sources, or is the NYTimes good enough for you?


Source
Tape of Air Traffic Controllers Made on 9/11 Was Destroyed
*Please Note: Archive articles do not include photos, charts or graphics. More information.
May 7, 2004, Friday
By MATTHEW L. WALD (NYT); National Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 29, Column 2, 624 words
DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 624 WORDS -At least six air traffic controllers who dealt with two of the hijacked airliners on Sept. 11, 2001, made a tape recording a few hours later describing the events, but the tape was destroyed by a supervisor without anyone making a transcript or even listening to it,



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   
A banking turn is simply positive Gs which the plane is designed to handle. It won't throw anyone off their feet, just make them feel heavier. What I SUSPECT (and yes this is speculation on my part) flight 93 tried was a slip. You go into a bank, and you slide the plane sideways. This WILL throw people off their feet, and it will put lateral Gs on the airframe, which is WASN'T designed for.



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   
I read the Vanity Fair article and from what is posted, I come to the conclusion that
Major General Craig McKinley, Major General Larry Arnold ( retired )
and Colonel Alan Scott (retired ) were not only covering their own asses, but also covering for
years of waste, fraud and abuse of our defense dollars.

Many results of the ongoing investigation will remain "classified" because the deeper they look,
the more the utter incompetence, disorganization and entanglement of inter-agency bureaucracy comes to light.

Anyone who has ever worked for the government knows that job one is to justify your existence.
In other words, justify the funding of your employment.
The primary focus of their job has sadly become to protect their jobs rather than protecting their country.

If we want to look deeper, we would have to establish who exactly wanted to keep NORAD out of the loop?
Who stood to gain the most from calling for war games that very same day?

My guess would be a non-military entity.

Someone who knew established procedures and protocol.

If only we could somehow aquire archives of conversations and correspondance of those
closest to Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz 30 days prior to the events of 9/11









[edit on 5-8-2006 by FallenFromTheTree]



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
It was on the news bubba, if I remember correctly it was CNN, Newsweek, and the New York times I cited in the thread I linked originally, and who said anything about the FAA, it wasn't the FAA, it was ATC's (air traffic control) conversations with various pilots which were destroyed. Unless you contend the FAA records all the ATC's individual radio communications... I'm glad you find it hysterical though, the rest of the world found it pretty damned disturbing. Would you like some more sources, or is the NYTimes good enough for you?


maybe you should read it again bubba.

from your source:


At least six air traffic controllers who dealt with two of the hijacked airliners on Sept. 11, 2001, made a tape recording a few hours later describing the events, but the tape was destroyed by a supervisor without anyone making a transcript or even listening to it, the Transportation


made a tape recording a few hours later. what did they make the tape recording from? the original digital recordings. do you really think the originals of such a momentous day in US history were destroyed?

they should not have made their own personal tapes and that is why the copies were destroyed. try reading what they are saying next time instead of assuming that you know the whole story.

edit to address the following statement which i missed the first time:


Unless you contend the FAA records all the ATC's individual radio communications


you really have no idea what you are talking about do you? of course air traffic control recorded daily by the faa. where do you think they get the transcripts for accident investigations? recordings are held for 15 days unless an incident occurs, and then they are held indefinitely in case there is litigation involving the incident. do some research for crying out loud.

[edit on 6-8-2006 by snafu7700]



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 06:34 AM
link   
guess what twitchy? i've got the skinny on this piece of misinformation that you sourced without researching as well. read it again.


Originally posted by twitchy


www.whatreallyhappened.com...
And remember, we do not have ALL the tapes.
Audio tapes of interviews with air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 were intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building.



emphasis added by me. audio tapes of interviews with controllers were destroyed. know why? because they were interviewed without union representation, which is against the law. management destroyed those tapes and re-enterviewed the controllers with natca representatives present in order to cover their own collective butts. i'll be happy to go into further detail on atc procedures for incidents if you like, but dont come here acting like you know the whole story after misinterpreting already misinterpreted stories.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   
How about the security tapes from the airports, they not unionized?



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
How about the security tapes from the airports, they not unionized?


i have absolutely no idea....but those arent the tapes you were referring to, are they? the only thing i know about the airport surviellance cameras is that they captured most of the suspects coming to the airports. is there some significance in those cameras other than that aspect? because if you are saying that they were destroyed, then why do we have pictures of atta and others at security checkpoints?



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Most of the security cameras in an airport are around the checkpoint, and check in area. Once you're through security they have roaming patrols that keep an eye on things. The main purpose of the cameras is to watch for people stealing bags as you check in and go through security.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Still very interesting how the engine managed to get so far away from the crash zone.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   
At the speed the plane was flying, and the momentum it would have had, it's simple physics.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Right but the 757 that hit the Pentagon as it was banking at 500 mph, the engine mounts seemed to of magically contained the stress that it was enduring. However the very likely scenario that this underwent less stress, even on a bit different axis of stress, (Flight 93) and the engine seemed to of flew off, interesting.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Because as I said before, they're NOT DESIGNED to take lateral Gs. That plane in Desert Storm probably underwent LESS THAN 2Gs but almost lost all four engines. The mounts are stressed for positive and negative Gs, not lateral Gs.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
that's absolutely hilarious twitchy....especially when you consider that the FAA has been using electronic recording of air traffic for about ten years now (ie no tape to "crush the cassette by hand" or "cut the tape"). where do you get this garbage?


Look what site he quoted from....whatreallyhappened.com.... Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or feel pity because of some of the things some members post....

[edit on 6-8-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

You were using this as an excuse for how debris was carried so far away, and were obviously mistaken. Be a man and leave things in context.


I said some of the debris was washed away...not all of it... and don't come here claiming that others should be men, when you have been proven wrong plenty of times yet you keep regurgitating your exagerations and lies.


Originally posted by bsbray11
So then you're saying a 1 ton engine core did bounce off the ground and land 2000 feet away in a forest?


Someone with more knowledge than you already stated that the engine is designed to fail at the pylon, when the aircraft is recieving gs laterally, releasing the rest of the engine to increase the chance of survival, or at least to diminish the amount of damage the aircraft could recieve.


Originally posted by bsbray11
No, it's impossible for you to discuss "facts" with me because you're having a hard time being objective.


If anyone is not being objective around here is you bsb, you obviously have proven with every thread you have written so far that you can't even come up with one argument that makes sense. You want to pin everything down to "it was done by the U.S. government"... Quoting from sites which only purpose is to use anything and everything for propaganda, even if it means posting arguments which make no sense and are obviously bs, does not make you an expert, and does not make you right.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Probably because he felt the breeze that day and had a good idea of exactly how far 6 to 8 miles is.


Right...and i guess this reporter's name is Clark Kent, and his alter personality "Superman" allowed him to fly to the scene almost instantly...so he could see first hand what happened that same day....


Originally posted by bsbray11
Where have I disputed the existance of smaller pieces of debris? This is a weak straw-man.

...i asked what do you think that means....


Originally posted by bsbray11
Could you please make some sense out of this argument for me? I've just posted a picture of the cloud produced by the crash, and there appears not to have been any significant breeze affecting the cloud. I can't make out how this is supposed to be a response to that observation.


i wasn't there to see whether there was wind or not... But since most of the debris which appears to have been found far away was paper, and this is not something I made up....I quoted from one of the eyewitnesses.... It is possible these were carried by the wind...that's what i said... Anyways, someone which makes a lot more sense than you, and obviously knows what he/she is talking about already stated what happened....

[edit on 6-8-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

If anyone is not being objective around here is you bsb, you obviously have proven with every thread you have written so far that you can't even come up with one argument that makes sense. You want to pin everything down to "it was done by the U.S. government"... Quoting from sites which only purpose is to use anything and everything for propaganda, even if it means posting arguments which make no sense and are obviously bs, does not make you an expert, and does not make you right.


You must be kidding right?

He provides a lot more information in response to 9/11 than your views and comments do


You're going political about this issue, if that's the case scrutiny can be pinned down on everyone on both sides.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Look what site he quoted from....whatreallyhappened.com.... Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or feel pity because of some of the things some members post....

I guess you missed the NY Times reference. Look people, if you weren't paying attention to the news during 9-11, it isn't my fault. It was all over the news, and yes some guy ran around with tapes cutting them up with scissors and depositing them into seperate trash cans, later stating that he had made an error in judegment. That's my assertion. If you think I'm making it up, here's a novel concept for skeptics... proove me wrong.
And snafu, I think whats up here is that we are melding two different incidents here, it may be my fault confusing one for the other. When I first started researching 9-11, there were 70 thousand hits on google for squibs and wtc, it dropped to less than ten thousand, now its back up to thirty. Completely unrelated yes, but it gives you an idea of where the information goes, into thin air. I've even had research files vanish off my hard drive, but make no mistake, this incident happened, it was widely, though briefly reported, and it subsequently vanished from any reputable source. Like this quote did...

“I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barclay Street, which was right there with the police commissioner, the fire commissioner, the head of emergency management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse."
-Mayor Rudy Giuliani



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join