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.

 

Complete Air-Ground Transcripts of Hijacked9/11 Flight Recordings Declassified

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Government Releases Detailed Information on 9/11 Crashes

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) this week released full transcripts of the air traffic control recordings from the four flights hijacked on September 11, 2001, and meticulous Flight Path Studies for three of the flights, in response to a Freedom of Information request by the National Security Archive.
There is some great info here. Dig In! O' ya, Happy Hunting!


The transcripts provide additional details to the information summarized in the 9/11 Commission Report. For example, the NTSB transcript differs slightly from the Commission's text of the warning that United Airlines Flight 93 received only minutes before the hijackers attacked. At 9:23am, the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) shows a text message to Flight 93 reading: "BEWARE OF ANY COCKPIT INTROUSION [sic]. TWO AIRCRAFT IN NY, HIT TRADE CNTER BUILDS [sic]." Five minutes later at 9:28am Flight 93 was sending the message "***(mayday)*** (hey get out of here) ***" as it was being hijacked.
The Flight Path Studies reconstruct the routes of American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Airlines Flight 175. Complied from recorded radar data and information from the Flight Data Recorders, the studies' illustrations of radar ground tracks, maps and altitude profiles provide graphic guides to each hijacking and were used by the NTSB to determine the takeover points where the hijackers gained control of the planes.


This is full of some great evidence, to support the FACT that there were indeed HIJACKERS. Just reading the cockpit trans, that have been available before, is chilling. So go here knowing this!

There are some harsh things in here. Read with WARNING!
www.gwu.edu...




posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   
No surprises to find you're first in here with new 'evidence' Duhh... why are you so intent on discrediting ANY possibility of a 9/11 cover-up? I mean, you don't even bother to argue, your only function is to constantly bombard these forums with something you declare as 'evidence' when it is anything but.

So because these transcripts are from the government they are absolute truth? Come on.

In your own words...

'NEXT!!!'



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Evidence Of A Coverup


Originally posted by Easy Tiger
No surprises to find you're first in here with new 'evidence' Duhh... why are you so intent on discrediting ANY possibility of a 9/11 cover-up? I mean, you don't even bother to argue, your only function is to constantly bombard these forums with something you declare as 'evidence' when it is anything but.

And this is relevant to the topic how?

Your personal opinions about other members are off-topic in this forum and serve only to discourage honest discussion of the issues.

Cease and desist immediately, and be sure to read this:

**POLICY STATEMENT FOR THE 9/11 FORUM: ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ**

If you have problems with another member's behavior, submit a complaint instead of trying to derail threads.

How To Avoid Intelligent Commentary


Originally posted by Easy Tiger
So because these transcripts are from the government they are absolute truth? Come on.

In your own words...

'NEXT!!!'

Let's put an end to this sort of nonsense. I encourage skepticism, but not this sort of baseless attempt to discredit a source with no evidence to support your claim.

If you have something worthwhile to say about the topic, then say it.

If not, then don't post.

Meanwhile, Back At The Topic

All that said, I think it would indeed be wise to avoid taking anything released by the government as gospel, though that doesn't justify adopting a stance of ignorant refusal to investigate the validity of these transcripts.

If they have been doctored, then proving they have been doctored would be yet another smoking gun pointing to a deliberate government coverup.

On the other hand, if they have not been doctored, then they are a valuable source of information about what happened on 9/11.

How can we know which is the case?

I recommend that interested 9/11 researchers show off their talent and go over these transcripts with a fine-toothed comb.

That's how ignorance is denied.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Easy Tiger
No surprises to find you're first in here with new 'evidence' Duhh... why are you so intent on discrediting ANY possibility of a 9/11 cover-up? I mean, you don't even bother to argue, your only function is to constantly bombard these forums with something you declare as 'evidence' when it is anything but.

So because these transcripts are from the government they are absolute truth? Come on.


Once again, information is easy to find if you pay attention! I do! If this information discredits anything, why does that seem to offend you so? I love to argue with people that will keep it to FACTS! Do I have the time to type all day? NO! This EVIDENCE would stand up in a court of law ,in this great country,USA!
That is what is called EVIDENCE! These forums are not just to post pro theory. It is a place to share information. I think this will be enjoyed ,by people looking for evidence, to support their conclusions! Happy Hunting!

[edit on 11-8-2006 by Duhh]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Is this from the black boxes on the aircrafts or air tower recordings, will take a read and come back later.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by mondegreen
Is this from the black boxes on the aircrafts or air tower recordings, will take a read and come back later.


It is both. There is lots of information included here. The time lines of recordings match both tower and cockpit ! If this is fake , add another couple 100 or so people to the CONSPIRACY! That's including lots of pilots flying, that would have to of heard a good amount of this. Fascinating!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh

Originally posted by Easy Tiger
No surprises to find you're first in here with new 'evidence' Duhh... why are you so intent on discrediting ANY possibility of a 9/11 cover-up? I mean, you don't even bother to argue, your only function is to constantly bombard these forums with something you declare as 'evidence' when it is anything but.

So because these transcripts are from the government they are absolute truth? Come on.


Once again, information is easy to find if you pay attention! I do! If this information discredits anything, why does that seem to offend you so? I love to argue with people that will keep it to FACTS! Do I have the time to type all day? NO! This EVIDENCE would stand up in a court of law ,in this great country,USA!
That is what is called EVIDENCE! These forums are not just to post pro theory. It is a place to share information. I think this will be enjoyed ,by people looking for evidence, to support their conclusions! Happy Hunting!

[edit on 11-8-2006 by Duhh]

www.vanityfair.com... by the commission during its investigation, the recordings have never been played publicly beyond a handful of sound bites presented during the commission's hearings. You can listen to over 30 hours of voice recordings from 911 and what happened. Its click and play.
When the hijackers on American 11 turned the beacon off, intentionally losing themselves in the dense sea of airplanes already flying over the U.S. that morning (a tactic that would be repeated, with some variations, on all the hijacked flights), the NEADS controllers were at a loss.
Yet your documents states that flight 93 changes it beacon twice to what and if the real voice recorder from the NORAD command is right then it should have no beacon.
10:07:16
CLEVELAND CENTER: We got a United 93 out here. Are you aware of that?
WATSON: United 93?
CLEVELAND CENTER: That has a bomb on board.
WATSON: A bomb on board?! And this is confirmed? You have a [beacon code], sir?
CLEVELAND CENTER: No, we lost his transponder.

The information is shouted out to Nasypany.


On tape, amid the confusion, one hears Major James Fox, then 32, the leader of the Weapons Team, whose composure will stand out throughout the attack, make an observation that, so far, ranks as the understatement of the morning.

08:43:06
FOX: I've never seen so much real-world stuff happen during an exercise.

In testimony a few minutes later, however, General Arnold added an unexpected twist: "We launched the aircraft out of Langley to put them over top of Washington, D.C., not in response to American Airlines 77, but really to put them in position in case United 93 were to head that way."

How strange, John Azzarello, a former prosecutor and one of the commission's staff members, thought. "I remember being at the hearing in '03 and wondering why they didn't seem to have their stories straight. That struck me as odd."

The ears of another staff member, Miles Kara, perked up as well. "I said to myself, That's not right," the retired colonel, a former army intelligence officer, told me. Kara had seen the radar re-creations of the fighters' routes. "We knew something was odd, but we didn't have enough specificity to know how odd."

As the tapes reveal in stark detail, parts of Scott's and Arnold's testimony were misleading, and others simply false. At 9:16 a.m., when Arnold and Marr had supposedly begun their tracking of United 93, the plane had not yet been hijacked. In fact, NEADS wouldn't get word about United 93 for another 51 minutes. And while NORAD commanders did, indeed, order the Langley fighters to scramble at 9:24, as Scott and Arnold testified, it was not in response to the hijacking of American 77 or United 93. Rather, they were chasing a ghost. NEADS was entering the most chaotic period of the morning.



Duhh, your document is fine and dandy



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   
The detailed report especially on 93 is or maybe in my opinion needing fills the final report by the Inspector General is classified! But there is evidence by FOIO
that there is a debris trail of flight 93 of about eight miles. Your report states there is a bomb aboard, yet no mention of it going off and information that it was not used. Information stated passengers took the plane down. Now there are conspiracy blogs and reports that the flight 93 was shoot down. It is clear that the exercises revolving around hijacked airliners scheduled for that morning created so much noise in the system that controllers could not pinpoint the positions of any of the real airliners to orchestrate any kind of intercept.

Errant 'ghost' aircraft such as 'Delta 89' and American Airlines 11 which controllers weren't aware had already crashed into the World Trade Center north tower continually confuse NORAD officials and at one point after Flight 77 has hit the Pentagon, they even intercept their own aircraft.
Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta was in the
Presidential Emergency Operating Center with Vice President Cheney as
Flight 77 approached Washington, D.C. On May 23, 2003 in front of the
9/11 Commission, Secretary Mineta testified:

"During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there
was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got
down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice
President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned
and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand.
Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

As the plane was not shot down are we to take it that the orders were to let the plane find its target?

This is interesting-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A (dated 1 June 2001)This CJCSI states that "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be
notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward
requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."

Reference D refers to Department of Defense Directive 3025.15 (Feb. 18,
1997) which allows for commanders in the field to provide assistance to
save lives in an emergency situation -- BUT any requests involving
"potentially lethal support" (including "combat and tactical vehicles,
vessels or aircraft; or ammunition") must still be approved by the
Secretary of Defense. So again, the ability to respond to a hijacking in
any meaningful fashion, is stripped from the commanders in the field
www.dtic.mil...

I also have question on the release of the documents the commission reports about the six destroyed faa tapes on 911 by air controllers not sure dif it means anything but hering from the word of mouth beats a typewritter.

[edit on 12-8-2006 by mondegreen]



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by mondegreen
the ability to respond to a hijacking in any meaningful fashion, is stripped from the commanders in the field
www.dtic.mil...

No, it wasn't. The earlier, 1997 version also mentioned getting approval from the Secretary of Defence:

In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will monitor the situation and forward all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance for aircraft piracy (hijacking) to the Secretary of Defense for approval.
www.dtic.mil...



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by mondegreen

www.vanityfair.com...

Subpoenaed by the commission during its investigation, the recordings have never been played publicly beyond a handful of sound bites presented during the commission's hearings. You can listen to over 30 hours of voice recordings from 911 and what happened. Its click and play.


mondegreen, thanks for sharing the vanity fair link


There's some interesting snippets contained in that article. One of those is this...


09:04:50
—Is this explosion part of that that we're lookin' at now on TV?
—Yes.
—Jesus …
—And there's a possible second hijack also—a United Airlines …
—Two planes?…
—Get the # out …
—I think this is a damn input, to be honest.


About half way down the page. This is immediately after 175 has hit the WTC 2. But Vanity Fair leaves one statement out of the transcript they have in the article. The below is the corrected transcript with the missing statement:

09:04:50
—Is this explosion part of that that we're lookin' at now on TV?
—Yes.
—Jesus …
—And there's a possible second hijack also—a United Airlines …
—Two planes?…
--He was in Whiskey-105.
—Get the # out …
—I think this is a damn input, to be honest.

That's an odd statement. Whiskey-105 being the militarized area south of Long Island and allegedly the area where the missile was witnessed to have come from on the TWA-800 flight. Flight 175 would not have gone into W-105 area, unless I'm missing something on the official flight path of the plane. Now the fighters from Otis were said to have been hanging south of Long Island, and it would make sense they would probably be in the W-105 area, but the guy on the tape doesn't say "THEY WERE in Whiskey-105", he says "HE WAS in Whiskey-105".

The Vanity Fair article does a good job of revealing how confused everything was due to the fake "inputs" of the training exercise. Maybe the man on the tape is referring to one of these ghost inputs.

QUESTION: Am I wrong? Does the official flight path of 175 have it briefly entering W-105 restricted airspace?

[edit on 8-12-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 08:22 AM
link   
The answer to this referral of "He was in Whiskey-105." Might be answered later in the article when it discusses that the civilian ATCs in Washington send in information on an aircraft that the fighters are directed toward, only to find out that the aircraft the ATCs were talking about was, in fact, one of the Langley fighters. They basically were directed toward themselves. The transcript reads...


HUCKABONE: It was our guys [the fighters from Langley].
CITINO: Yup. It was our guys they saw. It was our guys they saw—Center saw.
FOX: New York did the same thing….
CITINO: O.K., Huck. That was cool. We intercepted our own guys.


So the "He was in Whiskey-105." could have been an identification of one of the two Otis fighters who were loitering out in the W-105 area.

Man...what a mish-mash of communications that day. I would really like to sit and listen to the full tapes.

[edit on 8-12-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   


By Valhall
Man...what a mish-mash of communications that day. I would really like to sit and listen to the full tapes.


Could not agree more. We looked like a dog chase'n his own tail. Pathetic!
These are the things I have issue with! I also, think this being a conspiracy, because of this, is out of the question. I pray, If I was a praying man, that we have corrected such stupidity! CT No WaY! IMUHO!



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 12:16 AM
link   
I think the recordings really need to be listened too. Just think the government said it gave out all the information, but these recordings are over 30 hours long and its never mentioned. Another thing we need to remember that there were real
world excersizes going on and intentional fake radar blimps were also input to the field, were they also set in motion on the f-15 and f-16s to move the players around on the board? Total Information Awareness is a super computer 12 crays
systems inline with themselfs and americas information technology with many backdoors and that includes the telephne companies and internet companies. Just what really happened we may never really know. But it is very strange for a movie producer to get the full tapes on cd before the 911 commission and be able to put them on a web for everyone to hear. I wonder if the 911 commission had to done load the information from his site to see what the heck was going on.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh

Originally posted by Easy Tiger
No surprises to find you're first in here with new 'evidence' Duhh... why are you so intent on discrediting ANY possibility of a 9/11 cover-up? I mean, you don't even bother to argue, your only function is to constantly bombard these forums with something you declare as 'evidence' when it is anything but.

So because these transcripts are from the government they are absolute truth? Come on.


Once again, information is easy to find if you pay attention! I do! If this information discredits anything, why does that seem to offend you so? I love to argue with people that will keep it to FACTS! Do I have the time to type all day? NO! This EVIDENCE would stand up in a court of law ,in this great country,USA!
That is what is called EVIDENCE! These forums are not just to post pro theory. It is a place to share information. I think this will be enjoyed ,by people looking for evidence, to support their conclusions! Happy Hunting!

[edit on 11-8-2006 by Duhh]
iv been reading alot of your posts and can say your just a paid debunker, you wouldent know truth if it bit your nose off. you mention about your country being great!! your having a laugh arnt you? this great country that picks up innocent people and ships them off to countries with no human rights laws so they can torture them and make it look like there doing their bit in the fight against terrorism. iv just got one thing to say to you duhh.....JOG ON



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   
That's some task considering I know for a fact (via some big news source) that some of the tapes (and notes from the tapes) were destroyed on the spot (inside the air traffic control building) because the boss didn't think anyone would need them.


----------
A report by Transportation Department Inspector General Kenneth Mead said the manager for the New York-area air traffic control center asked the controllers to make the recordings a few hours after the crashes in belief they would be important for law enforcement.

Investigators never heard it. Sometime between December 2001 and February 2002, an unidentified Federal Aviation Administration quality assurance manager crushed the cassette case in his hand, cut the tape into small pieces and threw them away in multiple trash cans, the report said.
----------



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   


iv been reading alot of your posts and can say your just a paid debunker, you wouldent know truth if it bit your nose off. you mention about your country being great!! your having a laugh arnt you? this great country that picks up innocent people and ships them off to countries with no human rights laws so they can torture them and make it look like there doing their bit in the fight against terrorism. iv just got one thing to say to you duhh.....JOG ON


This is nothing but an ad-hominem attack. This has nothing to do with the evidence presented, or a reasonable assumption or opinion. All this shows is that you have nothing to answer with and insults are your last resort. I'm pretty sure this is DIRECTLY against the TOS of this board.




top topics



 
2

log in

join