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.

 

Boston Air Traffic Controller Says 9/11 An Inside Job w/video

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Here is more infomration on FAA regs concerning hijacking. I am working on a listing of hijacked aircraft.

www.faa.gov...


10-2-6. HIJACKED AIRCRAFT

When you observe a Mode 3/A Code 7500, an unexplained loss of beacon code, change in direction of flight or altitude, and/or a loss of communications, notify supervisory personnel immediately. As it relates to observing a Code 7500, do the following:

NOTE-
Military facilities will notify the appropriate FAA ARTCC, or the host nation agency responsible for en route control, of any indication that an aircraft is being hijacked. They will also provide full cooperation with the civil agencies in the control of such aircraft.

EN ROUTE. During narrowband radar operations, Code 7500 causes HIJK to blink in the data block.

NOTE-
Only nondiscrete Code 7500 will be decoded as the hijack code.

a. Acknowledge and confirm receipt of Code 7500 by asking the pilot to verify it. If the aircraft is not being subjected to unlawful interference, the pilot should respond to the query by broadcasting in the clear that he/she is not being subjected to unlawful interference. If the reply is in the affirmative or if no reply is received, do not question the pilot further but be responsive to the aircraft requests.

PHRASEOLOGY-
(Identification) (name of facility) VERIFY SQUAWKING 7500.

NOTE-
Code 7500 is only assigned upon notification from the pilot that his/her aircraft is being subjected to unlawful interference. Therefore, pilots have been requested to refuse the assignment of Code 7500 in any other situation and to inform the controller accordingly.

b. Notify supervisory personnel of the situation.

c. Flight follow aircraft and use normal handoff procedures without requiring transmissions or responses by aircraft unless communications have been established by the aircraft.

d. If aircraft are dispatched to escort the hijacked aircraft, provide all possible assistance to the escort aircraft to aid in placing them in a position behind the hijacked aircraft.

NOTE-
Escort procedures are contained in FAAO 7610.4, Special Military Operations, Chapter 7, Escort of Hijacked Aircraft.

e. To the extent possible, afford the same control service to the aircraft operating VFR observed on the hijack code.




posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 02:17 AM
link   
you as a still officially working ATC, must have realized by now, that all your 4 possible solutions for my question "who owned that famous Lear Jet" are definitely nullified by the (official) remark of the AWACS controller to Sasseville that he had an UNIDENTIFIED airplane on his screens.
That means for anyone in the know, that the Lear Jet had its transponder OFF.

Here is your remark again :

is there any record that this particular aircraft was talking to atc? because, in my mind, the only thing that would make it really suspicious is if it had done the same thing as the hijacked aircraft and turned it's transponder off above FL180 (18000 ft), thereby making it harder to track by atc (of course, the military awacs would pick it up without much of a problem considering that the sky had been emptied of virtually all other traffic).


And yes, that's why I say for months already, that this Lear Jet is highly suspicious, and an indication that far more complicated things went on before, during and after 9/11, than most americans can ever realize, since their media coverage is already for decades highly compromized by the overload of global government agencies with all their particular agenda's.
The average american citizen with good intentions, will never realize what really went on, since they are properly brainwashed by decades of media propaganda, since the Kennedy murders.


Next subject we discussed.
At last I was able to track down the story about that famous destroyed FAA atc's tape.
It wasn't an official ATC-room radar and atc-communications tape, it was a tape recording of the conversation between a bunch of atc's, recorded in the late afternoon on a tape recorder, about the going on during 9/11.

This is an excerpt from Mike Ruppert's book "Crossing the Rubicon".
I had such trouble to find it, since Firefox's search function nor Google's searches can't find text in PDF files.
You have to perform a pdf-search in every pdf file you expect to find the wanted data in !

You can read the whole 696 pdf-pages of this highly interesting book at this URL :
homepage.mac.com...
Perform a pdf-search with the text " FAA tape " and you will find 8 results, which are all relevant to this discussion.

= = Mike Ruppert, a former LAPD detective who was quite known by many 9/11 researchers and also got grinded in the online quagmire about government shills, has fled to Venezuela recently, and is now ridiculed by many bloggers as being a CIA asset who will do the groundwork for the CIA to topple president Chavez, just as another american "dissident" infiltrated in president Allende's inner circles in Chile just before he was toppled and murdered by now proven CIA machinations, led by the US copper syndicates who were in panic after Allende announced to nationalize Chile's copper industry.
And then we all saw in the next decades, what a CIA installed general, Pinochet, unleashed on the, unwilling to cooperate, citizens of Chile.
I do not want to ridicule mr Ruppert, since a lot of his findings indicate to me that at least his hard data found, is worth reading. = =

This is an excerpt from pages 369-371 ( 398-391 from 696 in this pdf online file) :




The FAA tape
Although partisan factions within the 9/11 commission had been leaking material
that was sometimes damaging to the Bush administration, it became clear
with regard to the FAA and NORAD that some of those “leaks” were coming
very close to making more damaging revelations that would have served neither
party. They were just too risky and revealed too much. One example of this was
chilling.
On May 6th, the first day after my questions were in the open and I had shown
my cards, the Associated Press dropped an anvil into the mix. The timing of the
wire story’s release suggested a rush effort at damage control.
I had been deliberately vague in all of my communications with the research
community about when I was going to release anything hard on the exercises. I
would not make any public disclosures until late May when I spoke at a 9/11 conference
in Toronto. There had, however, been a lot of Internet chatter that I was
on to something big. No one, however, except for the addressees and whoever else
was monitoring my e-mail, had any knowledge of what was laid out in those questions
or where I might be going with them. That made a May 6th AP story all the
more significant.
Tape of 9/11 Controllers Was Destroyed
By LESLIE MILLER
Associated Press Writer
May 6, 2004, 3:53 PM EDT
WASHINGTON — Air traffic controllers who handled two of the
hijacked flights on September 11, 2001, recorded their experiences
shortly after the planes crashed, but a supervisor destroyed the tape,
the government said Thursday.
A report by Transportation Department Inspector General Kenneth
Mead said the manager for the New York air traffic control center asked
the controllers to record their experiences a few hours after the crashes,
believing they would be important for law enforcement.
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 trashcans, the report said.

Q & A: Many Asked, Some Answered 369

The manager said he destroyed the tape because he felt it violated
FAA policy calling for written statements from controllers who have
handled a plane involved in an accident or other serious incident. He
also said he felt the controllers weren’t in the right frame of mind to have
consented to the taping, the report said.
“We were told that nobody ever listened to, transcribed, or duplicated
the tape,” Mead said in the report sent to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.,
who asked the inspector general to look into how well the FAA was
cooperating with the independent panel investigating the September
11 attacks.
The panel learned of the tape during interviews with New York air
traffic control center personnel between September and October.
Mead said his office referred the case to federal prosecutors in New
York, but they declined to prosecute because of lack of criminal intent.
The report did not characterize the tape’s destruction as an
attempted cover-up but said it could have been valuable in providing
the public with a full explanation of what happened on
September 11.
“What those six controllers recounted in a group setting on
September 11, in their own voices, about what transpired that morning,
are [sic] no longer available to assist any investigation or inform the public.”
The letter said. [emphasis added]6
Does anyone want to wager that the unidentified “FAA Quality Assurance
Manager” who crushed, cut, and scattered this criminal evidence has not also been
promoted since 9/11? We have only the government’s word that the tape was
destroyed between late 2001 and early 2002. When was it actually destroyed, and
in whose custody had it been during the interval between its making and its
destruction? Is anyone surprised that there is no mention of these air traffic controllers
in the Independent Commission’s final report?
Clearly, someone wanted it known that the tape no longer existed.

A coincidence? History responds
It could have been a pure — if utterly incredible — coincidence.
If the timing of the story of the FAA tape’s destruction was just a bizarre coincidence,
so then (probably) was the 1974 erasure of another tape-recording having
to do with impeachable felonies, possibly including murder, and another sitting
president.
In 1974 a gymnastic feat performed by Richard Nixon’s personal secretary,
Rose Mary Woods, “inadvertently” erased a critical 18 1/2 minutes of secret Oval
Office recordings in the Watergate scandal. This occurred, conveniently, just as
those tapes were about to be turned over to Congress and a special prosecutor.
370 crossing the rubicon
Here, I can only recite the words of 9/11 activist and researcher John Judge
who says, “Its OK if you call me a conspiracy theorist, just as long as you call yourself
a coincidence theorist.

-snip-
In Watergate, once it was known that there were tapes, something had to be
done about it immediately. But what?
Had the 9/11 FAA tape remained forever
undisclosed it might never have posed a threat. Recall, however, that the AP story
said that several people, including the six involved controllers and the manager,
knew of the tape. Almost certainly the FBI, NORAD, and the Pentagon knew of
it as well. Only one of them needed to talk. The only way to deal with the FAA
tape was to take it out of play by destroying it.



I advice you to read "In the mind of an air traffic controller" on pages 376 (396 of 696) and further.

What if Ed Ballinger had heard the anguished commentary of his brother and
sister ATCs on the destroyed FAA tape? What would have happened if they compared
notes? They still can.
Most of the ATCs who testified did so behind closed doors or, when in public,
were circumspect and not asked any important questions. The testimony we know
about never once mentioned details of wargames other than what had already been
published (and left equally unexamined) in the press.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 04:56 AM
link   
please read the text on the following pages : 383 (403 of 696)

The phone bridges: nails into solid wood

-snip- The FAA release, testimony, and other records from several sources disclosed that comprehensive communications had been established to every location and key decision point fairly early on; much sooner than previously admitted. This new evidence showed exactly when “phone bridges” (continuously open communications links) had been in place providing real-time data and connecting every part of the National Command Authority, from Air Force One, to the White House, to Dick Cheney, to the Pentagon, to NORAD, to the Department of Transportation, to the FBI, to the FAA.
Since this material had been submitted under oath, it constituted direct legal
evidence that the key decision makers, especially Dick Cheney, had been lying
from the beginning about what they knew and when they knew it. -snip-
(much more following in that chapter)


Air Force One had full knowledge of what was unfolding, ALL DAY !
Of course they had an open line too to the motorcade GWB was in, and to the Booker Elementary school, would you expect otherwise?



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

complete and utter crap. nobody had ever hijacked a plane to use as a bomb, and neither we nor the military were trained to deal with that scenario (i know, because i was a military controller).


This is complete and utter crap. Or did we forget about the guy who highjacked a plane and crashed it into the Whitehouse lawn? He was trying to hit the Whitehouse. Coincidentally, it happened on September 11th. I forget what year.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
All we ever seem to see from alex jones is sensationalistic headlines, backed up by....utter fluff.



I agree wholeheartedly.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
IF you knew anything about physics YOU would know that things like light poles or a generator will do NOTHING to STOP a 757 flying at 500mph, YES the plane will get damaged but it is going to smile and keep on its merry way until it hits something with a LOT more mass...like say..oh i dunno. a reinforced building perhaps?


So, why do planes crash when they hit a bird? Just asking, since you know about physics.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
what im saying is that based on mass, speed the momentum of a plane headed towards the penatgon is going to hit the things in its way and keep going. physics is great like that. it wasnt all that far from where the light poles were sheared to the pentagon itself at 500mph and all our little tangent discussion has shown is that maybe those that say there 'should' have been more debris outside the penagon may have something


I do agree with you here. The plane could have been severely damaged but still make it to the Pentagon. Sorry if I sounded a little snotty in my previous post.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
whatever. as far as i can tell you are intentionally ignoring facts that dont conform to your preconceived opinion. that's completely contrary to the scientific method, and research of that kind belongs in skunk works. i think we're through here.


Kinda reminds me of the NIST report.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

This is complete and utter crap. Or did we forget about the guy who highjacked a plane and crashed it into the Whitehouse lawn? He was trying to hit the Whitehouse. Coincidentally, it happened on September 11th. I forget what year.


okay, you got me on that one....but it is completely different than 9/11 in so many ways. he never had any dealings with atc in any way, shape, or form, he didnt have any passengers, he didnt kill anyone but himself, he was in a light aircraft that did very little damage to the whitehouse, he was an american (if i remember correctly)... i could go on and on, but you get the point.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I still have a problem with the fact that out of 4 planes not one got a call off either verbally or through the transponder codes that they were being hijacked. Lots of planes have been hijacked and at least 90% of the time or better the pilots have gotten off a signal that they were being hijacked.

How long does it take to say something over the radio or punch 4 digits into a key pad ?


i think the main difference would be in the hijackings themselves...normally, the pilots would survive to fly the aircraft. the method of hijack on 9/11 involved killing the pilots immediately...they didnt have time to do anything.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by kix
Can someone Google examples of highkacked planes that could not put the 7777 code up before "being surprised"...


Maybe I am mistaken and fairly common...


wrong code, (check my name for the right one....at least then someone will get the joke)....but as i mentioned to ultima, this wasnt like any hijacking in the past.....normally the pilots are kept around to fly the airplane....on 9/11, they were killed immediately. as far as i can tell from the reports i've read, they had absolutely no time to react to the attack.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

d. If aircraft are dispatched to escort the hijacked aircraft, provide all possible assistance to the escort aircraft to aid in placing them in a position behind the hijacked aircraft.


three things:

1. kudos to ultima for finding the 7110.65 online....i've never looked for it there as i have my own copy issued by the FAA.

2. the procedures in this manual are slightly different than they were on 9/11....things have changed drastically since then.

3. you'll notice the part i quoted that says if fighters are scrambled. that pretty much proves my point that it isnt regulation to scramble every single instance.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

So, why do planes crash when they hit a bird? Just asking, since you know about physics.


You know very well why aircraft sometimes crash after a bird strike

a) engine failure due to f.o.d.
b) loss of a flight control surface
c) pilot incapacitation



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
you as a still officially working ATC, must have realized by now, that all your 4 possible solutions for my question "who owned that famous Lear Jet" are definitely nullified by the (official) remark of the AWACS controller to Sasseville that he had an UNIDENTIFIED airplane on his screens.
That means for anyone in the know, that the Lear Jet had its transponder OFF.


not necessarily. do you remember the part i mentioned a couple of pages back about norad asking us who it is on a certain code? they dont always know who someone is based simply on their code....they have to ask us alot of the time. i'm not saying that is how it went down, just that it's a possibility.



Next subject we discussed.
At last I was able to track down the story about that famous destroyed FAA atc's tape.
It wasn't an official ATC-room radar and atc-communications tape, it was a tape recording of the conversation between a bunch of atc's, recorded in the late afternoon on a tape recorder, about the going on during 9/11.


oh yes, i remember that one too......they were interviewed without union representation, which is against the law. therefore the managers made the decision to destroy the tapes and re-interview with representation to cover their own butts.

[edit on 21-12-2006 by snafu7700]



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
wrong code, (check my name for the right one....at least then someone will get the joke)....but as i mentioned to ultima, this wasnt like any hijacking in the past.....normally the pilots are kept around to fly the airplane....on 9/11, they were killed immediately. as far as i can tell from the reports i've read, they had absolutely no time to react to the attack.


I get the joke now. I have a question though. Even if the pilots were to be killed immediately, wouldn't the one who isn't being killed at the moment be able to do something? Aren't the cockpits too small to have 2 men in there with the pilots to kill them simultaneously?



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

I get the joke now. I have a question though. Even if the pilots were to be killed immediately, wouldn't the one who isn't being killed at the moment be able to do something? Aren't the cockpits too small to have 2 men in there with the pilots to kill them simultaneously?


my assumption is that the pilot not being attacked would be trying to save the life of the pilot being attacked. as for the size of the cockpit, that's out of my realm of expertise...although from talking to my dad (a commercial pilot for 30 years....mostly corporate, but some big stuff), it would depend on the aircraft as to how much room is in the cockpit.

if it were me, and the cockpit were large enough, i would attack both pilots at once.....minimize the struggle and take control of the aircraft sooner.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

if it were me, and the cockpit were large enough, i would attack both pilots at once.....minimize the struggle and take control of the aircraft sooner.


My thoughts exactly. I also agree that the other pilot would try and help the other one being attacked instead of typing 7700.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
sorry guys, but i just realized i made a pretty significant mistake (i'm just glad i caught before anyone else did so that i dont look like a complete ass:

i was thinking "emergency" which is code 7700, when kix was actually talking about "hijack", which is code 7500. i'll try to remember to engage my brain before i open my mouth next time.....sorry again guys for feeding incorrect information.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I would think both emergency and hijack would work. So, SNAFU, I think you'd be correct anyway. But, thanks for giving us correct information.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   
lol griff, im glad i read yoru second post that quoted me before responding. (deep breath count to ten...)

but yeah, a bird can cause a crash but its not like it hits the bird and stops dead and falls from the sky. the momentum will carry it forward until it meets something with real resistance. ie the ground, a building etc

thats why even if they had a guy on the roof of the pentagon with a stinger launcher...it would have been like shooting a bb gun at a freight train.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join