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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Isn't there an awful long time between the recordings on 9/11 of the conversation of the events of the day by six FAA atc's and the actual destruction date?

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.
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.

www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...

That sounds a tidbit different from your explanation.
To me it sounds a lot more like damage control for the 9/11 Commission, who's chairman clearly was put in place to obstruct any serious investigations, and who did obstruct his assistants and the other commission members in such a way, that the only real neutral member resigned. Many assistants to the members have come forward since with stories about the deliberate harassments by the chairman. That is already very old news put forward in many threads here and elsewhere.



snafu7700 :
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).

I disagree.
The planes were used as projectiles, which had jet fuel on board, which is different from an exploding bomb.
On the day of 9/11 at least 5 war games were going on at the time of the first impact. Three of them included hijacked planes.
One would be plunged in the CIA building in Langley, Virginia. The other 2 destinations I do not recall immediately, but do a search here and you will find an abundance of threads filled with them.
One war game had been played by the PENTAGON months before, where a hijacked plane was pictured laying in pieces in the centre courtyard of the Pentagon. That's the MILITARY who were playing that scenario, to be fully clear.
We already know for a long time at this forum, that more than 20 foreign agencies and diplomats had warned the US government that attacks with hijacked planes were imminent, starting in the year before 9/11.
Remember the lie from Condoleasa Rice to the 9/11 Commission in August 2001 about them not knowing and been warned about plane hijacks to be used as projectiles.
There was also a young man who rented a small plane in Florida and flew it into a high rise of an insurance company, the nose was stuck inside, and the rest of the plane bungled outside the facade.
Some suspect this to have been a test run for 9/11. A bit far fetched, but who knows the truth anymore completely, with the hundreds of agencies, public or black ops, which exist in the US alone already, beside the myriads globally.


snafu7700 :
the method of hijack on 9/11 involved killing the pilots immediately...they didn't have time to do anything.

Wrong.
The many phone calls from flight 93 which was shot down at Shanksville all mentioned the 2 pilots standing with them in the back of the plane.
That was the only plane with so many phone calls coming through, btw.
I am interested to see hard evidence that the pilots of the other planes were killed in the cockpit.

Btw, I thought is was a Mode 3/A Code 7500, not 7700 ? What is a Code 7700 referring to?



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.

Smallest possibility imaginable.
Remember, that Lear Jet was already within 60 nautical miles from Air Force One, on the only day ever that there was no other aircraft allowed in US airspace, except the 4 types you mentioned already above.
They knew exactly who these were, where they were, and their destination.
I know of one which delivered a kidney to Alaska.
We know of many helicopters and fighters we saw our selfs, but these were all known in time and place.

Still, the AWACS controller indicated it as an unidentified plane.
He will have had it on his screens for hundreds of miles already, having plenty of time to go back to NORAD and FAA to identify it. And Air Force One was listening to him over the open lines with NORAD and FAA etc.
They knew it was inbound on their course, and got quite nervous, I mean the SS. That's why they asked for EXTRA fighter assistance from Langley AFB.

Do you still keep to your own words :

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).

?
Because then this Lear Jet is unexplainable and really, really suspicious.


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.

It seems a tidbit different from the wording in the Associated Press Writer article quoted in "Crossing the Rubicon", to be read in my above excerpt.
Their OWN manager for the New York air traffic control centre asked the controllers to record their experiences a few hours after the crashes, believing they would be important for law enforcement.
Months later, after it became wider known that this tape existed, an unidentified FAA 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 by Transportation Department Inspector General, Kenneth Mead said.

Why didn't he just confiscated it and stored it, or better, handed it over to the FBI, as intended in the first place by these men?

Mod Edit: Provided Link.

[edit on 21/12/2006 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

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.


1. Well thanks for the kudos.

2. Yes their is the part that states if fighters are sent up but in this incident it would call for fighters to be sent up for escorts.

www.9-11commission.gov...

FAA guidance to controllers on hijack procedures assumed that the aircraft pilot would notify the controller of the hijack via radio communication or by squawking a transponder code of "7500" -- the universal code for a hijack in progress. Controllers would notify their supervisors, who in turn would inform management all the way up to FAA headquarters in Washington. Headquarters then had a hijack coordinator who was the director or his designate of the FAA Office of Civil Aviation Security. If a hijack was confirmed, procedures called for the hijack coordinator to contact the Pentagon's National Military Command Center, NMCC, and ask for a military escort aircraft to follow the flight, report anything unusual, and aid search and rescue in the event of an emergency. The NMCC would then seek approval from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to get that assistance. If there was approval, the orders would be transmitted down NORAD's chain of command and direct the sector to launch a fighter escort. The protocols did not contemplate an intercept. They assumed the fighter escort would be discreet, "vectored to a position five miles directly behind the hijacked aircraft," where it could perform its mission to monitor the flight path of the aircraft.




quote: 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).


I do not think you know about all the incidents that happened involving planes.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Coupled with this; virtually every expert on terrorism for several years prior to 9-11 had been screaming about the ever growing threat to the United States by a new breed of terrorists willing to inflict mass casualties on civilians. The first major wake-up call occurred in 1994, when terrorists planned on blowing up a dozen US commercial aircraft over the Pacific Ocean. This was thwarted by an accidental fire in the apartment where the bombs were being constructed. The second major wake-up call occurred in 1995 when terrorists planned on crashing an airliner into the Eiffel Tower in Paris. Only quick and decisive action by French commandos prevented this disaster. There were also additional indicators.




Originally posted by snafu7700
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.


Well what about the time it takes to get through a locked cockpit door, and the fact that at least 1 of the pilots was a vietnam vet and i do not think he would be scared of a box cutter enough to give up the cockpit without a fight and to get a signal out that he was in trouble.


[edit on 21-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 21-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 21-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]


kix

posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Some data to ponder:

I have traveled in both the 767-200 and the 757 200 in the jumpseat of the cockpit, so I know quite well how large or small are both cockpits.
Both are faily big (the 767 a lot bigger) but the space for movin IN the cockpit is quite small and cumbersome, basically the Pilots entrench themselves on their seats where they have good space, overhead and feet space but to exit the seat they need a little bit of contorsion since the central console has: comms, engine power FADEC and transponders also flaps and flight computer is located, in a word a big mother and the space is quite small.
Also the autopilot will disengage autamatically if the pilot moves some control beyond some input, presses a rudder pedal or yanks or turns the controls.

Even if the highkackers entered the cockpit as a complete surprise and they used the cutters to cut the pilots necks, a strugle would ensue for at least some seconds, lets think its was incredibly fast: 8 seconds for both the pilots (incredibly and imposible fast but bear with me).
Ok both pilot are completely dead after 8 seconds, is almost sure the controls would have moved and autopilot disconected, the plane would have started some kind of maneuver lets say for argumanetation sake the manouver was very slow..the highjackers would have to take out the bodys out of the seat DEAD, and ther lies to problem, to take out a 150 pound guy fron a space that is very enclosed and dificult to maneuver will take a lot of time and also for sure they would move or push things on the way out.... all this doesnt add up, an Aeroflot plane was lost jus because a kid could not exit the captain chair.... a big deflection of the controls in flight can be disastrous... simply way too complicated...

If they took the cabin they must have taken one of the F?A as hostage and asked the pilot to exit the cabin, simply there is no other explanation...but if they did wahy ther was not more struggle OUTSIDE the cabin since after you see a fellow worker has been killed you fight for your life....

My point is that all this little details pose too much imposibilities and weird explanations...the more complicated any plan the more condemned to failiure...and this plan was ..flawless... I simply dont buy it....



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Which all goes back to my original question, what are the odds that out of 4 planes not one got off a signal for help.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
That sounds a tidbit different from your explanation.
To me it sounds a lot more like damage control for the 9/11 Commission, who's chairman clearly was put in place to obstruct any serious investigations, and who did obstruct his assistants and the other commission members in such a way, that the only real neutral member resigned. Many assistants to the members have come forward since with stories about the deliberate harassments by the chairman. That is already very old news put forward in many threads here and elsewhere.


well, you might be right.....my information came from talking to natca representitives about the situation. but it sounds like you've researched it more than i have, so i'll just leave it at that.




I disagree.
The planes were used as projectiles, which had jet fuel on board, which is different from an exploding bomb.


semantics. you knew what i meant.



On the day of 9/11 at least 5 war games were going on at the time of the first impact. Three of them included hijacked planes.
One would be plunged in the CIA building in Langley, Virginia. The other 2 destinations I do not recall immediately, but do a search here and you will find an abundance of threads filled with them.


i have read that on several other threads, and agree that they greatly contributed to the confusion of the day. i have never claimed to be an expert on all the events of 9/11, and can only tell you what i am expertly familiar with...air traffic and how it relates to those events.



We already know for a long time at this forum, that more than 20 foreign agencies and diplomats had warned the US government that attacks with hijacked planes were imminent, starting in the year before 9/11.
Remember the lie from Condoleasa Rice to the 9/11 Commission in August 2001 about them not knowing and been warned about plane hijacks to be used as projectiles.


yes, and without an actual event taking place, it literally takes years to change policy. one thing you should be aware of, the federal aviation administration's policies are written in blood. by that i mean that it takes a catostrophic event to make the faa change it's policies (usually after the ntsb recommends the changes in the aftermath of an accident). the union i belong to (natca) continuously tries to get the faa to make changes when it sees that they need to be made before people get hurt....in this day and age, the faa has a tendency to shrug those suggestions off as "negotiation tactics" and says that we are just pissed about the imposed work rules they forced down our throats, which involve lower pay and lower staffing levels at facilities across the nation. so do i think the faa is probably negligent in preparing its controllers for this situation? probably. do i think there was an intentional coverup to allow the events to happen.....not really. but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.



There was also a young man who rented a small plane in Florida and flew it into a high rise of an insurance company, the nose was stuck inside, and the rest of the plane bungled outside the facade.
Some suspect this to have been a test run for 9/11. A bit far fetched, but who knows the truth anymore completely, with the hundreds of agencies, public or black ops, which exist in the US alone already, beside the myriads globally.


i might be wrong, but i'm fairly certain that happened after 9/11.



The many phone calls from flight 93 which was shot down at Shanksville all mentioned the 2 pilots standing with them in the back of the plane.
That was the only plane with so many phone calls coming through, btw.
I am interested to see hard evidence that the pilots of the other planes were killed in the cockpit.


but they were still ushered out of the cockpit pretty quickly....another event that hasnt happened before....as i mentioned, in the past hijackers had kept flight crew in the cockpit to fly the aircraft.



Btw, I thought is was a Mode 3/A Code 7500, not 7700 ? What is a Code 7700 referring to?


you are absolutely correct....and if you had read back a couple of posts you would have noticed that i already caught that mistake and apologized for it.




Smallest possibility imaginable.
Remember, that Lear Jet was already within 60 nautical miles from Air Force One, on the only day ever that there was no other aircraft allowed in US airspace, except the 4 types you mentioned already above.
They knew exactly who these were, where they were, and their destination.
I know of one which delivered a kidney to Alaska.
We know of many helicopters and fighters we saw our selfs, but these were all known in time and place.

Still, the AWACS controller indicated it as an unidentified plane.
He will have had it on his screens for hundreds of miles already, having plenty of time to go back to NORAD and FAA to identify it. And Air Force One was listening to him over the open lines with NORAD and FAA etc.
They knew it was inbound on their course, and got quite nervous, I mean the SS. That's why they asked for EXTRA fighter assistance from Langley AFB.


as i noted, i was simply offering other possibilities for the aircraft. also, as i mentioned, i am still quite unfamiliar with that white aircraft, and am simply offering my opinion, so if you disagree, just say do....there is no reason or need to keep dragging the same conversation out.



Do you still keep to your own words :

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).

?
Because then this Lear Jet is unexplainable and really, really suspicious.


yes, because it was a question, and you never answered it.....was he talking to atc?




posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   
and that's all i have time for right now....i'll respond to the others next chance i get.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   
I see some irritation arising at your side.
Let me excuse myself if my kind of questioning sounds aggressive.
It is not meant as such, we longtime 9/11 researchers do keep in mind constantly that we not only "talk" to you, but in fact to (hopefully) a lot of "bystanders", who are just popping in and have not done the extensive research we have exhausted our selfs with.
That's why we painstakingly try to explain the main points in an discussion online.

In this case of the Lear Jet, it is obvious that I do not have knowledge (yet) regarding your question.
But most of the readers with an open mind will agree hopefully, that it was a highly suspicious plane, reported by an USAF website -which we may take seriously- as flying around all day already, which means in my opinion that before or after that encounter with Air Force One, the details of that plane must have been known to some in the know, but they have not added that vital info to the USAF site's story. How else could they have known it was flying all day already? It's flight plan or takeoff time was known when the story was written down.
They had their own unknown reasons to just identify it merely as an unidentified white Lear Jet.

And don't see my questions as me nagging at you, I really am glad to have a real time FAA joining our discussions, but we tend to be a pain in the butt sometimes.
Take some rest, and cheerio.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

2. Yes their is the part that states if fighters are sent up but in this incident it would call for fighters to be sent up for escorts.


but the controllers themselves would not make that decision...it would go up the chain of command and the decision would be made way above my paygrade. furthermore, it is my understanding that fighters were scrambled....once everyone got on the same page and realized what exactly was going on.




I do not think you know about all the incidents that happened involving planes.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Coupled with this; virtually every expert on terrorism for several years prior to 9-11 had been screaming about the ever growing threat to the United States by a new breed of terrorists willing to inflict mass casualties on civilians. The first major wake-up call occurred in 1994, when terrorists planned on blowing up a dozen US commercial aircraft over the Pacific Ocean. This was thwarted by an accidental fire in the apartment where the bombs were being constructed. The second major wake-up call occurred in 1995 when terrorists planned on crashing an airliner into the Eiffel Tower in Paris. Only quick and decisive action by French commandos prevented this disaster. There were also additional indicators.


one phrase struck me throughout that source: "planned on." the terrorists "planned on" doing these things, but they never happened. read my post about how the faa is built in blood....because that's pretty much how the anti-terrorism community seems to operate as well IMHO.



Well what about the time it takes to get through a locked cockpit door, and the fact that at least 1 of the pilots was a vietnam vet and i do not think he would be scared of a box cutter enough to give up the cockpit without a fight and to get a signal out that he was in trouble.


before 9/11, it wasnt very hard to break down the door (if it was even closed, which on about half the flights i took before 9/11 it wasnt). do you remember the stink about how thin those doors were? more of a privacy fence than an actual barrier....theyve all since been strengthened. as for the vietnam vet, everybody gets caught unaware at some point....and also, you have to keep in mind the pre-911 mentality on hijackings.....be as submissive as possible so as not to piss them off....the passengers lives meant everything. nobody was trained (at least not the pilots or controllers) to deal with this kind of hijacking.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by kix

My point is that all this little details pose too much imposibilities and weird explanations...the more complicated any plan the more condemned to failiure...and this plan was ..flawless... I simply dont buy it....


i would love to comment, but i dont know anything about the autopilot or how it works. my guess would be that simply bumping the controls would not take it out of auto, but thats just a guess. try boeing's website for more info on that.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Which all goes back to my original question, what are the odds that out of 4 planes not one got off a signal for help.


honestly, pretty damn slim. but all of the hijackings seem to have been very well planned and executed, and as they say in the aviation community:

prior planning prevents piss poor performance.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
I see some irritation arising at your side.


sorry if it seems that way, but it's not directed at you guys...i understand the desire to learn the truth. i'm spending most of my breaks talking to you guys, and i keep getting paged back in the middle of typing.

as far as the learjet goes, i agree that it seems pretty suspicious....its just that i would be careful about comming to conclusions until you have all the facts of the matter.



And don't see my questions as me nagging at you, I really am glad to have a real time FAA joining our discussions, but we tend to be a pain in the butt sometimes.
Take some rest, and cheerio.


to use an american phrase, "its all good."

[edit on 21-12-2006 by snafu7700]


kix

posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Boeings keep the autopilot engaged, but it will be autodisengaged if the pilot moves the controls, presses the rudder or turns the yoke /and / moves the fadec controls....

After this happens a LOUD and very annoying alarm goes off and it reminds the pilot that the auto pilot has been disangaged....

So we are back to square one, they had to take out the pilots off the cockpit, and I dont think that 8 out of 8 would do it without putting a fight....

my point still stands, way to many complications and twist to makeit work as perfect as they did...



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   
i really dont think you guys are getting the point about hijackings (and i mean that in the nicest way possible). at the risk of sounding like a broken record, there is a tremendous difference in the mentality of the aviation community in regards to hijackings between pre and post 9/11.

everyone was trained to be as submissive as possible for the sake of the passengers. the safety of the passengers involved ruled everything. the pilots were trained not to resist in the event of a hijacking. that is why the hijackers were able to complete the takeover so quickly. i dont know how to make the explanation any simpler.....the thinking of the time was to do whatever they wanted (within reason) to ensure the safety of the passengers. period. and i think that those involved knew that, and used it to their collective advantage.

i know it sounds like i'm beating a dead horse here, but i want to make sure you guys understand the fundamental differences between the way we look at hijackings now (a possible flying bomb....the passenger concern is secondary) and the way we looked at it then (passengers more important than anything else).....once you guys grasp that concept, i think, even if you still believe in a coverup, you will understand why it was so easy to overcome the crew.


[edit on 22-12-2006 by snafu7700]



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
i really dont think you guys are getting the point about hijackings (and i mean that in the nicest way possible). at the risk of sounding like a broken record, there is a tremendous difference in the mentality of the aviation community in regards to hijackings between pre and post 9/11.

everyone was trained to be as submissive as possible for the sake of the passengers. the safety of the passengers involved ruled everything. the pilots were trained not to resist in the event of a hijacking. that is why the hijackers were able to complete the takeover so quickly. i dont know how to make the explanation any simpler.....the thinking of the time was to do whatever they wanted (within reason) to ensure the safety of the passengers. period. and i think that those involved knew that, and used it to their collective advantage.

i know it sounds like i'm beating a dead horse here, but i want to make sure you guys understand the fundamental differences between the way we look at hijackings now (a possible flying bomb....the passenger concern is secondary) and the way we looked at it then (passengers more important than anything else).....once you guys grasp that concept, i think, even if you still believe in a coverup, you will understand why it was so easy to overcome the crew.


[edit on 22-12-2006 by snafu7700]


Yes i understand that, but the problem still remains even pre 911 pilots of hijacked planes got off signals that they were being hijacked, why did none of the planes on 911 get off a hijack call.

[edit on 23-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Yes i understand that, but the problem still remains even pre 911 pilots of hijacked planes got off signals that they were being hijacked, why did none of the planes on 911 get off a hijack call.

[edit on 23-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]


because pre-9/11 pilots were left in the cockpit to fly the plane....which gave them plenty of time to change their code.....on 9/11 they were taken out swiftly and surely....whether they were killed or ushered out of the cockpit.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Yes i understand that, but the problem still remains even pre 911 pilots of hijacked planes got off signals that they were being hijacked, why did none of the planes on 911 get off a hijack call.

[edit on 23-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]


because pre-9/11 pilots were left in the cockpit to fly the plane....which gave them plenty of time to change their code.....on 9/11 they were taken out swiftly and surely....whether they were killed or ushered out of the cockpit.


So your saying out of 8 pilots none of had the time or idea to send a signal ? Even though at least flight 93 and possibly flight 77 had prior warnings from the contollers of hijackings.

Correct me if i am wrong, but wasn't thier messages warning aircraft of hijackings after the WTC was hit ?

www.9-11commission.gov...

United's first decisive action to notify its airborne aircraft to take defensive action did not come until 9:19, when a United flight dispatcher, Ed Ballinger, took the initiative to begin transmitting warnings to his 16 transcontinental flights: "Beware any cockpit intrusion- Two a/c [aircraft] hit World Trade Center." One of the flights that received the warning was United 93.


[edit on 23-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 23-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


So your saying out of 8 pilots none of had the time or idea to send a signal ? Even though at least flight 93 and possibly flight 77 had prior warnings from the contollers of hijackings.

Correct me if i am wrong, but wasn't thier messages warning aircraft of hijackings after the WTC was hit ?



honestly, i'm not entirely sure of the timeline....but are you absolutely sure that they received the warning? acars (the system in which those kind of messages are sent) is not automatic....it takes a few minutes to upload and then again to download to the computer in the aircraft in question. i know this because when someone goes norac (loss of communication), we first try him on emergency frequencies and then we call company who sends a message to the aircraft via acars.....it usually takes anywhere from five to ten minutes (occasionally longer) for the aircraft to get that message. so just because it was sent doesnt mean that it was received in time (unless you have info from the flight data recorder that i am unaware of).

edit: i think i remember reading one of the sources you guys brought in that said either flight 77 or flight 93 had received a partial message about the attacks and had sent a response to company asking for verification of the reports. they hadnt received the reply yet when they were attacked....i cant remember where i saw that though.

[edit on 23-12-2006 by snafu7700]



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


So your saying out of 8 pilots none of had the time or idea to send a signal ? Even though at least flight 93 and possibly flight 77 had prior warnings from the contollers of hijackings.

Correct me if i am wrong, but wasn't thier messages warning aircraft of hijackings after the WTC was hit ?



honestly, i'm not entirely sure of the timeline....but are you absolutely sure that they received the warning? acars (the system in which those kind of messages are sent) is not automatic....it takes a few minutes to upload and then again to download to the computer in the aircraft in question. i know this because when someone goes norac (loss of communication), we first try him on emergency frequencies and then we call company who sends a message to the aircraft via acars.....it usually takes anywhere from five to ten minutes (occasionally longer) for the aircraft to get that message. so just because it was sent doesnt mean that it was received in time (unless you have info from the flight data recorder that i am unaware of).

edit: i think i remember reading one of the sources you guys brought in that said either flight 77 or flight 93 had received a partial message about the attacks and had sent a response to company asking for verification of the reports. they hadnt received the reply yet when they were attacked....i cant remember where i saw that though.

[edit on 23-12-2006 by snafu7700]


Well as stated in the site iposted they did recieve the threat and had sent back a response so at least flight 93 had a heads up and should have been ready to make a call or punch code.

So it still goes back to my original question of what are the odds that out of 4 aircraft not 1 makes an emergency call or sends code.

[edit on 23-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   
and they werent sure what to make of it, which is why they sent back the inquisitive reply. maybe they should have been on their guard at that point, but it all goes back to this being a whole new ballgame in the world of hijackings.



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
and they werent sure what to make of it, which is why they sent back the inquisitive reply. maybe they should have been on their guard at that point, but it all goes back to this being a whole new ballgame in the world of hijackings.


Yes i would have thought that getting a message like that would hav put them on alert for anythign going on.




top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join