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: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy

Just want to state taht absolutely yes I am including from the minute they lost contact. Perhaps I should have said 76 minutes until intercept. But this is important because those claiming the times on 9/11 were impossible are also including the time from when contact was lost. So it would be unfair to use just the time from when the planes were in the air until intercept.

And it just further backs up the point. People are claiming that jets are scrambled within seconds of loss of contact, but in that case I think it took some 20 minutes to determine that.

So 76 minutes from lost contact to cockpit confirmation.


very good point, as that is exactly how they are using the numbers.




posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

You are forgetting about jets ready to scramble if they do come close to resticted airspace. Thier used to be more but after the cold war units were shut down, and you have to take into account planes that NORAD had pulled out of the area.


believe it or not, we just received a briefing yesterday on new hijack procedures (seems the faa has recognizes what i've been saying here: we werent trained for this scenario). the first portion of the briefing included a full review of the events, and it confirms what i have been saying here.

indy center lost all radar, including primary, with flight 77 for about five minutes. when the primary came back up, they didnt realize it was him because he was going the opposite direction. they were looking west and south, while flight 77 was east bound. in fact, it was reagan tower that picked him back up (as an unknown fast moving target), and that was only seven minutes before flight 77 hit the pentagon. seven minutes to intercept with all of the other confusion in the air that day?



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 07:47 AM
link   
im going to ask a question based on a comment about the air defenses around the white house only becuase ive seen the same 'type' of comments about the pentagon.

ive seen people mention that no way could a jet liner hit the pentagon becuase its SOOO well protected. same with teh whitehouse. can anyone give me a real hard factual idea of exactly what kind of air defenses they think they have there? all ive ever heard of is the secret service has stingers.

yeah. for a jet liner. that would be like standing on a railroad track and shooting a .22 at a freight train and hoping to survive.

but sarcasm from me aside...anyone have an data on what is guarding the wh/pent?



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

You are forgetting about jets ready to scramble if they do come close to resticted airspace. Thier used to be more but after the cold war units were shut down, and you have to take into account planes that NORAD had pulled out of the area.


believe it or not, we just received a briefing yesterday on new hijack procedures (seems the faa has recognizes what i've been saying here: we werent trained for this scenario). the first portion of the briefing included a full review of the events, and it confirms what i have been saying here.

indy center lost all radar, including primary, with flight 77 for about five minutes. when the primary came back up, they didnt realize it was him because he was going the opposite direction. they were looking west and south, while flight 77 was east bound. in fact, it was reagan tower that picked him back up (as an unknown fast moving target), and that was only seven minutes before flight 77 hit the pentagon. seven minutes to intercept with all of the other confusion in the air that day?




But how long was flight 77 flying without the transponder before it went off radar. Why wasn't fighters in the area on alert from the first 2 hijackings ?
When i was in the Air Force we had planes with a 5 minute takeoff time from when alert sounded.


Originally posted by Damocles
all ive ever heard of is the secret service has stingers.

yeah. for a jet liner. that would be like standing on a railroad track and shooting a .22 at a freight train and hoping to survive.

but sarcasm from me aside...anyone have an data on what is guarding the wh/pent?


You must not have done much research on stingers, they can take an airliner down when they track and hit an engine.

[edit on 8-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 8-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

But how long was flight 77 flying without the transponder before it went off radar.


they lost both the transponder and the primary at the same time. in fact, they initially reported it as a possible crash.



Why wasn't fighters in the area on alert from the first 2 hijackings ?


last time i'm going to answer that question. if you dont get it after that, i no longer care. miscommunication across the board. period.




When i was in the Air Force we had planes with a 5 minute takeoff time from when alert sounded.


before or after 9/11? where? because standby for alert pre-9/11 and standby for alert post-9/11 are two different things. furthermore, alert status in certain european countries is different.




You must not have done much research on stingers, they can take an airliner down when they track and hit an engine.



you must not have done your homework on large airliners. look it up and you'll find that your wrong, depending upon the type aircraft.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
they lost both the transponder and the primary at the same time. in fact, they initially reported it as a possible crash.


Why would they "think" it was a crash, when 2 airliners have been highjacked and flown into the twin towers? I don't understand that.


last time i'm going to answer that question. if you dont get it after that, i no longer care. miscommunication across the board. period.


Well then, I fault you air traffic controllers. Don't you guys have protocol that you follow? What's so miscommunicated about a third plane losing it's transponder, especially after the WTC incident?


before or after 9/11? where? because standby for alert pre-9/11 and standby for alert post-9/11 are two different things. furthermore, alert status in certain european countries is different.


I'm not sure but I believe he was talking about pre 9/11...I could be wrong. Also, what does certain European countries have to do with 9/11, Ultima's service in the US Air Force, or what we are talking about in regards to US protocol?



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Why would they "think" it was a crash, when 2 airliners have been highjacked and flown into the twin towers? I don't understand that.


because the information hadnt filtered back to them completely yet. again, there was lots of miscommunication and confusion on that day.



Well then, I fault you air traffic controllers. Don't you guys have protocol that you follow? What's so miscommunicated about a third plane losing it's transponder, especially after the WTC incident?


have you not read anything i have posted on this thread? fault the faa for not training us to deal with this situation. nobody had ever hijacked an aircraft, turned the transponders off, and then used that aircraft as a missile. we were following the protocal of the time. lost transponder + lost communication = crash.



Also, what does certain European countries have to do with 9/11, Ultima's service in the US Air Force, or what we are talking about in regards to US protocol?


i was talking about USAFE...us air force in europe. it's primary goal during the cold war was as a deterent to the soviet forces in eastern europe. even after SAC started loosening its standby requirements in the states (thanks to clinton's cutbacks) after the demise of the soviet union, european units were still pretty much the same as they had been....until after 9/11.

[edit on 9-1-2007 by snafu7700]



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Thanks for responding SNAFU.



Originally posted by snafu7700
nobody had ever hijacked an aircraft, turned the transponders off, and then used that aircraft as a missile. we were following the protocal of the time. lost transponder + lost communication = crash.


I guess I once again need to remind you of some things that have happened in the past.

Here's one about Samuel Byck who tried to hijack a plane and fly it into the whitehouse. Although he didn't succeed, it shows that we have known of this threat. BTW, this happened in 1974....27 years before 9/11. And Condie couldn't fathom anyone using highjacked planes as missles...yeah right.

en.wikipedia.org...


Here's one about a guy who stole a helicopter and hovered above the whitehouse.

en.wikipedia.org...

And last but not least, an actual hijacking and use of a plane as a missle against the whitehouse, which it actually DID hit the whitehouse west wing. Not sure about the transponder being turned off. Coincidentally, this happened on 9/11 1994. Well, at least the hijacking, the crash happened in the early morning hours of 9/12.

www-tech.mit.edu...

So, don't sit there and tell me and everyone else that no one has ever hijacked a plane and used it as a missle because knowingly posting false information on this board is subject to banning.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Here's one about Samuel Byck who tried to hijack a plane and fly it into the whitehouse. Although he didn't succeed, it shows that we have known of this threat. BTW, this happened in 1974....27 years before 9/11. And Condie couldn't fathom anyone using highjacked planes as missles...yeah right.



After Byck's failed assassination attempt and subsequent death, his attempt faded into relative obscurity. While the news media reported on Byck's actions, they did not disclose why Byck attempted to hijack the plane - fearing that it would lead to copycat crimes.


must have worked, because this is the first time that i personally have ever heard of this incident.



Here's one about a guy who stole a helicopter and hovered above the whitehouse.


stole and hovered. not hijacked and attacked.



And last but not least, an actual hijacking and use of a plane as a missle against the whitehouse, which it actually DID hit the whitehouse west wing. Not sure about the transponder being turned off. Coincidentally, this happened on 9/11 1994. Well, at least the hijacking, the crash happened in the early morning hours of 9/12.



Frank Eugene Corder, 38, a student pilot with a history of alcohol and drug abuse, stole the single-engine Cessna from an airfield north of Baltimore and died in the crash, officials said.


hmmm....stole the airplane. maybe you need to do a little more research on the term "hijack." and that incident is why secret service now have stingers. so as far as the government was concerned, problem solved. might have been a bad solution, but that's the government for you.



So, don't sit there and tell me and everyone else that no one has ever hijacked a plane and used it as a missle because knowingly posting false information on this board is subject to banning.


ok, that whole paragraph is complete and utter bs, and i am sick and damned tired of dealing with it. you are intentionally falsifying your own information (stolen not hijacked) to fit your theory (and try to convince others of your bs), and then you have the GALL to accuse me, a professional in the field, of lying? everything i have said here is easily backed up with a simple google search. hell, the controller manual is readily available at faa.gov, but youre too lazy to search for yourself.

as i have said previously, the only thing i came here to debunk was the so-called expert in the article on page one. everything else is simply me trying to help you guys understand how atc actually works, and how our procedures apply to the events of 9/11. if you dont believe, i dont really give a whoopty do....but dont you DARE, come in here and accuse me of intentionally lying to the public....especially when that is EXACTLY what you have just done.

you come in here with your preconcieved notion of what happened, and only want proof to back up your theories. i give you truth about how the system works, and you accuse me of lying because it doesnt fit your theory. well too damned bad, because it's the truth. furthermore, i am sick and damned tired of repeating myself because you guys refuse to believe what i am telling you. i answer the same questions the same way every time you ask them......so if you dont believe me, THEN QUIT ASKING THEM....because you already know my answer!

if you guys want an experts opinion about air traffic, i am more than happy to be of service. but i am not going to play this stupid little game of "your lying because your facts dont agree with my theory." from now on i am simply going to refer the same questions back to the post in which i previously answered it.....and i will simply ignore posts that involve ignorant accusations like GRIFF'S. because i am here to help you guys understand procedure, and once again, to be quite honest, i dont really give a damn whether you believe me or not. i've got no ulterior motive here other than denying ignorance.

rant off.

edit for grammer.

[edit on 9-1-2007 by snafu7700]



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Ok...calm down SNAFU.

I'll get back to most of your post in a few minutes but wanted to post this. Maybe YOU should look up the meaning of hijack for once.


hi·jack /ˈhaɪˌdʒæk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hahy-jak] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object) 1. to steal (cargo) from a truck or other vehicle after forcing it to stop: to hijack a load of whiskey.
2. to rob (a vehicle) after forcing it to stop: They hijacked the truck before it entered the city.
3. to seize (a vehicle) by force or threat of force.
4. to skyjack.
–verb (used without object) 5. to engage in such stealing or seizing.
–noun 6. an act or instance or hijacking.



dictionary.reference.com...

Hmm...to STEAL...to ROB...to SEIZE...to engage in such STEALING or SEIZING.

Sounds like stealing aplane is hijacking one to me. Am I wrong?



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
and i will simply ignore posts that involve ignorant accusations like GRIFF'S.


I accussed you of lying because in this same thread, I have shown you twice that there was a HIJACKING of a cessna and it's use as a missle at the Whitehouse and you still have the GALL to say there was never one and I called you out for lying....which you are. You even said yourself and I quote:




quote: 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 Jan, 9 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

Originally posted by dunkindonuts



Terrorists did this,
Osama and Alqaeda have had this plan since the early 90's...

do some research...


You fall into the same trap that all supporters of the "Official" story fall into. Instead of saying "inside job" or something similar in nature, all that needs to be addressed are the anomolies that took place. Here is an example... just answer how the Towers fell down at free fall speed, don't speak to Controlled Demolition or anything else, just deal with physics and do explaining from there. As for your comment on Osama and al Qaeda... if they have been planning this since the early 90's, then explain why Osama has not been charged with anything. As of today, the Government has not charged him or the group with any violation. Second, where is the proof that al Qaeda did this at all... the very first response from OBL, was that he did not do it... then tapes started to appear stating something different. When the claim that OBL did this, what was the "proof" that he was involved?



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   
SNAFU,

I really didn't want to get into a match with you. The first time I posted about posting something false, I was trying to say to watch out. Sorry if I came off like a Richard Head. Peace?


DCP

posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
guys thanks for making sure i got NO work done this afternoon.

1) i don't understand, a wing that is supposed to get damaged from a light pole is supposed to damage a building?

2) someone can make fun of me for this one...but the "white jet" above DC. If i was the Prez i would have someone i trusted off the ground(close but can get anywhere fast). To either take control of the situation, order the strike against whomever, or whatever. I would have it as need to know info about the jet. You would want everyone to think everything is ok. Again this is thin but i don't think it is crazy.

Again the main reason i posted is question 1



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Ok...calm down SNAFU.

I'll get back to most of your post in a few minutes but wanted to post this. Maybe YOU should look up the meaning of hijack for once.


hi·jack /ˈhaɪˌdʒæk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hahy-jak] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object) 1. to steal (cargo) from a truck or other vehicle after forcing it to stop: to hijack a load of whiskey.
2. to rob (a vehicle) after forcing it to stop: They hijacked the truck before it entered the city.
3. to seize (a vehicle) by force or threat of force.
4. to skyjack.
–verb (used without object) 5. to engage in such stealing or seizing.
–noun 6. an act or instance or hijacking.



dictionary.reference.com...

Hmm...to STEAL...to ROB...to SEIZE...to engage in such STEALING or SEIZING.

Sounds like stealing aplane is hijacking one to me. Am I wrong?


yes you are wrong. once again trying to twist the information to fit your theory. numbers one through three deal with vehicles other than aircraft. did you even bother to read number four? read it again, and then take a look at this:


merriam-webster
Main Entry: sky·jack
Pronunciation: 'skI-"jak
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: 1sky + -jack (as in hijack)
: to commandeer (an airplane in flight) by the threat of violence
- sky·jack·er /-"ja-k&r/ noun
- sky·jack·ing /-ki[ng]/ noun


to commandeeer an airplane in flight. do you really think the other members here are too stupid to realize the difference between those four definitions?


Originally posted by Griff

I accussed you of lying because in this same thread, I have shown you twice that there was a HIJACKING of a cessna and it's use as a missle at the Whitehouse and you still have the GALL to say there was never one and I called you out for lying....which you are.


no, what you have done twice was misrepresent my words. i let it slide the first time because it wasnt worth arguing about. but when you call me a liar, i am going to show just how ignorant you really are. this is what i actually said:


Originally posted by snafu7700
nobody had ever hijacked an aircraft, turned the transponders off, and then used that aircraft as a missile. we were following the protocal of the time. lost transponder + lost communication = crash.


and nobody ever has done that before. especially not with a large commercial airliner. you tried to take my words out of context with the whole quote in order to fit your accusation of my lying. furthermore, you tried to twist your own sources to fit your theory......sources that clearly contradict what you are saying......and you have the nerve to call me a liar? better take a good long look in the mirror buddy.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
before or after 9/11? where? because standby for alert pre-9/11 and standby for alert post-9/11 are two different things. furthermore, alert status in certain european countries is different.



you must not have done your homework on large airliners. look it up and you'll find that your wrong, depending upon the type aircraft.



Before 911 at a base that flew interceptors for anything comming into US airspace on the east coast or flew into restricted airspace. The base was in North Carolina.

If stingers can not bring down an airliner why are they in so much demand by terrorist on the black market ? Oh and they have been used on commercial airlners by terrorist. Companies are also working on missile defense systems for commercial airliners, i believe their is a sytem out now in testing stages.

More info on hijackings used to take out targets.
www.globalsecurity.org...

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.






[edit on 9-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

If stingers can not bring down an airliner why are they in so much demand by terrorist on the black market ?


first, i said "large airliners", and i added "depending upon the type." i'm not saying that stingers wont shoot down aircraft. i'm saying that, though they may be severely damaged, they will not bring down all airliners, which is what you originally proposed (or at least that is how it sounded....if i misunderstood, i apologize).

second, stingers will always be a hot commodity on the black market because of their obvious military uses. the mujhadeen made excellent use of them in afganistan against the soviets, and that lesson has not been forgotten.



Oh and they have been used on commercial airlners by terrorist.


i'd be curious to see links on that. i know about the attempted shoot down of an israeli airliner in africa, but i have heard of no others....doesnt mean it hasnt happened, i just havent heard of them.



Companies are also working on missile defense systems for commercial airliners, i believe their is a sytem out now in testing stages.


yup, and it is much overdue.



More info on hijackings used to take out targets.


yup, and until blood is actually shed, policy is not going to change. that is the unfortunate truth of big government. go back and read my post on the faa rules and regs being written in blood for more on that.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 07:03 PM
link   
OK SNAFU. I have tried to make ammends with you but I guess you're too much of an A** hole to except. I now know how you are. Good day to you sir. BTW, the definition of hijack is stealing a vehicle. Is an airplane NOT a vehicle?


ve·hi·cle /ˈviɪkəl or, sometimes, ˈvihɪ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[vee-i-kuhl or, sometimes, vee-hi-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. any means in or by which someone travels or something is carried or conveyed; a means of conveyance or transport: a motor vehicle; space vehicles.
2. a conveyance moving on wheels, runners, tracks, or the like, as a cart, sled, automobile, or tractor.
3. a means of transmission or passage: Air is the vehicle of sound.
4. a carrier, as of infection.
5. a medium of communication, expression, or display: The novel is a fitting vehicle for his talents. Language is the vehicle of thought.
6. Theater, Movies. a play, screenplay, or the like, having a role suited to the talents of and often written for a specific performer.
7. a means of accomplishing a purpose: College is a vehicle for success.
8. Rhetoric. the thing or idea to which the subject of a metaphor is compared, as “rose” in “she is a rose.” Compare tenor (def. 3).
9. Pharmacology. a substance, usually fluid, possessing little or no medicinal action, used as a medium for active remedies.
10. Painting. a liquid, as oil, in which a pigment is mixed before being applied to a



dictionary.reference.com...

Look at number 1. An airplane IS a vehicle. Get over it.

So, yes there has been at least one incident where someone stole a plane (hijacked) and used it as a missile. If you want to continue lying like Condie Rice and say it never happened, then fine. But it HAS happened.

BTW, I have no preconcieved notion of anything other than you guys at ATC should have done your jobs better. PERIOD!!!!!



[edit on 1/9/2007 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   
BTW SNAFU, I might not know much about ATC but I do know that after two planes have crashed into the WTC, I wouldn't be thinking that the third plane that loses it's communication and transponder would be a crash. I mean how smart are these guys at FAA?

Also, if you ment skijack instead of hijack, then you should have said no one has skyjacked a plane before.

[edit on 1/9/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 1/9/2007 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   
well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion griff....uneducated as it is. oh, and your "peace" offering came after you decided to attack me personally and before i could respond. didnt want me to call you on your crap, did you?

if you truly want to learn, come on back and ask reasonable non-baiting questions. if you just want to continue the flaming, good riddance.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join