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.

 

Whistleblower Exposes FAA Conspiracy -Commission Covers It Up!

page: 2
17
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 01:28 AM
link   

The “controllers” had been sitting on position controlling the air traffic. Most of us had not even seen the news because we were too busy insuring that your wife and kids got from point a to point b safely. You quite obviously know nothing about transponders, or radar data tags, or primary targets. Otherwise you would know that once the terrorists turned off those transponders they for all intent and purpose became invisible. Blame the faa and the federal government in general for allowing the system to have enough holes in it to allow something like this to happen, but don’t you dare attempt to lay the blame on the men and women who, day in and day out, move some of the busiest air traffic in the world without incident or accident. Do you know why air travel is so safe in the country? Because of us.



By the way, I wasn't blaming the controllers for what happened. I realize that the controllers helped land 3000+ planes on 9/11.

Still, I'm curious what you mean by "once the terrorists turned off those transponders they for all intent and purpose became invisible."

What specifically does this mean? Either they disappeared from radar, or they didn't, right?




posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261

Still, I'm curious what you mean by "once the terrorists turned off those transponders they for all intent and purpose became invisible."

What specifically does this mean? Either they disappeared from radar, or they didn't, right?


it means that you havent done your homework, because it's not that simple. i have twice now directed you to the appropriate sources to explain the air traffic side and you have twice now ignored it. you obviously care about nothing other than spreading your own misguided and quite ignorant view of the facts. actually learning something about how the system works and how it failed is quite obviously not something you care anything about, so why should i waste my precious time repeating everything that i have already explained in other threads?



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700


Still, I'm curious what you mean by "once the terrorists turned off those transponders they for all intent and purpose became invisible."

What specifically does this mean? Either they disappeared from radar, or they didn't, right?

it means that you havent done your homework,


snafu,

I did my home. I read the 10 pages of postings from the thread you referenced.

I already read how it's your personal belief that Flight 93 was shot down, and how you addressed the transponder question by saying that the planes become primary targets -blips if you will.

This is why I wanted to clarify your statement about the planes becoming invisible or whatever you said. This is misleading. The planes don't suddenly vanish from radar when the transponders are turned off.



you obviously care about nothing other than spreading your own misguided and quite ignorant view of the facts. actually learning something about how the system works and how it failed is quite obviously not something you care anything about, so why should i waste my precious time repeating everything that i have already explained in other threads?



Fair enough. I read the other threads.

Nowhere did you explain the protocol that resulted in ATC towers being evacuated during a hijacking. This order by the FAA to evacuate the Pittsburgh tower, which was tracking Flight 93, is inexplicable.

This is especially true in the context of the day. By 9:49 am it was known by the FAA that airliners had been hijacked and had hit WTCs and the Pentagon. Now a fourth airliner, Flight 93, which was a known hijacking, and which may have had a bomb on board, was on a bearing directly towards Washington D.C. It was at this point that the FAA ordered the control towers in Pittsburgh and Johnstown evacuated.

As an air traffic controller with 30 years of experience, have you ever been ordered to evacuate a tower? Do you even know of anybody who has been ordered to evacuate a control tower?

Further, at 9:42 am the FAA ordered all flights to land at the nearest airports. Pittsburgh at thetime was a major hub for USAir. Does it make any sense to evacuate the tower in Pittsburgh 7 minutes after all flights were ordered to land?

Taken by itself, the order to evacuate the only towers that could track Flight 93 is just crazy. Taken in the context of the day's events, and in the context of Dzakovic's testimony to the 9/11 Commission, the order to evacuate the towers is borderline, if not outright, treasonous.

As Andrew Card said to Bush, America was under attack. How could the FAA condone *key personnel* in the first line of defense against the attack, the ATCs tracking Flight 93, to walk off the job right at the apex of the emergency?


PS I did my homework. Did you do yours? Did you go back and read the details of Flight 93 and realize that you were mistaken when you stated that the FAA didn't *know* it was a hijacking?



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Don Wahn
WOAH! Great find Nick! This seems like pretty irrefutable evidence for the FAA. Too bad something like this will never get mainstream media coverage..or will it?

Exposing something like this to the public would undoubtedly cause a BIG chain reaction. Head will start rolling if this happens.


Thanks!

Any ideas on how to get something like this into the mainstream media??



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius


But here's how I personally can be convinced of what you're saying:

I need your theoretical list of FAA employees who were in on it.

I know it may be hard to find names, so just titles will be fine. If there was a secret order sent in for the entire FAA to intentionally leave the door open for terrorists, it should be relatively easy to trace.

At the very least we need a detailed list of the specific FAA offices that were comprimised...the Boston office?...quarters in Virginia?

If any theory is going to be pushed then it needs to avoid the dreaded "THEY." You are implying, as best I can tell from this thread, that there were A MINIMUM of 10 employees spread over several offices were full on IN on 9/11.

Let's hear your theory with names and titles...who was riding dirty and who wasn't.



Good point. It's also a good point that finding this info might be hard to find. I only have so many hours in the day!

Specifcally focusing on only 9/11/01 for now, I would narrow the possible accomplices to:

Whoever gave the false report that Flight 11 didn't hit WTC1 and instructed that NEADS be called to report this, and

Whoever ordered the ATC towers evacuated in Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Johnstown.

I'm just going by memory on this now, but I'm thinking that Ben Sliney could have been the guy who was responsible for both of the above.

Other names in the mix.... haven't had time to research these people much at all:

Jane Garvey and her deputy, Monte Belger
Linda Schuessler
Norman Mineta


Here's something interesting on Sliney. Everybody knows 9/11 was his first day on the job as chief of air traffic control. What I didn't know is that he had to come out of retirement for this job. Retirement? Retirement from what?


Also, it appears Sliney issued the command to ground all planes on his own without even consulting with his boss, Linda Schuessler, who was in the same room with him at the time.



www.usatoday.com...





[edit on 2-3-2007 by nick7261]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261

I did my home. I read the 10 pages of postings from the thread you referenced.


then why would you ask this:



This is why I wanted to clarify your statement about the planes becoming invisible or whatever you said. This is misleading. The planes don't suddenly vanish from radar when the transponders are turned off.


you didnt read it, you skimmed through it. if you had actually read it, you would understand the problems that go along with tracking a primary target in iffy radar coverage.




Nowhere did you explain the protocol that resulted in ATC towers being evacuated during a hijacking. This order by the FAA to evacuate the Pittsburgh tower, which was tracking Flight 93, is inexplicable.


there was no protocol. this situation has never happened before, and nobody in the faa was trained to deal with it. you keep referring to the "faa" as though it is one sentient being. youre looking at the whole situation incorrectly. everybody had little pieces of the information, but nobody had the whole picture. it's very easy to look back on the whole situation and say "well, why did they do that....that was a dumb decision"....but you werent there making the decisions based on very limited data. you can second guess the decisions made all day long, it doesnt change what happened. all you can do is learn from the mistakes. look, i completely agree that management as a whole is criminally negligent for not fixing security problems...i have never disagreed on that issue. but the events in the skies on 9/11 after the hijackers went through security is a situation that was never considered, never planned for, and therefore nobody was trained to deal with it. it is a well known fact that the faa is the agency who's rules are written in blood. by that i mean that it takes dead passengers before the faa changes it's was of doing things. this situation is no different than any other in that aspect. is that right? no. but that's how they operate. does that mean that they intentionally let 9/11 happen? nope.



As an air traffic controller with 30 years of experience, have you ever been ordered to evacuate a tower? Do you even know of anybody who has been ordered to evacuate a control tower?


proof that you only skimmed through that other thread. you have mistaken me with the so-called controller i who's testimony i was debunking in that thread. i only have 15 years experience....but yes, i have evacuated towers on three occassions, and i know many many people who have done the same. those reasons were a bomb threat, winds over the safe level to maintain structural integrity of the tower, and smoke due to equipment fire.



Further, at 9:42 am the FAA ordered all flights to land at the nearest airports. Pittsburgh at thetime was a major hub for USAir. Does it make any sense to evacuate the tower in Pittsburgh 7 minutes after all flights were ordered to land?


there are backups to the tower. if the controller's lives were in danger, they would be evacuated to a secondary location and continue to work from there. obviously somebody thought it was a serious threat.



Taken by itself, the order to evacuate the only towers that could track Flight 93 is just crazy. Taken in the context of the day's events, and in the context of Dzakovic's testimony to the 9/11 Commission, the order to evacuate the towers is borderline, if not outright, treasonous.


sure is easy to sit back and second guess decisions made in the heat of battle, isnt it?



As Andrew Card said to Bush, America was under attack. How could the FAA condone *key personnel* in the first line of defense against the attack, the ATCs tracking Flight 93, to walk off the job right at the apex of the emergency?


again, nobody walked off the job. they moved to a safer location and continued their work.



PS I did my homework. Did you do yours? Did you go back and read the details of Flight 93 and realize that you were mistaken when you stated that the FAA didn't *know* it was a hijacking?


so you've never made a typo when your half-asleep before? if you had actually read the boston thread, instead of just skimming over it and lying about reading the whole thing, you would realize that i certainly know the difference between the two aircraft, as i mention both in several posts.

go back and actually read the other thread. i think that if you actually do that you will understand the events of the day alot better. while your at it, read the air traffic transcripts released a couple of months ago....you can also find those on this site.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
so you've never made a typo when your half-asleep before? if you had actually read the boston thread, instead of just skimming over it and lying about reading the whole thing, you would realize that i certainly know the difference between the two aircraft, as i mention both in several posts.


Of course I skimmed over the ten pages of posts that you referred me to. Are you really that petty that the best you can do is accuse me of "lying" about reading the posts when in fact I only skimmed the posts?

Are you serious?

Regarding the ATC towers being evacuated in Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Johnstown, you say that nobody left their jobs, but only moved to a safer back-up location.

Do you have any source for this, or are you just guessing this is what happened?

Also, regarding the "they never planned for this" theme of your explanation of the FAA's incompetence. That's incorrect. There were very specific protocols for hijackings. The protocols weren't followed.

To say that the planes being used as weapons means that the situation didn't fit the protocol is ridiculous, imo. Did you even read Sliney's testimony to the 9/11 C? He repeatedly referred to the protocols. If there were no protocols, how could Sliney say they were followed?

I'm not sure that your logic makes much sense. How can you on one hand believe that people within the FAA would intentionallly leave open huge security holes, believe that Flight 93 was shot down, but on the other hand *know* that nobody in the FAA could have been complicit in letting the attacks unfold unobstructed?

How can you know that there wasn't some sort of pre-knowledge and that somebody in the FAA wasn't acting on orders to make sure Flight 77 made it to the Pentagon?



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261

Of course I skimmed over the ten pages of posts that you referred me to. Are you really that petty that the best you can do is accuse me of "lying" about reading the posts when in fact I only skimmed the posts?


yes, you lied. shall we review?


Originally posted by nick7261

I did my home. I read the 10 pages of postings from the thread you referenced.


and now you freely admit that you only skimmed through it, when i have repeatedly told you that the majority of your questions are already answered on that thread. you dont care about the facts, and i have no more time for your ignorance. if you decide in the future that you actually want to learn something instead of just spouting out your opinion based on a total lack of understanding of how the aviation community works in the hopes that others who dont know any better will buy in to your crap, please feel free to U2U me with your questions.

good day.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Okay I didn't read anything from Snafu,but from what I know, the official reason planes become invisible-ish with no transponder is that they become just primary radar blips that are hard to sort. It just blends in with the crowd.

I never did understand this. If primary radar is so hard to read and sort, why bother having it?
Which is maybe why they prefer depending on transponders. But..
transponders can be turned off, so they need to keep primary radar (except on the inland approcah to the Pentagon.)
And nobody by 9/11 had figured out how to use transponder signals to MAKE primary radar more readable by simply having a computer program analyze primary fields with transponder returns, find which blips are only on primary, and then flag those? #, I hope they have that program by now anyway. I'd design it for them!



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700


Of course I skimmed over the ten pages of posts that you referred me to. Are you really that petty that the best you can do is accuse me of "lying" about reading the posts when in fact I only skimmed the posts?

yes, you lied. shall we review?

I did my home. I read the 10 pages of postings from the thread you referenced.




Get real. You're splitting hairs because I said I *read* the 10 pages of postings when in fact by *read*, I meant that I skimmed over the postings that werern't relevant?

Are you going to say my pants are on fire next??




and now you freely admit that you only skimmed through it, when i have repeatedly told you that the majority of your questions are already answered on that thread.


No they aren't answered in that thread. I DID read every one of your postings. And I mean read word for word, not skimmed.





in the hopes that others who dont know any better will buy in to your crap, please feel free to U2U me with your questions.

good day.


Why so hostile?

Anyway, if you don't want to publicly talk about claim that the ATCs who evacuated the towers simply went to a back-up location, I can understand. I couldn't find any evidence of this either.

As for your claim that the FAA didn't know Flight 77 or Flight 93 were hijackings, and therefore this is there reason for not notifying NORAD, you're incorrect. Sliney testified that Flight 77 was one of the flights written on the whiteboard as as possible hijacking. The controllers in Cleveland knew Flight 93 was a hijacking because the hijackers were broadcasting it.

Anyway, it really doesn't matter what you're claims or interpretations are re the FAA's role in this, or whether you think my opinion is crap. This thread is about uncovering Dzakovic's sworn allegations about the FAA's complicity and negligence, and the 9/11 Commission burying this information.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1   >>

log in

join