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.

 

Air traffic controllers were told beforehand that Flight 93 would crash.

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Another smoking gun proving foreknowledge of events on 9/11? Air traffic controllers at Johnstown Airport in Pennsylvania got the word that Flight 93 was going to crash and were told to evacuate the control tower. Take particular notice from 2m07s into the clip at:

www.youtube.com...

Now, I wonder who could have known with certainty that the alleged 'Flight 93' plane was going to crash (not "might crash"), even though it was 15 miles away from the tower and out of sight of the people working in it? I suggest that those who warned them were less concerned about their safety and more concerned that they would notice on their radar screens another plane approaching 'Flight 93' before it shot the plane down. Out of sight, out of mind, you might say.....




posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 06:09 PM
link   
The controller says that they couldn't see the plane which was unusual? I paraphrased, so please C. Fox, don't come in here and say I didn't quote him perfectly.

He also said some of them stayed but they didn't let him finish and say if they saw the fireball or not. If the fireball was so big, did they see that? If that fireball was 2,200 feet across, shown by Nick, then they should have definately saw something you would think?

Or am I taking what he said the wrong way? Where's Snafu when you need him?



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Also interesting to note the bald guy in sunglasses at 1:18 into the video say "it appears the plane landed here in this dark trench down here near the tree line and proceeded on into the into the wooded area..."

This is someone on the scene within a day of the event trying to make sense of what he is seeing. Obviously, he doesn't think the plane could possibly have come straight down into the crater as the official story would have us believe. Not to mention the ATCs couldn't even see an aircraft of that size fifteen miles out from their tower, which the controller interviewed admitted was "unusual".

The official story just doesn't add up. Period.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
The controller says that they couldn't see the plane which was unusual? I paraphrased, so please C. Fox, don't come in here and say I didn't quote him perfectly.


The controllers in Johnstown were told by the FAA to look to the south for Flight 93. If Flight 93 was approaching from Cleveland, it would have been coming from the north. This is the official reason why the controllers didn't get a visual on Flight 93's approach.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Thanks Nick for the explanation.

The biggest question of all. How did they know the plane was going to crash? I thought the official version was that the passengers were trying to take the plane back and the terrorists nose dove into the ground? There was no radar, no transponder, no communications to the plane etc. but somehow they knew that the plane was coming down? How? Any of the official believers want to try and debunk this?



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Bump.

I'd like to hear from some of the official believers on this. Or is this not a strawman that is easily debunked?



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   
So, no one wants to touch this eh? SNAFU, where are you?



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
I think the official story people are just going to write this this off as another one of those strange Coincidences of that day!!! Boy, all these coincidences sure begin to add up!! Talk about Lucky!!!! Between the BBC getting lucky on a building collapse 20 minutes before it happened, and this!!!! The events of 9-11 has more holes in it than a block of swiss cheese!!



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I'm going to keep bumping this thread because this is important. Should the plane have been seen at 15 miles out? Remember the smoke plume was suppossedly 2200 feet wide (that's twice the twin towers height).



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Interesting,

micpsi, how did you come across this video? I ask because I wonder why after five years new info seems to be coming out, and all of us should verify it is real before passing judgment. If it's real, that is a nice find.



Originally posted by Griff
So, no one wants to touch this eh? SNAFU, where are you?

I would also like to hear what he says. Try U2U.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
I would also like to hear what he says. Try U2U.


I'd like to hear from him because he is an ATC guy and would be able to answer some questions. I think all this new stuff is coming out because of FOIAs. But, I'm not positive. As far as fake, who knows, but if the truth movement is willing to go that far, I don't want any part in it.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   
That's becasue Flt 93 was shot down and did not crash. No government would want to acknowledge that they had to shoot down a commerical airliner due to it treatening the Capitol. It was a no-win situation for the Government. Either they shoot it down or let it crach into the capital building or whitehouse. Also at that time no-one knew if there was a bomb or something else on there that could of caused major damage to this nations capital.

The capital must be protected at all costs.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   
But, that still doesn't answer the lies. If they are willing to cover up what they did to 93, then what else are they willing to cover up?



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   
nick mentioned this to me in another thread, and his attitude in said thread convinced me that it was BS. however, since griff thinks it's interesting, i'll take a look at the video when i get a chance.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Thanks SNAFU. We could really use your expertise in this. I also don't discount that it could be BS.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   
well, this is the first time i've seen this video. let me start by saying that there was extreme concern on 9/11 that the air traffic system might be a secondary target.

also, as i have mentioned in other threads, it is my personal belief that 93 was shot down. cant prove that in any way, but it's what i think.

now, several reports have put another white aircraft at the scene. it could be this aircraft that transmitted the warning when 93 started to lose control after the passengers started to fight back.

OR, and i stress that this is JUST a possibility.....it could be that orders were issued for the shoot down and, not knowing for sure where it would come down, the controllers were evacuated for safety reasons. i sincerely doubt that they were ordered to evacuate so that they would not see anything....we hold security clearances, so if told it was a matter of national security, we could not talk about it...so there would be no point in trying to hide it from them.

you guys can think what you wish, but i sincerely believe that the order came down for the safety of the controllers. afterall, these werent the only air traffic facilities evacuated that day. again, there were serious worries of a secondary attack on air traffic facilities (which would have been disastrous if carried out immediately after the other attacks before we could get all the aircraft down.

one thing about evacuations: there is always a backup position on the field for towers to work traffic. controllers will remain in the tower until that secondary position is set up. i have evacuated towers on three occasions for high winds, bomb threat, and fire, so it does happen on occasion.

again, my personal opinion is that bush intended to announce that we had shot down 93 for the in a desolate area before it could reach a populated area for the safety of those on the ground, but then the reports started coming in of the passenger's phone calls to family and that they were fighting back when the plane went down, so the decision was made that it would be much better to have our first victory against the terrorist come from the american people on board the aircraft than from the american military.

oh, and the whole 15 miles thing....you could probably see him that far out considering the size of the aircraft, but you would have to be looking for him and know where exactly to look. it would also depend upon where he was (mountainuos terrain), what kind of obstructions you have in your line of site (mountains), and how low he was when they started looking. it's not a definite thing that they would have seen him....but not knowing exactly what the view is like from that particular tower, this is simply my opinion.

as for the radar guys....they were only watching a primary target, which has no altitude associated with it. there would be no way for them to know if the aircraft was decending rapidly.

hope that answers some questions.....feel free to ask more, but understand that i am an air traffic expert, NOT a 9/11 scholar, so some of you may know more about the details than i do.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Thanks SNAFU. That's the only reasonable explaination that I can come up with also. That they were going to shoot it down and they evacuated for safety. How else would they know it was coming down in that area? Like you said, they couldn't track the elevation of the plane. So, how did they know it was coming down unless they planned on shooting it down? Thanks for enforcing my thoughts on the shoot down of flight 93.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Thanks SNAFU.


anytime...sorry it took so long. it's been one helluva busy week.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


I'd like to hear from him because he is an ATC guy and would be able to answer some questions. I think all this new stuff is coming out because of FOIAs. But, I'm not positive. As far as fake, who knows, but if the truth movement is willing to go that far, I don't want any part in it.


Hey Griff... I just read this thread for the first time. Snafu seems to have hit the nail on the head.

I am still teetering on the flight 93 shoot down/crash. Personally I think it was shot down. As I have posted in the past... we needed a hero story for that day. We were sucker punched and needed a story to help us back up. I for one would have to agree with the administration for doing this. (first time for everything i guess)



[edit on 9-3-2007 by CameronFox]



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 09:56 PM
link   
911research.wtc7.net...


The AP reported that at 9:58 a frantic passenger called from a bathroom and told operator Glenn Cramer that he had seen an explosion and smoke, and that the plane was "going down". 5 6 Investigators believe the passenger was Edward Felt.

At 10:06 AM, Flight 93 was apparently shot down near Somerset, PA. The official story that it was flown into the ground as a result of a struggle to control the cockpit is contradicted by the reports of eyewitnesses on the ground, as well as the phone call attributed to Edward Felt.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join