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.

 

FLIGHT 93 - The Biggest 911 Smoking Gun!

page: 77
24
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Actually, one of the hikackers on 93 was dressed as a pilot and was offered entry to the cockpit. ...

93 is Cheney and Mineta...



Where did you get that bit of never before heard info? Please source that so we can file it in the right place. WHO says that a highjacker was dressed as a pilot and offered a peek? I bet this one turns out to be bogus all the way.




posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



I agree that Flt. 77 is unique. There were far too many ood facts to call it coincidence. Off the top of my head I recall some stats that showed a high preponderance of high tech military industrial types that were associated with, no doubt, many of the technologies that were used in the events themselves. Raytheon and others had disproportionate numbers of high level people killed that day. My suspicious side of course tends to believe that they were loose threads that had to go: People who would have known for certain what happened and who likley did it and were not needed for future operations.

Of course, if the perps had prepped the teams and crews to think that this was all a highly classified series of drills they could not have them around when the damage was done: they would know instantly that the games were cover and who was controlling the scenario. Certain people were too far in to trust, and too far out to count.Just imagine the most diabolical minds on earth coupled with the most advanced technology that is available to the military and private sectors alike. They planned and executed a sweeping series of events that fooled the casual observer and the controlled media poses no threat;investigative journalism dies years ago.

I love to listen to the hilarious excuses that the official story people offer when you point out to them that not ONE of EIGHT pilots managed to push the radio button on the yoke ( four times ) and announce a problem. Dead air. No issues and then, instantly, they lose contact. All at once all four times. Then we hear the phony message about bombs and other garbage sent by the perps to play a role.That was the ONLY evidence they were able to offer that highjackers existed; their voices. And it sufficed for the majority of drones.

Explosions, rumors and repeated lies, over time, became the official story. No plane parts shown and numbers matched. The FBI will not release any info about part numbers under the FOIA..wonder why? If the numbers matched with the serial numbers at the airline, then no problem, right? Just trot them out and compare them and put all the talk of conspiracies to rest.Why is all the hard evidence missing or ' unavailable ' for public inspection? After all, what possible harm could it do to prove their assertions?

Problem is that they KNOW that the numbers do not match, and they KNOW that there was no plane at the Pentagon and Penn.,they know. But they have been told to shut up, and they have. And the beat goes on..



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   
What technologies? As far as teh pilot comment, I read in an early report after 9/11 that one of the terrorists made entry by posingas a pilot. He was in first class and it was a ruse to gain cockpit entry. That was all I was stating. I mean, are the recordings that the FAA have of 93 when the pilots are supposedly killed fake? In effect, that is what you are stating.

There were real people on that plane. Also, I beleive that there was a scramble by NORAD to find 1989 so that is also may be where the confusion comes into play wqith 93 and since they originated at the same place.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


That is a new one on me, too. It may come as a shock to some, but many pilots and crew members, including from other airlines, cross paths at one time or another. Some unknown, sitting in a pilot's uniform in first class, would look highly suspicious doing that out-of-the-blue so to speak.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
There were real people on that plane. Also, I beleive that there was a scramble by NORAD to find 1989 so that is also may be where the confusion comes into play wqith 93 and since they originated at the same place.

It's fair to say that level of confusion is still alive and well.

At that moment in time every domestic plane in the air was a another potential attack until proven otherwise, especially those originating from the same locations as the 3 known attacks.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
If they were armed and alert they may have been able to help. That seems to be what causes confusion. .


The fact remains there were planes pulled out the area that could have helped intercept the 9/11 planes.

Any NORAD or Air Force plane can be made a alert plane in an emergency.

Bases are set up so that they can arm planes in minutes if they need to. Interceptors only carry a minimal amount of ammo and a couple missiles so they are lighter and faster.



[edit on 14-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 07:49 AM
link   


[edit on 14-1-2008 by TyrannyofAmerica]

[edit on 14-1-2008 by TyrannyofAmerica]

[edit on 14-1-2008 by TyrannyofAmerica]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 




WHAT REPORT? you merely say that you read some report and then throw out a thought as if it were possible. There IS NO REPORT saying that the highjackers were dressed as pilots. It does not exist. You no doubt read some thread somewhere in which someone guessed at how the highjackers could have enterted the cockpits. GUESSING is NOT a valid method of validating info, thank you.

If a highjacker was dressed as a pilot, do you think that the first time it would be noticed would be in flight? Cmon now. WHy in the hell would a highjacker draw attention to himself by wearing a uniform? NO OTHER report I have seen, and I study this a lot, has ever alleged that scenario...it is nonsense and totally unfounded. PLEASE find this ' report ' you supposedly saw and post it here for us all to see: I bet a hundred dollars that there is NO report, merely someone wondering out loud how the highjackers managed to enter the cockpits.

Also, were FOUR highjackers ( one on each plane ) supposedly dressed as pilots also? See how stupid it gets? There were NO pilots uniforms, there were NO cockpit assaults, and the entire thing was a grand illusion that relies on supposition and innuendo to cover the facts.

THERE ARE NO valid reports of anyone wearing any uniforms that day so they could try and talk their way into the cockpit: There is also no evidence at all that any of the four craft were taken by cockpit intrusion..none at all. The phony calls and other planted evidence are the only proof that the cabal has to prop up their lies.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 

Bases are set up so that they can arm planes in minutes if they need to. Interceptors only carry a minimal amount of ammo and a couple missiles so they are lighter and faster.



OK. How many minutes if the plane had fuel and there was a pilot available?

Since this is a thread discussing Flight 93, we can use it to work through why NORAD stood down.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 08:35 AM
link   

OK. How many minutes if the plane had fuel and there was a pilot available?

Since this is a thread discussing Flight 93, we can use it to work through why NORAD stood down.


NORAD stood down because the government told them too.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 



Hey eye, i am trying to find the article from just after 911 that stated one of the hijackers may have impersonated a pilot and when stating dressed I feel that I did misstep. Please do not think i meant he was in full regalia with the flight cap and used it to enter the cockpit. However, the hijackers on all planes had run the routes that they took numerous times in the years prior to 9/11 as dry runs and surveilence.

Also, someone in first class on a near empty flight who works for the airline is not out of the ordinary by any means.

In the 90's the air readiness of the country also changed due to the end of the cold war and budgetary constraints. Many routine air patrols were halted. However the USAF is battle ready and can be in the air if needed as shown with Flight 93. Remember, F-16's were also trying to find one of the flights that hit the WTC so they were in the air folks. In the air in NY and Flight 93 had been up less than 15 minutes or so.

Here is a link that states it was reviewed for the flights and no 'jump seats' were scheduled.

link

Now, this is a government statement that states that there were none scheduled but that does not mean that it could have been attmepted. Neither has been confirmed or debunked but figured I would poist it to be fair.



[edit on 14-1-2008 by esdad71]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
link to testimony

This is the testimony that shuts the door on Flight 93 bieng shot down. There was an order to take down the aircraft. They ask him directly about 93 and he denies it but earlier in the testimony he mentions it out of sequence. He knows where the planes came from but does not know about the order????

How far back does he go with this administration. I mean, he also worked at Lockheed on the board so he is not someone who would be in the dark as his testimony suggests since it is so vague. The only democrat in the cabinet. Intel officer. Nice career. This is how a conspiracy is handled, not with space based lasers.


[edit on 14-1-2008 by esdad71]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I know this is a strange question to ask but is there any footage of the so called highjackers on the airport security camera's??
i can't remember there being any but i could be wrong.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   


PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

12/22/07

PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH
www.pilotsfor911truth.org

Contact: Robert Balsamo
e-mail: pilots@pilotsfor911truth.org

UNITED 93 DATA PROVIDED BY US GOVERNMENT DOES NOT SUPPORT OBSERVED EVENTS
Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain United Flight 93 Flight Data Recorder information, consisting of a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file and Flight Path Animation, allegedly derived from Flight 93 Flight Data Recorder (FDR). The data provided by the NTSB contradict observed events in several significant ways:

The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support observations.
All Altitude data on the northern approach contradicts witnesses published by the New York Times.
Witness observations of approach path contradict northern approach as described by Popular Mechanics and the US Govt. Several witnesses observed the aircraft approaching from southeast over Indian Lake and from the south prior to witnessing explosion. Parts found in New Baltimore, 8 miles southeast of crater is a direct contradiction to the northern approach claimed by the US Govt.
Environmental Protection Agency reports no soil contamination of jet fuel after testing 5,000-6,000 yards of earth including 3 ground wells. Smoke plume photographed by a witness does not suggest a jet fuel rich explosion.
Impact angle according to Flight Data Recorder does not support an almost vertical impact as the govt story and crater suggests.
In May, 2007, members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth received these documents from the NTSB and began a close analysis of the data they contain. After expert review and cross check, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has concluded that the information in these NTSB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that United Airlines Flight 93 created the impact crater as reported, in Somerset County, PA on the morning of September 11, 2001 .According to the US Govt, United Airlines Flight 93 approached Somerset County from the North-Northwest at a high altitude on the morning of September 11, 200 1 . However, many witnesses contradict altitude as well as approach path. Also according to reports, and as the impact crater suggests, United Airlines Flight 93 impacted terrain at an almost vertical 90 degree angle, while the Flight Data Recorder shows a 35 degree angle with up-sloping terrain, further reducing impact angle.

The information provided by the US Government does not support reports of United Airlines Flight 93 approach, impact angles, and lack of jet fuel at Somerset Country, PA.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth is committed to discovering the truth surrounding the events of September 11, 2001 . We have contacted both the NTSB and the FBI regarding these and other inconsistencies. To date, they have refused to comment on, correct, refute, retract or offer side-letters that might explain the discrepancies between what they claim are the data extracted from the FDR of United Flight 93 and the events observed. .As concerned citizens and professionals in the aviation industry, Pilots for 9/11 Truth asks, why have these discrepancies not been addressed by agencies within the United States Government? Pilots for 9/11 Truth takes the position that an official government inquiry into these discrepancies is warranted and long overdue. We call upon our fellow citizens to write to their Congressional representatives to inform them of these discrepancies and call for an immediate investigation into this matter. For more information and in depth analysis please visit pilotsfor911truth.org.

Members of Pilots For 9/11 Truth at pilotsfor911truth.org...

ENCLOSURE: Cover letter of FOIA requests.

pilotsfor911truth.org...


Answers some ?'s



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
OK. How many minutes if the plane had fuel and there was a pilot available?

Since this is a thread discussing Flight 93, we can use it to work through why NORAD stood down.


From my education and experience i would say if you had to, you could load up and fuel a plane in 30 to 45 minutes, depending on type of aircraft and how the base was setup.

Do you have evidence that NORAD stood down ?


Originally posted by rhynouk
I know this is a strange question to ask but is there any footage of the so called highjackers on the airport security camera's??
i can't remember there being any but i could be wrong.


Yes, there is footage of them at the ticket counters but not any footage of them getting on the planes (at least that has been released).

Several of them were flagged by the computer and some of them set off the security scanners but they were still left go.


[edit on 14-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 

From my education and experience i would say if you had to, you could load up and fuel a plane in 30 to 45 minutes, depending on type of aircraft and how the base was setup.


Let's go with 30 minutes since that is the shortest time to ready an aircraft.

The first signs of any trouble from flight 93 came at 9:28 a.m. when the hijacking occurred. The controllers at Cleveland Center were not sure if the radio calls came from that flight, but we will pretend that they knew exactly which aircraft was hijacked.

9:28 + 30 min. would be 9:58 a.m., that leaves five minutes to taxi out, take off, get vectors to the aircraft, and climb to altitude to intercept the aircraft before it crashed at 10:03 a.m.

This scenario would have to include an Air Force Base within 30 miles of Flight 93 just to make it more realistic.

How does that prove there was a standdown?



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
If this person is credible, all the postulating in discussion concerning interceptor planes is wrong:

answers.yahoo.com...

"Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

First, I am somewhat of an expert in this. I flew on Air Force AWACS planes for 6 years and was just completing my training on 9-11. Over the next several years I flew dozens of air defense missions, mostly over important events like the Reagan funeral, the Democratic and Republican national convention before the 04 election, etc. So I know what I'm talking about. Yes, there is a military plan in place. Yes, there are military interceptors at certain bases armed and ready to go 24/7. Simply deviating from a flight plan may or may not be a big deal. Stewart's plane was at high altitude, clearly visible on RADAR and maintaining straight and level flight. Not neccessarily a major threat. If someone deviates from a flight plan over, say, the Washington DC area, there will be fighters and helicopters all over him within minutes. The FAA designates temporary restricted areas around important national events, and depending on the priority of the event and the likelihood of attack a military response may be minutes away or an hour away."


When I read other words of an experience interceptor pilot, he said 15 minutes to get pilots in those planes, and starting on take-off from the ground.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Wrong? How do you figure? The person in the article is referring to post 9/11 scenarios.

I agree that fighters can be in the air within 15 minutes. If they are on alert, which means fueled, armed, and pilots waiting for scramble orders.

The F-15s at Otis were in the air six minutes after they received their scramble order.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Are you trying to confuse everyone on purpose? That is not true. I got my information from an experience interceptor pilot, who was in the air force prior to 9/11/2001, and flew interceptor planes as part his duties. What I posted as an excerpt concurs with that.

Only between the hours of 8:46 and 10:03 am was all normality suspended on 9/11/2001 - once again by the stroke of a pen.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Also from the expert you linked.


The breakdown happened because, although procedures for an attack were in place, they were oriented towards an EXTERNAL attack, i.e. Soviet bombers. Our interceptor bases are around the perimeter of the nation, and our military surveillance radars are in a similar position, aimed outward. The plans were outdated and hadn't been reviewed in years. So when an attack came from INSIDE the US, the system couldn't handle it. Understand the staggering number of aircraft that fly every single day. Throw in some panic and confusion, and you get a big mess.


Aircraft can launch in 15 minutes if they are on alert. That's exactly what the alert NORAD fighters did.

F-16s were sent up from Andrews Air Force Base after flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, they were unarmed because it took too long to arm them. They were not on alert because they're not part of NORAD.

Also, one F-16 that was preparing for a training exercise, was launched from Toledo. It did not make it into the air until 10:16, it was not on alert. No missiles, only ammo for the gun.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join