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.

 

Cleveland Smoking Gun Proves “Arab Hijacker” Calls From United Airlines Flight 93 Were Faked

page: 7
27
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


The woman who 'appeared' on the freq could have been a supervisor in the Center. OR, she may have been working another sector, either adjacent to the one UAL93 went NORDO in, or below.

Just to clarify, in US Airspace, every ARTCC is divided into sectors, and further divided in to Low and High....the separation altitude is FL230 (23,000 feet). On a typical flight, when handed off from TRACON to Center, you will be cleared to 'Climb and maintain Flight Level 230'....that is the upper limit of THAT controller's responsibility and authority. The controller then communicates, either with the person sitting right next to him/her, or via the headset that they are wearing, to 'hand-off' to the next controller, assuming your flight plan calls for a higher final cruise altitude.

Generally, you are 'handed-off' to a new frequency, and now you're talking to a controller who has authority to clear you to a higher altitude.

There are times when the 'hand-off' is delayed....someone is busy, there is traffic in the way, and you end up leveling off at FL230 for a few minutes. Let's just say, the first twenty minutes and last twenty minutes of a commercial airline flight are the busiest times. At cruise altitudes it is decidedly less intense.




posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Why would she ask is there was a smoke puff cloud anywhere?

The witness in the exec did not confirm the fligt 93 went down. Smoke puff cloud is not how another pilot would describe a plane crash.

See the other threads about the wargames that were taking place in Shanksville area on 911.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


You obviously do not understand, Ivan. A controller asked an airplane in the vicinity, the 'Exec Jet', which is known to be the call sign for a commuter airline, under contract to American Airlines....these jets tend to fly at lower altitudes than real commercial jets....because she, the controller, knew the altitude of the 'Exec Jet', call sign she was talking to.

How difficult is this for you to wrap your brain around???

Let me ask you this, Ivan. Say you have a VHF scanner, and can listen to the ATC VHF frequencies....I'm about to fly on a British Airways flight from IAD to LHR in a few days....do you KNOW what call sign British Airways flights use???? No???? Didn't think so.

Any idea what America West used to use, as an ATC call sign, before their merger whith USAir??? Well, when America West first started, they used 'america west' as a call sign. Didn't take long before too many radio calls for 'america west' were accidentally taken by an American flight, of a similar number(or vice versa) so America West had to change their ATC call sign to 'Cactus'.

OK, still with me??? then, tell me what the British Airways ATC callsign is....first correct answer wins!!!!



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



OK, still with me??? then, tell me what the British Airways ATC callsign is....first correct answer wins!!!!


Pick me! Pick me! Speed bird.

Do I win a cookie?

I must be honest, I cheated... I used Google. I hear the Cactus call sign on my scanner occasionally, but I do not recall ever seeing the Cactus livery plastered across the side of an airplane before. Thanks for that info. I'll have to check out the Wikipedia call sign page for some more fun facts!



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Yup!! Boone, you win....thanks for breaking the fourth wall!!!

Kidding....yes, 'speedbird' is the call sign for British Airways. It is an old callsign, steeped in tradition, just as their tea is......

we used to joke, calling them 'speedbuzzard' behind their back (apologies....)



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 09:20 AM
link   
So what your saying iis that the Arab sounding call from the cockpit was most likely planted to sell the story that their was a hijaked airliner.


The original post proved that the flight 93 did not come from fligh 93 and that it possibly came from another plane or it could of been part of the wargame exercises taking place over Shanksville simulating a cruise missile attack and multiple live-fly hijacked aircraft.

This would explain all the eyewitnesses seeing small white jets , cruise missile, fighter jet etc over Shanksville seconds after the explosion in the Shanksville field.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Darn it, doggone it!!!! My roommate's computer sucks!!!! This is my THIRD attempt....just when I finish writing, I hit something, and the whole post disappears!!! Arrrghh!

Let's see....where was I? Oh....VHF Spectrum....Aviation has only the 108.0MHz to the 135.9 MHz.

That's why you can't use an FM radio onboard....

108.0 to 120.0 MHz is devoted to Navigational Aids....(NAVAIDS)

VORs, Localizers....(hint)....a VOR will always have a decimal that is even, a Localizer will always be odd....try knowing THAT from Wiki!!! Heh, Heh...

Back to the story....Comm frequencies begin at about 121MHz, and those are designated for Ground Control. 121.7 is most common, but when major Airports are in close proximity, then they have to adapt. Even a very large Airport, like LAX, uses two Ground Control freqs....one for the 'North Complex', and one for the 'South Complex'.

Anyway, point is, the Cleveland ARTCC tapes could NOT have been faked. Too many people, who worked at the facility that day, would have known. Or, they would have come forward by now.

See....When you take off, you (the airplane) are 'handed off' to the TRACON. The TRACON has responsibility for the Terminal area up to about 10,000 feet. (Depends). THEN you are 'handed -off' to the Center (ARTCC). The 'Center' has various jurisdictions, for want of a better term...areas of responsiblities might explain it.

The real term is 'sector'. Each Air Traffic Controller is responsible for his/her sector. Each sector is defined, not only by geography, but by altitude. In the contigous US, the 'lower 48', there is an altitude of FL230 (23,000) that separates the Low from the High Sectors...the High Sectors are larger, since the Airway System is not as complex as it is in the Low sectors....sorry, I'm getting too technical....

Just know this, from an airline pilot's standpoint. Every take-off, and landing is when most attention is required. The take-off sequence begins, from just before push-back to about 18,000 feet in the climb. During any operation below 18,000 feet, we are VERY busy. Climb up to altitude, very busy, about 20 to 25 minutes. Descent, from altitude, even busier....about 30 to 35 minutes.

Time spent at cruise?......Priceless!!!



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


No Ivan, just you and the clown from the blog you linked.

The author-

This site is my tool to oppose the people and organisations who are anti-God, i.e anti- TRUTH, LOVE, and FREEDOM. If we are to live under God's Laws, the perfect Sociological system then we must oppose them. God's Laws are the ONLY Laws legal on this planet.


It seems that the author also dabbles in other conspiracy nonsense like illuminati, skull and bones, New World Order among other things such as ''Jewry'' and homosexual conspiracies. Scratch a truther find a bigot?

Anyway, let's look at the article a little closer.

He makes two big errors right off the bat. Flight 11 hit the World Trade Center not flight 77. It wasn't Mohamed Atta's passport.

He dismisses the possibility of the radio transmission coming from flight 93 because there were no ''radio direction finding logs'', but wants us to believe his opinion that the radio transmissions were 5/1 without providing his own ''logs''.

He ignores the possibility that all of the recorded transmissions heard from flight 93, prior to the hijackings, could have came from one radio and the transmission made by the terrorist could have come from the other radio or the handheld set.

His theory that the hijackers/NWO broadcast the fake message over the guard frequency has no basis in reality because aircraft that were not on Cleveland's frequency did not report hearing the calls.

Then the author gets into the odds games because none of the recorded transmissions were stepped on. The recordings we hear have been edited for brevity. How can he possibly know that no one was stepped on?

From the post you linked-

Idiot George will go on aimlessly mumbling “We’re gonna bring ‘em to justice”, and Tricky Dickey will continue asking his real bosses in Tel Aviv for new orders.


Is it natural for you to gravitate towards anti-Israeli tripe or do you guys have some kind of social networking set up?



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Here's the thing...damn, I get a phone call, it interrupts my train of thought,



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Here's the second thing....Boone, you have it well in hand already....I could go on again about the ARTCC sectors, and the various altitudes...but I've done that already. ULTIMA must step up to the plate and try to prove tghe point, as alleged. I have already provided a lot of info, just research it......



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 




It is a known fact that Atta and Ziad Jarrah stated...

"we have some bombs" and it was heard by air controllers. If you have not, please take the time to read the 9/11 Commission. After that, go to prisonplanet.com and read the other side. once that is done, make up your own mind but remember,

There is still no NWO, There is stil no martial law and the US government did not gain anything from the 9/11 attacks. Senator Liberman recently made a good point that the first WTC came in the first year of Clintons presidency and 9/11 was in the first year of Bush's. It is a test of the resolve of the president.

There has never, ever been a solid piece of evidence that supports explosives at the WTC or missles at the Pentagon.

This is not a smoking gun but more of another attempt to try to keep the public from looking into Flight 93, that was shot down. It is the same old look over here not there trick that governments and circus perfprmers have used for years.

This explains it all folks....

link to article
[edit on 3-7-2008 by esdad71]


I'm getting kind of angry about the picking and choosing of some lose bits of "truther" arguments, and then collecting them together and saying; "there is NOTHING there." This is like someone trying to prove that Humans evolved from goats, and pointing to some critics use of "but we have different fur" as evidence that ALL critiques of the goat-human theory are bogus.

The government's "THEORIES' should fit in some sense and not look like el Chupacabre. The onus is on them.

There is no martial law -- perhaps because we have been talking about this. But WE cannot know nor control the plans of the people who staged this false flag.

When I looked at the rate of the building's collapse -- I realized it was a demolition. You cannot pancake one level into another and have it fall that quickly. 10 stories that was falling in mid-air cannot turn to dust. Later examinations looked at what had to be molten steel, gushing out, and firemen accounts also note molten steel weeks later. Molten steel does not have the same color as molten aluminum. Then I looked at verified photos of steel girders with diagonal cuts -- not possible in a fall, steel bends or breaks, but you don't get cuts that look like a welding arc or shaped charge. Now it might have been that some crew during the demolition cut some long girders -- but hey, there is a big problem with the crime scene, and the fact that they rushed this stuff away to be recycled in China when New Jersey was offering more money, kind of supports a cover - up.

And Ivan's post here today, might explain why the FAA security tapes were destroyed;
www.washingtonpost.com...

There is just too much coincidence and everything to support any Government assertion (and the Bush is silent in that phrase). This is just another "doesn't fit" point in an ocean of things that don't fit. We get passports from hijackers not on flight manifests. We have credit cards that could be tracked but the Bush administration blocks the FBI from doing so. Can we get the flight manifest and SEE who wasn't accounted for on that plane? About 6 of the alleged hijackers have shown up alive and well -- my guess is that the "suspect" list was just pulled from Arab-sounding names of people who had trained to fly in the US. But note, also, that #1 man and two others trained at a air strip in Florida that was a CIA air drop (things come in that don't go through customs, and the guy running the place turned out to be CIA -- the guy interviewed the very next day).



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I want to know whether or not Marvin Bush owned the security company that got the contract to run WTC security that year. That would really give a demolition team access. And curiously, "Controlled Demolitions" --- I remember reading that they did the investigation into whether it was a demolition -- not the FBI.

But I agree with this poster, that Flight 93 was probably shot down. Either by accident, and THAT is what people are innocently covering up, or BECAUSE passengers took control of the plane. The person flying the F-16, doesn't have to be told the truth.

I think large operations like this work, because they've involved a lot of innocent, well-meaning people. You give someone a cover story "for the sake of the country" get them involved and make them think it is one thing and then that prevents them from talking later --- even if they find they were involved in something worse. Fear and the willingness to fool oneself help with the rest. 5 similar war games were going on that day, confusing NORAD. Seems England had the same thing happen where terrorist struck at exactly the places they were using to run the simulation of an attack on their subway system. What a coincidence!

Now, there could have been 3 or 4 simulations running that day on 9/11 -- and I hope that some anti-truthers out there, can give me a little latitude on some typos as well. I don't know all the facts, it isn't my job to know every detail -- but they spent less money investigating this than they spent trying to get dirt on Clinton, so I think there is a necessity to have an open and forthcoming investigation -- which is basically impossible at this point.

I look at the people of BushCo, their fascist tendencies, their conviction in their own infallibility and their divine right to rule, and the numerous examples of them being clever in the art of steeling, on profiting from a huge tolerance for atrocity, and I have to think that THEY certainly wouldn't have a problem with 9/11, it certainly has been their one free ticket to shred the Constitution, get us into unjustified wars, spend all our money, and ignore the rule of law.

Means, Motive, Opportunity and definitely a group that fits the profile.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


Ummm....yeah....Vitriol....but then, based on your post, please explain the CVR and DFDR that both are SPECIFIC to UAL93.

ALSO, please explain the DNA evidence....from the passengers andcrew of UAL93.

Please make sure you focus on facts, and not conjecture.....



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


That was an informative post. Thanks for those details about the inner workings of radio transmissions at airports.

I've heard a lot of theories on the phone calls from passengers on 9/11 as well -- and I've concluded that "it depends."

Sometimes, you cannot make a call, because you are moving between cell phone towers too quickly. Other times -- well, my brother called his wife on a cell phone in a small leer jet in a storm he thought would take his life. Talked a few minutes. So, apparently, sometimes the cell phone tower can hold your signal -- probably have more range in the sky than the ground. Only real-world, practical tests can prove these things.

The real problem with conspiracy theories is that we don't have a transparent and honest government that is NECESSARY in order to have a Democracy. To fill this gap of mistrust, we add our own speculation. The Bush administration should be impeached in their entirety, for their botched leadership, incompetence and secrecy -- because THOSE are the only excuses that explain events and doesn't require their involvement in a false flag.

>> If the government had more credible people to respond with information, like the poster above, well, there would be fewer "theories." I definitely would like to have a sound understanding of that event based upon facts -- I don't enjoy indulging in paranoia. But GOOD solid thinking and facts, is so rare.

The emergency broadcast probably wasn't faked. But it would have been nice if someone at the FAA hadn't destroyed certain recordings of the event so that we could actually KNOW something. It would have been nice if the black boxes EXISTED in their entirety, rather than show up years later with parts missing. Transparency might help a bit.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


Ummm....yeah....Vitriol....but then, based on your post, please explain the CVR and DFDR that both are SPECIFIC to UAL93.

ALSO, please explain the DNA evidence....from the passengers andcrew of UAL93.

Please make sure you focus on facts, and not conjecture.....


>> I don't know what the CVR and DFDR evidence is you are referring to. I just figured that based upon a black box missing that LAST part of its recording, the claim of a direct impact with the ground and yet spread out debris field, that it might have been a shoot down. You seem better versed in aviation than I am. I've just read some "main stream" theory that it broke up in mid-air when passengers tried to take control. I don't think these planes are so fragile a person could do that without sending it into an extreme nose-dive first.

This was the flight where some passengers took back control, right? I think that 98% of the population can keep an aircraft flying straight.

The DNA evidence? I'm sure they have DNA and that there were passengers on those planes. I don't know how they can have DNA of alleged hijackers -- but that is what we need. It's just been hard for me to understand the hijackers not being on the flight manifests. If they assumed some other names -- then why did we not get some report tracing back who were the known passengers on the manifest against the unknown?



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


Vitriol....here's how it works, regarding Cell Towers. You cellphone will work, but only when the airplane is below a certain altitude. Even in the year 2000, the cell towers were designed for 'coverage'....seen that term before????

Why would any celltower wish to direct it transmissions upward?? Never.

Look....your cellphone works, before takeoff, and after landing....right???

Even on 9/11, at a low altitude, cells would work. BUT, there were TWO cellphone calls from UAL93 on 9/11. Most of the calls were from the AirPhones. Getting it yet???



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 

And Ivan's post here today, might explain why the FAA security tapes were destroyed;
www.washingtonpost.com...


A couple of quick points regarding the destroyed tape:

1. The actual ATC recordings were not destroyed. The tape referenced in the article you linked to was a recording of the controllers accounts after the incident happened.

2. The controllers in the article were from New York ARTCC, the controllers in the OP are from Cleveland ARTCC.

Here is a link to a map of the different ARTCC's across the country.www.milaircomms.com...



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngstThe real problem with conspiracy theories is that we don't have a transparent and honest government that is NECESSARY in order to have a Democracy


The real problem with conspiracy theories is that due to the internet just about any loonie can voice their paranoid rambelings out to a rather large amount of people.

That doesn't mean that that most people are taking you seriously.




posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


Vitriol....here's how it works, regarding Cell Towers. You cellphone will work, but only when the airplane is below a certain altitude. Even in the year 2000, the cell towers were designed for 'coverage'....seen that term before????

Why would any celltower wish to direct it transmissions upward?? Never.

Look....your cellphone works, before takeoff, and after landing....right???

Even on 9/11, at a low altitude, cells would work. BUT, there were TWO cellphone calls from UAL93 on 9/11. Most of the calls were from the AirPhones. Getting it yet???


>> I just want to say, up front; I doubt very seriously, that this one instance of observation of a audio transcript is any sort of definitive proof. I start from the WTC being a demolition -- which no theory on burning kerosene has yet explained, and yes, I've read them -- and wonder at the rest.

"Why would any celltower wish to direct it transmissions upward?? Never."
>> Right. I understand what you are saying. But I'm TELLING YOU, that my brother was being tossed around in a storm cloud -- probably climbing above 15,000 feet, over some mountain range, and spent about 10 minutes leaving a "last goodbye" to his wife 6 years ago. So, yes, in most cases and I'm sure in the city, these cell towers are designed to look down and ignore up. Maybe they don't bother in mountainous regions.

The point I'm making -- is that no matter how expert someone can be, they can have some educated estimates, but things have to be tested to KNOW FOR CERTAIN.

I remember having a debate with a Physics professor about relativity, and he was absolutely, 100% wrong. He claimed that light in one direction, colliding with light from the opposite direction would impact at twice the speed of light. Now, in Newtonian physics, he probably would be right most of the time -- but this confidence made him look stupid in other areas. That is a trap of being too much of an expert. Rational deductions need to 'spot check' claims. And absolutes should be avoided. I certainly respect the opinion of one authority vs. the claims of a thousand fools -- but I would also say that practical experience can also help common wisdom trump Expert opinion.

That is the inherent problem with the Truther vs. the group that believes our Corrupt-Government's-Coincidence-Theory. There is no good crime scene information to view that wasn't presented piece meal and covered in sticky fingerprints, recorded on a pin-hole camera and strained through some dirty shorts, from an anonymous FBI briefcase locked in Al Capone's tomb. You say that NO CELL PHONE TOWERS LOOK UP, and yet, people have called from air planes before.

One issue like that isn't remarkable. It's when 3 of the only steel buildings fall, while one of the buildings has evidence of $72 billion on Federal Note fraud on the Bush admin, investigations of ENRON, billions of dollars in gold bullion and that isn't mentioned. It's when a kid in a hijacked plane calls and says; "You believe it's me mom, don't you?" It's when the President lets the family of the #1 suspect be the only people to fly in a plane in the country the next day without questions. Then multiply by 1,000.

>> In this regard, you might THINK it is impossible to fake an airplane transmission. But if you have a BushCo flunky at NORAD -- what could you do then? What you can help us with the, is any anomalies and what is standard practice. It sounds like you know for certain what FAA guidelines are, and that helps weed out the BS. But as in other fields that I have a smattering of knowledge in, there are a lot of Experts who can get fooled on what is and isn't possible, because they didn't think outside the box.

If YOU wanted to fake a transmission, what would you do? That might be the more interesting question here



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 

And Ivan's post here today, might explain why the FAA security tapes were destroyed;
www.washingtonpost.com...


A couple of quick points regarding the destroyed tape:

1. The actual ATC recordings were not destroyed. The tape referenced in the article you linked to was a recording of the controllers accounts after the incident happened.

2. The controllers in the article were from New York ARTCC, the controllers in the OP are from Cleveland ARTCC.

Here is a link to a map of the different ARTCC's across the country.www.milaircomms.com...


Thanks.

It's a full time job tracking this stuff.

I think we should throw them all in jail -- just in case. And start over.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join