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.

 

Six questions about flt 93, that I have.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
For me there are still some things that concern flight 93 that still do not make sense to me.

First, we all know that 93 was late departing and therefore by the time the hijacking of 93 started the towers had both been hit and 77 was around 7 mins from his target. The hijackers, we have to assume knew that by now 11 and 175 had hit there targets and that they were seriously late. If they werent sure by the time they made it into the cockpit they had to of known from the messages that were being sent thru ACARS telling them so.
Knowing this why wouldnt the hijackers make a small adjustment to there plan and to make sure that there was no chance of a passenger revolt once they found out it was a suicide mission and prevent all the passengers from talking to each other or from using the onboard phones. This would be done fairly easy by a simple instruction and the hijacker standing watch over them. Instead were told that the hijacker that was watching the passengers stood away from them all and let them roam the back of the cabin, make calls, and formulate a attack.

Second, we all know that the passengers knew that the towers and the pentagon were hit by hijacked aircraft. Knowing this, why would they decide to do a full on frontal attack of the hijackers on a charge to the cockpit as we're told. They had to know that the hijackers would surely crash the plane. We know they planned to come back to the phones had there plan worked. So why would they not formulate a plan where as someone say the judo champ was to go by himself up to the hijacker outside the cockpit in a ruse of some question or something so that they could attempt to get into the cockpit with more of a chance and time to gain control of the cockpit before they ditched.

Thirdly, All of the other three flights cruised at a high altitude untill they were 5 to 10 miles from there target before they lowered down to 5000ft for there approach to the target. All except 93 who did this while they were still 130 some miles from there target. Why did they do this?

Fourth, Why did one of the hijackers at 945am call for the pilot to be brought back into the cockpit(per transcripts). This is 15mins since entering the cockpit and 18 from the time they crashed.

Fifth, if there really was a 911 call made from 93, why havent we been able to hear this yet? We have heard plenty of calls from the towers, why not this call from 93. Does it really have a man reporting a explosion and white smoke in the cabin?

Lastly, Why did everyone on 93 believe that there were only three hijackers and were told there were four.




posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by baffledon911
Thirdly, All of the other three flights cruised at a high altitude untill they were 5 to 10 miles from there target before they lowered down to 5000ft for there approach to the target. All except 93 who did this while they were still 130 some miles from there target. Why did they do this?


Fifth, if there really was a 911 call made from 93, why havent we been able to hear this yet? We have heard plenty of calls from the towers, why not this call from 93. Does it really have a man reporting a explosion and white smoke in the cabin?

The passenger on flight 93 figured out 9/11 in minutes and took action (something 9/11 truth has messed up for over 6 years). When they attacked the hijackers the plane started down and the terrorist flew to keep the passenger from getting them. The terrorist flew erratic, pulling high Gs and eventually rolling the plane over. The passengers probably found themselves on the ceiling and back on the floor as the terrorist flew all over. So the attack on the terrorist is why the plane was lower!

The phone call never happen. Can you find it? There is a lot of false information propagated by 9/11 truth and never corrected after shown to be in error.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


The call was a 911 call from Ed Felt. At no time during the call was there a report of an explosion.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   


Al-Haznawi and al-Ghamdi boarded the aircraft at 07:39 and sat in first class seats 6B and 3D respectively. Al-Nami boarded one minute later and sat in first class seat 3C. Jarrah boarded at 07:48 and sat in seat 1B.[19][21] The aircraft was scheduled to depart at 08:00 and pushed back from its gate A17 at 08:01.[24] It remained delayed on the ground and did not take off until 08:42 because of airport congestion


The hijacker "pilot" Jarrah sat all way forward in 1st class, closest to
cockpit in seat 1B




Al-Haznawi and al-Ghamdi boarded the aircraft at 07:39 and sat in first class seats 6B and 3D respectively. Al-Nami boarded one minute later and sat in first class seat 3C. Jarrah boarded at 07:48 and sat in seat 1B.[19][21] The aircraft was scheduled to depart at 08:00 and pushed back from its gate A17 at 08:01.[24] It remained delayed on the ground and did not take off until 08:42 because of airport congestion


Unlike the "muscle" hijackers he was only one trained to fly the plane
thus for plan to suceed can not be risked. Would wait for muscle hijackers
to subdue the pilots/passengers then would go to cockpit. Hijackers
cleared all the passengers/flight crew from 1st class and herded them
toward back of plane. Jarrah did not reveal himself until after passengers were removed from 1st class.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Yeah Ive read the commissions' report, Im well aware of there theories on what happened. You guys make sure and not let anyone here on ATS forget them either. What I notice though is that you three resident debunkers always seem to ignore the parts of any post that explores the possibility of the situation happening differently than what the OS is.

I read the reports from NIST and I havent been able to correlate the instant that the passenger revolt started with the hijackers starting there descending down to 5000ft. Is it possible the previous poster could show me how he came to that(where is the time of the descend starting shown?) I couldnt find it on the report.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by baffledon911
 

baffledon911, I'm just as baffled as you on what actually took place on Flight 93.

To me it seems the passengers learned of what was going to happen to them from the hijackers. I posted this awhile ago in another thread:

Tom Burnett says on two separate phone calls "They're talking about crashing this plane" and "They're talking about crashing this plane into the ground." Source: findarticles.com...

This was reported to the FBI by his wife Deena. "Thomas Burnett mentioned during this conversation that the hijackers were talking about flying the plane into the ground, location not specified." Source: intelfiles.egoplex.com...

And for confirmation, the Glick family reported to the FBI that Jeremy was told they were going to crash. "Jeremy advised .... that the hijackers had herded the passengers into the rear of the plane and told them that if they did not crash into the World Trade Center, that they were going to blow-up the plane." Source: intelfiles.egoplex.com...

So to me it looks like the hijackers told the passengers, and they only got confirmation that it was real from the people they were talking to on the ground. Also, with what was reported I don't understand the point of the hijackers saying on the CvR that they were going back to the airport.

As for ED Felt, the call was placed and it was recorded and it was reported he mentioned white smoke. Here's John Shaw, the guy who took the call: intelfiles.egoplex.com...

And here is the released transcript: intelfiles.egoplex.com...

And here's Glenn Cramer, the guy listening in on the call, reporting the explosion: intelfiles.egoplex.com...

What's interesting to me is the Associated Press interviewed Glenn Cramer on 9/11/2001 and he was already qouting from a transcript of the call. "Cramer quoted the man saying from a transcript of the call." Source: www.wired.com... and then he reported to the FBI about the explosion on 9/12/2001 (why did it take a week to transcribe is another question).

So if Glenn Cramer was actually quoting from a transcript on 9/11/2001 and there was no report of an explosion, why would he then report such a thing to the FBI on the next day? Did he knowingly make false statements to the FBI? That's why I'm questioning the FBI's released transcript.

I have more questions I could write about....but I definitely don't have any answers.




top topics
 
1

log in

join