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.

 

It wasn't Flight 93 in Shanksville!!

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee


1) The only plane that was ever disputed of NOT existing was flight 93.


Disputed by whom? Truthers?

93 was tracked on radar from take off until impact.


2) After all this time an official report signed off on by the Director of the CIA states the flight number of the plane that did crash in Shanksville PA as FLIGHT 98...NOT 93.


After all what time? The link you posted is to the 2001 Annual Report. It was released in February 2002, with a TYPO in it! Get it?


It is clear that some of the OS'ers are now on the defense because of the slowly leaking hints at the truth finally being discovered by those of us who will not sit in our own pile of complacency being kept comfortably numb by the lies of those who planned and carried the deciept on 911.


LMFAO.. yeah the government that planned and executed this has now decided to start leaking "hints." Really? That's fresh!




I'll say it to you also..This is a conspiracy site and if you don't like that then go away. ....blah blah blah...


This is a site that "Denies Ignorance" .... are you living up to the slogan? Your title to this thread is a lie and against ToS here at ATS.


Allow me to add this link:

www.cia.gov...

This is from the CIA as well and has flight 93 in it.

And another:


...at the site of the Flight 93 crash in Pennsylvania ...

www.cia.gov...

[edit on 29-12-2009 by ImAPepper]




posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Disputed by whom? Truthers?

93 was tracked on radar from take off until impact.


WRONG again.

Flight 93 was confused with Delta Flight 1989 for a while due to transponder being off.

You really should do some research.


[edit on 29-12-2009 by REMISNE]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   

This is a site that "Denies Ignorance" .... are you living up to the slogan? Your title to this thread is a lie and against ToS here at ATS.


Wrong. The site is a conspiracy website, by it's own admission.

From ATS' front page...

The Above Top Secret Conspiracy Community Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

YOUR type of ignorance is what we are ignoring!



[edit on 29-12-2009 by mikelee]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

WRONG again.

Flight 93 was confused with Delta Flight 1989 for a while due to transponder being off.

You really should do some research.


Roger, in the future, please learn to do a little digging prior to making yourself look foolish.


Radar Data Study:

www.ntsb.gov...

FDR Study:

www.ntsb.gov...

ATC Study:

www.ntsb.gov...


[edit on 29-12-2009 by ImAPepper]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee


Wrong. The siteis a conspiracy website, bit it's own admission.


I didn't say it wasn't a CT site. The slogan for ATS was DENY IGNORANCE. Looks like they gave up on that?

Funny that's the only rebuttal you had.

Care to discuss the almost 8 year old document you sited as new?



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by REMISNE

WRONG again.

Flight 93 was confused with Delta Flight 1989 for a while due to transponder being off.

You really should do some research.


Roger, in the future, please learn to do a little digging prior to making yourself look foolish.


Radar Data Study:

www.ntsb.gov...

FDR Study:

www.ntsb.gov...

ATC Study:

www.ntsb.gov...


[edit on 29-12-2009 by ImAPepper]


All that dis-info is for a flight that didn't exist...Flight 93. Kinda discounts a lot of the OS now don't it?



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee

All that dis-info is for a flight that didn't exist...Flight 93. Kinda discounts a lot of the OS now don't it?


So the flight didn't exist? How come you are not addressing any of my other facts? Just gonna hand wave them away, truther?



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
The airlines don't just assign their flights gibberish numbers, but according to the travel path of the plane, and every plane travelling that flight path gets assigned the same flight number. American Ailines flight 11 was the name for whatever plane was assigned to the flight from Logan Airport in Boston to LAX in Los Angeles. After 9/11 they retired the flight number and changed it to flight 25.

In the same way, United Airlines Flight 93 was the assigned flight for whatever plane was travelling from Newark to San Francisco, which necessarily flies over Pennsylvania to get there. UA Flight 98 turns out to be the flight from Las Vegas to Denver, which is on the whole opposite end of the country. Do a search on United Airlines flight 98 and you'll see this for yourself.

Whoever typed up that web page simply typed it out wrong. Don't take take this bit as anything more serious than that, 'cause the conspriacy theorists are basing their claims entirely on way much innuendo of impropriety as it is.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The airlines don't just assign their flights gibberish numbers, but according to the travel path of the plane, and every plane travelling that flight path gets assigned the same flight number. American Ailines flight 11 was the name for whatever plane was assigned to the flight from Logan Airport in Boston to LAX in Los Angeles. After 9/11 they retired the flight number and changed it to flight 25.

In the same way, United Airlines Flight 93 was the assigned flight for whatever plane was travelling from Newark to San Francisco, which necessarily flies over Pennsylvania to get there. UA Flight 98 turns out to be the flight from Las Vegas to Denver, which is on the whole opposite end of the country. Do a search on United Airlines flight 98 and you'll see this for yourself.

Whoever typed up that web page simply typed it out wrong. Don't take take this bit as anything more serious than that, 'cause the conspriacy theorists are basing their claims entirely on way much innuendo of impropriety as it is.


They did not retire any of the 911 flight numbers. Need proof? Go to flight tracker's website and track any flight such as aa 93 or 175 etc and they still fly today.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


About that CIA typo...

mike, you indicated already you know how to use the BTS database, correct? Hope I'm not assuming too much. So, using that info, UI took the liberty of looking it up, and if I copy/paste correctly, the link should show up here:

www.bts.gov...
~~~~~~(EDIT) --- Well, THAT didn't work so well....

Here, part of the text:


Summary Statistics
Flight Number



Airline: United Airlines (UA)
Flight Number: 0098
Time Period: September 11, 2001 to September 11, 2001

On-Time Flights: LAX-PHL 0.00%




Someone else mentioned the OAG, which is good too, IF there is any data that old still available (perhaps a printed and bound copy in some library somewhere?)

Two things, right off the bat. There WAS a United Airlines flight #98 scheduled to fly on 11 September, 2001. EXCEPT it was between the citiy pair of LAX and PHL....eastbound!! AND, it was CANCELED, of course, as part of the complete air traffic shut down that day.

Here's a little trivia, if you'll indulge me.

You will notice, as you look at flight numbers for most long-haul, cross-country flights, especially those in use by major trunk airlines (the "Legacy" carriers, one of which I used to fly for), there is a distinct pattern.

Those that are primarily East-to-West (origin in the east, destination somewhere west) are ODD numbers. The opposite us usually true for the other direction.

This is a carry-over from the days of railroads. Recall where the railroads where first developed in the United States? Yup, in the east. First train scheduled out of, say...New York, bound for, say...Chicago? (Because of the time zones)...well, it might just be number '1', and logically another that leaves Chicago for someplace, like...say, New York, would then be '2'...and so on.

There is plenty of historical data to verify this "rule of thumb", and why it developed as it did. It is just a convention, a habit, an homage to older, more carefree times.

Also, look at WHICH flights the different "Legacy" carriers assign that prestigious number '1' to.

Oh, and BTW, AAL 11, AAL 77, UAL 175 and UAL 93 are no longer used. Try looking them up.


@someone else, the Delta 1989 confusion has long, long ago been explained as, well...just confusion, in the heat of emotion and chaos as the events unfolded.









[edit on 29 December 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
We'er talking about conspiracy here. On a major level. If some of you who don't wish to participate in the very context and nature of this website and thread why don't you all start your own OS website ? I view those of you who cannot in the very least, consider it plausible a stain on the pursuit of the truth regarding 911 and an obstacle to the integrity of the American spirit.

Get on board or get lost!



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by mikelee
 


Maybe because...Flight 98 did not exist back then and you are grasping at straws based on a typo? Could that possibly be the answer?

[edit on 29-12-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]


I already admitted that it COULD be a typo. BTW, there is no need for your attitude in this thread. Remember, this is a conspiracy website and I'm at home here...You however are on the outside looking in. Remember that!


Thanks for the laugh.

BTW, why does flight stats not have any current information on any of the four flights? If, as you claim, the airlines are still using the numbers?



NOW, if you screw up and use Flights 11 and 77 for United Airlines and 93 and 175 for American Airlines....THEN you find scheduled flights. D'oh!!!!!

Sept. 11 2001

UA Flights 93 and 175
AA Flights 11 and 77

Those four flight numbers are retired. Period. Does not mean that the numbers arent still in use by other airlines.


[edit on 29-12-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by mikelee
 


About that CIA typo...

mike, you indicated already you know how to use the BTS database, correct? Hope I'm not assuming too much. So, using that info, UI took the liberty of looking it up, and if I copy/paste correctly, the link should show up here:

www.bts.gov...
~~~~~~(EDIT) --- Well, THAT didn't work so well....

Here, part of the text:


Summary Statistics
Flight Number



Airline: United Airlines (UA)
Flight Number: 0098
Time Period: September 11, 2001 to September 11, 2001

On-Time Flights: LAX-PHL 0.00%




Someone else mentioned the OAG, which is good too, IF there is any data that old still available (perhaps a printed and bound copy in some library somewhere?)

Two things, right off the bat. There WAS a United Airlines flight #98 scheduled to fly on 11 September, 2001. EXCEPT it was between the citiy pair of LAX and PHL....eastbound!! AND, it was CANCELED, of course, as part of the complete air traffic shut down that day.

Here's a little trivia, if you'll indulge me.

You will notice, as you look at flight numbers for most long-haul, cross-country flights, especially those in use by major trunk airlines (the "Legacy" carriers, one of which I used to fly for), there is a distinct pattern.

Those that are primarily East-to-West (origin in the east, destination somewhere west) are ODD numbers. The opposite us usually true for the other direction.

This is a carry-over from the days of railroads. Recall where the railroads where first developed in the United States? Yup, in the east. First train scheduled out of, say...New York, bound for, say...Chicago? (Because of the time zones)...well, it might just be number '1', and logically another that leaves Chicago for someplace, like...say, New York, would then be '2'...and so on.

There is plenty of historical data to verify this "rule of thumb", and why it developed as it did. It is just a convention, a habit, an homage to older, more carefree times.

Also, look at WHICH flights the different "Legacy" carriers assign that prestigious number '1' to.

Oh, and BTW, AAL 11, AAL 77, UAL 175 and UAL 93 are no longer used. Try looking them up.


@someone else, the Delta 1989 confusion has long, long ago been explained as, well...just confusion, in the heat of emotion and chaos as the events unfolded.
[edit on 29 December 2009 by weedwhacker]


We'll look this up. It is also why the interstates run the way they do as well. Thanks!!



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
They did not retire any of the 911 flight numbers. Need proof? Go to flight tracker's website and track any flight such as aa 93 or 175 etc and they still fly today.


I did, and AA flight 25 is specifically the name listed for the flight from Logan to LAX. I do not get any results for any recent AA flight 11 from flightstats. Likewise, UA flight 98 is the flight listed from Las Vegas to Denver, and if you need proof that this flight wasn't the one that crashed at Shanksville, look at a map to see neither of those are anywhere near Pennsylvania.

If this does not suit some political agenda you have and you wish not to believe any of this, I cannot help you. The breakdown of integrity in research will not be on my part.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
My bad, it is UAL not AA. Got too many things going on here. Thanks Swampy for pointing that out.


[edit on 29-12-2009 by mikelee]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Umm, mikey.....the 9/11 flights for American Airlines were 11 and 77. Not 93 or 175. See my above post.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
Per Flight tracker 1 minute ago......


(AA) American Airlines 175
Departure Date: Tue Dec 29, 2009
Status: Flight is Currently En Route
Delayed 18 minutes
Last change to status 41 minutes ago
Arrival Estimate: Estimated Gate Arrival at 2:58 PM

See below for departure and arrival details including Flight Notes.


The four hijacked flights were United Airlines 175, United Airlines 93, American Airlines 77, and American Airlines 11. American Airlines 175 was not a flight involved in the attacks.

According to flightstats, AA175 is the flight from Dallas to Tokyo. Neither of those are remotely close to New York, DC, or Pennsylvania either.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 



Go to flight tracker's website and track any flight such as aa 93 or 175 etc and they still fly today.


I see your confusion, here.

It was AA 11, and AA 77...'93' and '175' were United flights.

Just for your challenge, I used 'flightaware' (a much better tracking site) and entered "American Airlines 11'. ONE old, archived record turned up, from 5 October, 2006. From KIWA to KBLH. (That is the Phoenix/Mesa Gateway Airport to Blythe, California). Those are NOT major airline destinations.

Also, it shows the equipment as a B-747-200. American Airlines has not operated a 747 since before 9/11. The 747s they DID have, were 747-100s, and SPs. (1970-1989, and 1986-1994, respectively).

en.wikipedia.org...

Since the airports involved were joint-use military civilian, I'd say this was some sort of charter, ONE TIME charter, possibly having something to do with the Iraq conflict...but that's just a guess. The time enroute, BTW, was 28 minutes.

It is VERY important to investigate ALL facts, even on a 'conspiracy' site. Or else, there just isn't any 'conspiracy' at all....


Oh, and hopefully, here's a sat photo of the Blythe airport....

flightaware.com...



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   



How are we to respect their intellegence when they are shown to be unintellegent themselves?


I guess the same way they expect us to respect the president even though he clearly doesn't know how to preside over his people properly! Same difference.

But I don't know about this one. It is interesting because I think we all agree, the entire remains of a jumbo jet airliner did NOT crash in Shanksville that day.
I personally believe it was shot down, hence why the debris field was 8 miles long (and it still SICKENS me that the average person doesn't know these facts! Ugh. Moving on...........)
but I also think, all (what? 200+) passengers of all four flights, were likely taken off and escorted to Cleveland. (Where they are now, who knows. Test Crash Dummies? Maybe). But my point is this; if I really feel all these passengers were taken off those flights then, did they really use the original planes that day? Why would they? Why should they?
They could've easily slipped 4 drone-like (missiles....in the case in Washington DC) in instead.

The plot always thickens and sadly............we will never know the truth. Our official 8th wonder!



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TwoPhish
 



(and it still SICKENS me that the average person doesn't know these facts! Ugh. Moving on...........)


Well, since you wish to discuss 'facts'....

Have you really tried to imagine what sort of debris field an ACTUAL shoot-down would have looked like? You may think to use the Pan Am 106 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1989 for comparison. You see, airplane shot down will SLOW down, and break up into major, large fragments that then fall at terminal velocity to earth.

UAL 93 was deliberately steered into the ground, at a tremendous speed.

Oh, and "eight mile debris field"??? Mostly very light weight items. Like, those that would be blown by winds....




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join