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: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Roger... Was 93 tracked on Radar from take off until impact? YES OR NO.


93 was tracked but then it was confused for a while on radar with 1989 when they crossed paths.

So technically it ws not tracked from take off untill impact.


*sighs*

This is why I ignore your posts for the most part.

DID YOU READ THE REPORTS I POSTED??? FLIGHT 93 WAS TRACKED ON RADAR FOR IT'S ENTIRE FLIGHT.

Here is the time line of flight 1989 from the 911 report:

* before 9:19 AM – Delta Flight 1989 departed from Boston Logan International Airport bound for Los Angeles, CA;
* 9:19 AM – FAA New England regional office contacted the Herndon Command Center about their suspicion that Delta 1989 was a potential hijack target and asked Herndon to relay a request that Cleveland Center notify Delta 1989 to increase cockpit security. Herndon then ordered controllers to send a cockpit warning to Delta 1989;
* 9:28 AM – A Cleveland controller thought he heard "Get out of here" and "We have a bomb on board" coming from Delta 1989. The Delta pilot denied any cockpit intrusion and stated that everyone on board was fine. It was later confirmed that that mysterious transmission had come from United Flight 93 which was in the same vicinity as 1989;
* 9:41 AM – NORAD Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) became aware of Delta 1989 right after the crash of American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon when Boston Center called NEADS and told NEADS of their suspicion regarding Delta 1989.;
* 9:42 AM – FAA ordered all aircraft in flight to land at the nearest airport;
* 9:47 AM – Delta 1989 landed safely in Cleveland, Ohio.




posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
DID YOU READ THE REPORTS I POSTED??? FLIGHT 93 WAS TRACKED ON RADAR FOR IT'S ENTIRE FLIGHT.


Did you read the reports from NEADS, NORAD, and the 9/11 commission that 93 was confused for a while with 1989?



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Roger, flight 93 was tracked at all times. There was not any confusion as to which plane was which. The confusion was the hijacking status.

Here is some great reading to further confuse you:

www.enquirer.com...

transcripts.cnn.com...

www.usatoday.com...

www.vanityfair.com...



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Roger, flight 93 was tracked at all times. There was not any confusion as to which plane was which.


So your stating that anyone else is lying?

256.com...
the Delta flight 1989 she was on was initially thought to be flight 93 since they were very close in the sky at the time that 93 was hijacked.


pilotsfor911truth.org...
Most of the confusion around flight 93 and 1989 was due to the fact that the hijackers on 93 had disabled the transponder that gives air-traffic control the plane's number and altitude (possibly more information). Without this information they were a blip on a 2 dimensional screen. 93 supposedly came within a couple of miles of 1989 before turning and heading for DC which confused ATC.



[edit on 30-12-2009 by REMISNE]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
It isn't a typo...ITS THE TRUTH SOMEBODY FORGOT TO COVER UP as they did the rest of the 911 fairy tale!!


Flight UA98 is the flight from Las Vegas to Denver, both of which are at least a thousand miles from Shanksville. If you're so much in love with the idea that it really was flight 98 that crashed in PA, then you'll necessarily have to prove that a flight UA 98 was scheduled at the same time/date as flight 93 and that it never arrived in Denver. PLUS, you have to show why the people who got off at Denver really aren't the people who got on at Las Vegas. Can you?

It was a typo, dude. Don't read anything more into it than that, 'cause these conspriacy stories of controlled demolitions, secret international plots, and hordes of gov't agents planted throughout all walks of life are getting pretty hard core convoluted enough as it is.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE


So your stating that anyone else is lying?





O'BRIEN: Meanwhile, United Flight 93 appeared on radar screens here. The first call from the pilot, routine. Controllers remember him sounding cheerful. Then at 9:32, they heard the first of four troubling radio transmissions.

KETELL: The first transmission that sounded like struggle in the cockpit. It was pretty clear. And then we had a second transmission, also, that was a struggle in the cockpit, and you could hear the pilots -- what appeared to be the pilots yelling, "get out, get out." And a lot of other noise that appeared to be a struggle.

O'BRIEN: At first, they suspected it was Delta 1989, and their fears grew when it asked to land in Cleveland. As it turns out, the crew was ordered to land by the airline.
Before controllers could check, though, their radar screens pointed them in a different direction. It was United 93 that had abruptly descended and then climbed to 41,000 feet without approval.


transcripts.cnn.com...



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper

O'BRIEN: Meanwhile, United Flight 93 appeared on radar screens here. The first call from the pilot, routine. Controllers remember him sounding cheerful. Then at 9:32, they heard the first of four troubling radio transmissions.

KETELL: The first transmission that sounded like struggle in the cockpit. It was pretty clear. And then we had a second transmission, also, that was a struggle in the cockpit, and you could hear the pilots -- what appeared to be the pilots yelling, "get out, get out." And a lot of other noise that appeared to be a struggle.

O'BRIEN: At first, they suspected it was Delta 1989, and their fears grew when it asked to land in Cleveland. As it turns out, the crew was ordered to land by the airline.
Before controllers could check, though, their radar screens pointed them in a different direction. It was United 93 that had abruptly descended and then climbed to 41,000 feet without approval.


transcripts.cnn.com...

256.com...
the Delta flight 1989 she was on was initially thought to be flight 93 since they were very close in the sky at the time that 93 was hijacked.

www.oredigger61.org...
Delta 1989 became confused and conflated with United 93 in real time.



pilotsfor911truth.org...
Most of the confusion around flight 93 and 1989 was due to the fact that the hijackers on 93 had disabled the transponder that gives air-traffic control the plane's number and altitude (possibly more information). Without this information they were a blip on a 2 dimensional screen. 93 supposedly came within a couple of miles of 1989 before turning and heading for DC which confused ATC.


[edit on 30-12-2009 by REMISNE]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 



It isn't a typo...ITS THE TRUTH SOMEBODY FORGOT TO COVER UP as they did the rest of the 911 fairy tale!!


mike...I thought we covered this. Remember, you were at work, and distracted??? It is a typo!

OK, again, on 11 September, 2001 there WAS a United Airlines flight designated as '98' sceheduled to operate from Los Angeles, California (KLAX) to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (KPHL).

Here: (from BTS)

ALL FLIGHTS (I ran date range 6 September to 11 September, 2001)

Flight Number --- 0098
Carriers --- UA
Origin Airport --- LAX
Dest Airport --- PHL
All Flights --- 6
Total Number --- 6
Average Departure Delay (minutes) --- -1.40
Average Taxi-Out Time (minutes) --- 14.80
Average Scheduled Departure to Take-off (minutes) --- 13.40
Average Arrival Delay (minutes) --- 3.80
Average Airborne Time (minutes) --- 282.20
Average Taxi-In Time (minutes) --- 7.20
Total Number Cancelled --- 1 (!
!)
Percent Flights Cancelled --- 16.67
Total Number Diverted --- 0
Percent Flights Diverted --- 0.00

OK, straight from the horse's mouth. A UNITED AIRLINES flight number 98 was routinely operated between LAX and PHL UNTIL morning of 11 September. Guess which one of those flights was 'cancelled'???

[@ 'GoodOleDave ) : Any UAL flights 98 operating today from Las Vegas to somewhere east are just a different number for a different city pair route. Happens ALL the time, in the airline business. For various reasons, airline marketing departments constantly tinker with number and scheduling times.


OK, more from BTS. Detailed departure data for UA 98, from Los Angeles, on 10 September, 2001:

Carrier Code - UA
Date - 09/10/2001
Flight Number - 0098
Tail Number - N836UA
Destination -
Sched. Departure Time - PHL 22:20
Actual Departure Time - 22:22

SEE it now?

The United Airlines segment that operated LAX-PHL, scheduled as 'UA 98' left LAX at (drumroll please) 10:20 PM. Does everyone understand WHY it now shows as having been CANCELLED on 11 September?



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


And, just to clear up misconceptions laypeople (non-aviation) have about flight numbers, callsigns for ATC, etc...


The aircraft that services that particular flight schedule or route is for all intents & purposes named flight ## until the flight is over.


Well, mostly correct. Except for where you said "route". Each flight will have a different flight number, for the different departure/arrival times on a particular route.

Now, a misconception to straighten out:


Otherwise the control tower would not communicate with the aircraft using the flight number and would rather communicate using the plane's serial number, or manufacturer number.


No, that is way off.

It depends on under what Part FAR section (eg, 91/121/135) the airplane is being operated.

(91 for private flights, non-commercial, 121 for larger air carriers, 135 for "air taxi" --- like sightseeing flights, some commuter operations. The change-over from 135/121 is determine by airplane size).

For part 91, we use the airplane's "N-Number" (not "serial number"). BTW, for Boeings at least, the S/N is the 'manufacturer number'...it identifies the airframe as it's on the assembly line.

Now, rest assured that even a LARGE passenger jet, when it is operated Part 91, will simply be identified by its N-Number...say, for instance, when John Travolta fires up his vintage B-707:

(If he still has it...pesky expensive, that would be to maintain and operate. But, 'Big Boys' and their 'toys', eh??)



SO, in summary, for ATC communications, and flight plan filing and tracking: Part 91, N-number.

Flights operated for hire: Designated a 'flight number', by the operator. Purely the choice of the company that is operating the flight.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Nutter, you and Mikelee have been proven wrong countless times on this thread alone.


Let's see. I've only posted 3 posts in this thread.

1. Showing how "unintellegent" the CIA can be for having a typo. And yes, I intentionally spelled it that way...hence the quotes. Which you then made a comment on my spelling to do what exactly I have no idea?

2. Called your honesty into question for having multiple accounts here. Of which I have no idea why you are allowed here after being banned over 4 times already.

3. Called into question your post about flight 93 being tracked the whole time. Which is a lie. Or they wouldn't have been mistaking it with other flights landing in Cleveland etc.

Show me where I have been proven wrong countless times in this thread alone or admit that you are either grandizing or completely lying.

[edit on 30-12-2009 by Nutter]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Nutter, you and Mikelee have been proven wrong countless times on this thread alone.


Let's see. I've only posted 3 posts in this thread.

1. Showing how "unintellegent" the CIA can be for having a typo. And yes, I intentionally spelled it that way...hence the quotes. Which you then made a comment on my spelling to do what exactly I have no idea?

2. Called your honesty into question for having multiple accounts here. Of which I have no idea why you are allowed here after being banned over 4 times already.

3. Called into question your post about flight 93 being tracked the whole time. Which is a lie. Or they wouldn't have been mistaking it with other flights landing in Cleveland etc.

Show me where I have been proven wrong countless times in this thread alone or admit that you are either grandizing or completely lying.


Together you have been wrong several times. You alone, made accusations, failed to answer questions, and stated something I posted was a lie.

Flight 93 was tracked on radar the entire flight. This is not a lie as has been proven over and over and over. Read the articles I posted for Roger above. It explains the confusion.

Yes, there was confusion. This does not mean that flight 93 was not tracked on radar.

Now, if you would like to further discuss the typo made on the CIA website, please continue!



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Flight 93 was tracked on radar the entire flight. This is not a lie as has been proven over and over and over. Read the articles I posted for Roger above. It explains the confusion.


Flight 93 was confused on radar for Flight 1989 as confirmed by several agencies.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
We are speaking about commercial airlines flight here not private airliners. Nor historic antiques with unique callsigns.

The CIA document refers to flight 98 NOT flight 93. Typo? I think not. Flight "93" is the only flight that has been disputed to not have existed. Now it turns out to be reffered to as flight 98 in another agency doc. Coincidence? Only if you think swine can fly.

For there to be another flight 98 or even supposed to have been a flight 98 on 911, then to have the flight 93 disputed at all only to have an agency doc turn up to reference the disputed flight 93 as flight 98 is not astronomical coincidence but really flys in the face of the OS.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE


Flight 93 was confused on radar for Flight 1989 as confirmed by several agencies.



What agencies confirmed this.



NEADS never lost track of Delta 1989, and even ordered fighter aircraft from Ohio and Michigan to intercept it. The flight never turned off its transponder. NEADS soon learned that the aircraft was not hijacked, and tracked Delta 1989 as it reversed course over Toledo, headed east, and landed in Cleveland.

911 Report

If NEADS never lost track of Delta 1989, then how could they have confused it with flight 93?



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
We are speaking about commercial airlines flight here not private airliners. Nor historic antiques with unique callsigns.

The CIA document refers to flight 98 NOT flight 93. Typo? I think not. Flight "93" is the only flight that has been disputed to not have existed. Now it turns out to be reffered to as flight 98 in another agency doc. Coincidence? Only if you think swine can fly.

For there to be another flight 98 or even supposed to have been a flight 98 on 911, then to have the flight 93 disputed at all only to have an agency doc turn up to reference the disputed flight 93 as flight 98 is not astronomical coincidence but really flys in the face of the OS.


You claimed prior that you are stating an opinion. Well, what facts do you have to come up with this absurd opinion?

Are you claiming that flight 93 did not exist, Mikelee? Really?

Well you will need to dispute the following facts:

1) The four hijackers purchased tickets under their own names and boarded the plane. One was randomly selected for and passed additional security screening. Ziad Jarrah was a licensed pilot and had recent training on professional large jet flight simulators. United flight 93 was scheduled to depart at 8:00 am, but left 42 minutes late due to airport traffic. Aboard were 33 passengers, 7 crew members, and 4 hijackers.

2) Several passengers and crew called from the plane, spoke with loved ones, described the hijackers' attack, and related their plan to try to retake the plane so that it would not be used as a suicide weapon against a populated area. All but two of these calls were made using the plane's seat back Airfones.

3) The cockpit voice recorder recorded the hijackers' attack and apparent murder of the pilots and a flight attendant. Air traffic controllers heard a radio transmission by a man with an Arabic accent, warning of a bomb on board. Passengers reported that one of the hijackers had what appeared to be a bomb strapped to him.

4) After learning about the other attacks, passengers and cabin crew attempted to retake the cockpit but were apparently unable to gain entry. The sound of their attempts was recorded on the CVR. The CVR also recorded the hijackers' decision to end the flight, followed by repeated shouts of "Allahu Akbar!" ("God is greatest.") until the plane crashed. Families of victims heard the CVR recording.

5) Flight 93 was tracked by radar until it went down.

6) Many people in Pennsylvania saw the Boeing 757, traveling at low altitude and high speed, roll to the right and plummet upside-down, nose first, towards the ground. Many people witnessed the subsequent enormous explosion and fireball. Val McClatchey photographed the mushroom cloud.

7) Hundreds of first responders (mostly volunteer firefighters) and crime scene investigators were quickly on the scene. They saw human remains, aircraft wreckage, personal effects, jet fuel, etc.
The cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder were recovered and had usable data, all of which is consistent with the other evidence.

8) The remains of every victim was positively identified. Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller personally collected many remains and made 12 identifications through fingerprints and dental records. Personal effects of most passengers and crew were recovered and returned to their families.

9) Hijacker identification documents and personal effects were recovered, along with the remains of four people identified as the hijackers through the process of elimination.

10) Nearly all of the aircraft was recovered by professional investigators and by civilians. The debris was returned to United Airlines after being examined for evidence of explosives use.

Now, Mike, run along. You have some homework to do.

Now, start stating



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ImAPepper
 


Oh I see. Its from the 911 report. Well darn then, the OS is true



[edit on 30-12-2009 by mikelee]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee

Oh I see. Its from the 911 report. Well darn then, the OS is true





Did you bother to read the OTHER sources I posted? No? I didn't think so.

Unless it's on youtube or truth sites...it's gotta be the NWO controlled media.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ImAPepper
 



Believe it or not, yes I did. You know regardless of the postings here and all of the rhetoric on both sides, I do respect your opinion. Thats the truth. However, I just cannot understand why you as well as others who believe the official explanation for 911 cannot see that all does not add up.

I readily admit there are parts to both sides that are way out of alignment of not only truthfulness but more importantly, a reasonable explanation for the given events. For me I believe that two planes hit the WTC towers. I do not however fully believe that those two planes caused them as well as #7 to collaspe. Am I an engineer? Or a pilot? Nope, never pretended to be either. But there some things that does not require one to have a title or training in a field to understand what happened or, did not. There are too many lies that have been confirmed and documented to just go ahead and fall into the the OS black hole.

This was how Oklahoma City has now become a faded memory that also demands the same scruitny as 911...But thats another topic.

And just FYI, I seldom visit "truth" sites as many in my opinion have less than the truth posted. I try to get my info from validated sources that consist of personal friends & collegues who work in government, agency sites, verified sources etc. There parts of the OS I do believe but for the most part it just don't explain a lot considering all that the 911 commission refused to listen to or consider. That to me, is a cover up or at the least an ignorant attitude towards attaining the truth of what happened.






[edit on 30-12-2009 by mikelee]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


mike, let it go. It was a typo.


The CIA document refers to flight 98 NOT flight 93. Typo? I think not.


Yes. Typo.



Flight "93" is the only flight that has been disputed to not have existed.


Firstly, it seems only the various and sundry conspiracy websites that EVER make that claim, and secondly, THEY also make similar claims regarding some other flights from that day, and thirdly...care to provide backup sourcing for your comment???

Because, with proper research, and not misunderstanding how to read the data, the existence of United Airlines flight 93 CAN be confirmed, very easily.


...oh, and what part of my post regarding how aircraft communicate with ATC did you not understand? Just because I used John Travolta's Boeing, as example???
You know, the same is true for OTHER airplanes too (he has several other jets). LOTS of people have private jets, and other private airplanes.

Here: flightaware.com...

An example of a private flight from Oakland to Camarillo, in California. It is stored at this website because the pilot filed an IFR flight plan, and availed use of the ATC system for that flight.

It isn't rocket science, not to pilots qualified and experienced. It isn't arcane or mysterious, ATC procedures.

Very straight forward, and logical, once you learn and understand how it works.

(BTW, if anyone wants to get me a belated Christmas present, a Beech A36 will do just nicely...a Baron B58 would be better, but I can always trade up...I'll buy the gas...)



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
What agencies confirmed this.


Facts are facts and thats what i go by. Please see the following shouwing that 93 and 1989 crossed paths and were confused.

www.oredigger61.org...



[edit on 30-12-2009 by REMISNE]




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join