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.

 

The 9/11 Time Discrepancy Oddity: Distress Signals Indicated Planes Crashed Minutes BEFORE Flights 1

page: 1
16
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
shoestring911.blogspot.com...

This article is dated today, but I'm not certain when this 'new' information first surfaced.

This is odd indeed....and and I'll be interested to see what explanation the debunkers come up with!
The article states that this information is recorded, so it should be easy to verify by anyone who has access to the relevant records. So, if this proves to be genuine as purported, that's hard evidence which will take some explaining. I've mentally filed this alongside that BBC report in which they reported that WT7 had also collapsed, due to being hit by debris from the other towers, approx 20 mins before WT7 actually collapsed, in fact, WT7 was visible in the skyline behind the presenter, while she was announcing it had collapsed!

The argument that the BBC article 'proved' prior knowledge of the attacks has been scathingly rubbished by many. But now we have hard evidence of at least two instances when the attack/crash actually happened after it was reported to have happened, and in this way the case is significantly strenghened.

I get the feeling that this is like a damn building up. The pressure of the evidence is mounting, while denial and more or less plausible explanations of the anomalies are becoming more and more difficult to sustain.

I really believe this truth will come out - and I also think that when it does, it could be a catalyst which reallly starts to bring the whole pack of cards tumbling down.




edit on 9-9-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)




edit on 9-9-2010 by wcitizen because: Spelling, and put the link in the title instead of inside text box.




posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


thats very interesting if its true. I like how the commission said that those who receive the ELT's consider it a nuisance. wow.. such a pathetic statement.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
this is the first time I have heard this theory.
If true it would cause great concern for
the OS tellers.
S&F



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 02:30 AM
link   
All you have is some unknown person on the internet making claims ....

If you READ the article (theres that reading comprehension thing) notice that US Air pilot reporting them did not say were from American 11/United 175 . All said is got brief ELT signals in NYC area that morning

Also notice that ELT are often triggered by accident either in air on the ground by rough handling

Airspace arounf Manhattan is one of the most crowded in the world - plently of candidates for accident trips

As for not being activated by crash - considering the violence of the impact = hitting skyscraper at 500 mph
were more than likely destroyed on impact

You are making illogical leap - a common fallacy of Truther types



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


All you have is some unknown person on the internet making claims ....


So, essentially what you’re saying is you have no proof to disprove the OP source.


[color=gold]EMERGENCY TRANSMITTER WENT OFF OVER TWO MINUTES BEFORE FLIGHT 11 CRASHED
American Airlines Flight 11 hit the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46 a.m. and 40 seconds. [1] But two and a half minutes earlier, David Bottiglia, an air traffic controller at the FAA's New York Center, had received an important message from one of the planes in the airspace he was monitoring. At 8:44 a.m., the pilot of U.S. Airways Flight 583 told Bottiglia:


shoestring911.blogspot.com...

So thedman, what your saying is “David Bottiglia, an air traffic controller at the FAA's New York Center” is a liar, do I stand correct?
And your proof is what again??


As for not being activated by crash - considering the violence of the impact = hitting skyscraper at 500 mph
were more than likely destroyed on impact


“Were more than likely”? We are looking for facts thedman not your opinions.
Reading the OP topic you will find where the source to this information came from and this is just one of the sources I just posted.


NOTES
[1] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, p. 7.
[2] "Transcript of United Airlines Flight 175." New York Times, October 16, 2001; "Memorandum for the Record: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) New York Air Route Center Interview With David Bottiglia." 9/11 Commission, October 1, 2003; "Sensitive Security Information: Chronology of September 11, 2001." Federal Aviation Administration, n.d.
[3] Lynn Spencer, Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama That Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11. New York: Free Press, 2008, p. 50.



You are making illogical leap - a common fallacy of Truther types


Typical negative kneejerk respond from OS believers types, who ignores the given sources.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
All you have is some unknown person on the internet making claims ....


Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

www.nytimes.com...


8:44:05 USA583: I just picked up an ELT (emergency locator transmitter)on 121.5 it was brief but it went off.
....
8:45:08 DAL2433: DAL2433 at 290 we picked up that ELT, too, but its very faint.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   

edit on 9/10/2010 by minute2midnight because: Double Post



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
this is the first time I have heard this theory.
If true it would cause great concern for
the OS tellers.
S&F


nah, they would find some excuse to say it is just clerical error or something.

Indeed it is interesting and surprised it just surfaced so close to the 9/11 anniversary.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 



So thedman, what your saying is “David Bottiglia, an air traffic controller at the FAA's New York Center” is a liar, do I stand correct?
And your proof is what again??


Twisting things around?

I didn't call Bottiglia a liar

I said that
(a) nobody has proved the signals came from one of the hijacked jets or been able to trace where
the signals came from

(b) given the density of traffic in area with numerous airports and fact that the devices often are
triggered by accident

One can made conjecture it was accidental



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   
I have read extensively on the 9/11 timeline and I've never seen it either! I don't think it's any surprise at all that this blogger posted it this week.

I'll deffo be looking into this more closely! My speculation after reading that story is that the 2 original "real" flights were crashed and 2 others took their places. How did 2 planes crash that morning BEFORE the Towers were hit and no-one noticed? They had to be water crashes, out at sea.

Star and flag! VERY interesting! Much food for thought!!!



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Two words come to mind: tape delay.

"given the density of traffic in area with numerous airports and fact that the devices often are triggered by accident"

Since you seem to know so much about this ELT issue, how often are these devices triggered accidentally? A credible source to back up your assertion wouldn't hurt your cause.

"One can made conjecture it was accidental"

One can also made conjecture (?) that so many coincidences occurring in one day is well beyond the realm of possibility. Unless of course your intellect is not capable of drawing such simplistic elementary conclusions.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Folks....this is such a NON-issue!!!

The only reason the USAir pilot heard the ELT is because he (unlike most of us, back then) was probably in the habit of tuning the #2 Comm radio to 121.5, and then monitoring the audio. POST-9/11, it is now a commonly mandated procedure, for many reasons that I won't go into --- but it is NOT to listen for ELTs.

In case you didn't know, the ELT was mandated as required equipment way back sometime in the 1980s. SO, this means that ever small airplane in the US, from the vintage Piper Cub to a stockbroker's Cessna 421 has one of these things.

In many, many cases a pilot, during a preflight, will want to "check" to see if his ELT is working. So, after turning on the battery switch, he/she tunes a radio to 121.5, adjusts the volume, and then pushes the switch on the ELT either to "ON" briefly, or to "TEST" (spring-loaded) if it has such a position.

SO, at most, it is a brief sound of the "Wheep! Wheep!" sound, and verification is then complete. (I can't describe the tone and sound, maybe there's an audio file of it online. Will search).

Point I'm trying to make is, for a pilot, this story is completely unconnected to either AAL 11's or UAL 175's situation. It is a case where someone, somewhere at some airport (because it was most likely somebody on the ground) just flipped on his ELT briefly, as I described above. USAir was in a position, due to altitude, for line-of-sight reception. ATC radio receivers, being on the ground, won't always hear transmissions form OTHER stations (airplanes) that are on the ground, depending on the distance, and other factors (such as remotely-placed receivers...in some cases these exist). This is so you, as that stockbroker 421 owner (a VERY expensive airplane) can be sitting on the ground at some uncontrolled airport (meaning, no control tower) and then contact, via radio, the local ARTCC to activate his IFR clearance, and get a takeoff time for him to "pop-up" into the controller's airspace....see? Lots of technical stuff, sorry but had to share, in order to clarify a bit.

In any case, the requirement for an ELT on airliners operating under FAR Part 121 is a non-issue. Since the Flight Recorders provide that function. Airliners that are equipped for extended over-water Ops, though, have RAFTS installed on-board. THEY each have an ELT. It must be manually turned on and off. Theory is, IF you are in such a bad situation (post-ditching, now floating out at sea somewhere) you can turn it OFF to conserve its battery. Of course, the advent of SAT (satellite) ELT makes pinpointing for SAR (Search and Rescue) much better, nowadays.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's a link to a sample ELT sound. (Turn down yor volome, please)!:

ipg-protect.com...









edit on 10 September 2010 by weedwhacker because: Link



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


As the story suggested the alert sounded only briefly and did not continue as it is supposed to in an accident, your theory may be correct.

The other possibility I had been entertaining is that the thing was turned on intentionally by whomever was in on the planning for the false flag to simulate a crashing airplane, but they got their timing off just a bit.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Ok, I can accept your explanation of why the ELT's went off, twice, the morning of 9/11, within minutes of two actual planes crashing into two actual buildings.... So how does this fit in??

And yet no ELTs went off at the times these planes hit the towers, when we might have expected them to have been activated.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ThatDGgirl
 


Yeah, crashing the original planes into the sea is what crossed my mind, but then why would the signals have been faint and brief? ELTs are designed to be permanent beacons, so what happened to them?

Also why is such important information only being discussed now, 9 years later? Not that I'm well read on 9-11 theories, but I've not come across it before. Yet the difference it makes to someone like me, who is on the fence, is that the OS is suddenly not credible.

So why only now?



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Appreciate the info, thank you.

Still some questions though, first is that if it is not out of the ordinary for ELTs to be tested in that way wouldn't that confuse air traffic controllers with a constant flow of false alarms? It sounds like something that would be banned if it were a common occurence. And Bottiglia heard 2 ELTs and thought it worth reporting.

Also Paul Thumser in the article stated that ELTs cannot be activated by the pilot, at least not in 767s, and Terry Biggio stated that an ELT is not sent by pilot operators. And none of the experts quoted in the article, or even the 9-11 Commission, mentioned that kind of testing by pilots on the ground to explain the 9-11 ELTs.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by 12arc
 


Will try to expand on and answer those questions. Been doing some research for you.

Firstly, as noted in my previous post, an ELT that is activated, on an airplane that is just parked at the airport, whether intentionally and briefly for testing, as I described --- or accidentally, usually because it's on the ground, few ATC receivers will hear it. They may or may not receive a signal, due to line-of-sight problems with the VHF radio band signal propagation.[***] YES, the "accidental" bit happens a lot. (Or, did when they were first mandated....often, were located in baggage area, or somewhere else in cabin and would be bumped, and not noticed to be on. Eventually, over the years, fines began to be levied against airplane owners, and installations and ELT designs were altered).

Note [***]: In my carreer it was not uncommon for a controller to ask us (or another in our area) to tune to 121.5 to listen for an ELT. Either because the facility where the controller was working could hear one, or because someone else reported to them. What the controller was doing was asking WHO could hear it, and how STRONG it sounded to them...and he would then try to triangulate, based on what he knew from his radar screen, and the various postions of the airliners who were helping out.[***]


Again, that is all about the General Aviation community, FAR Part 91. I believe, also, FAR Part 135 (so-called 'Air Taxi' operations too).

Now, consider the realities of flying within the contiguous United States. For Part 91, a flight plan (VFR) is not required. So, anyone who is "overdue" will only be noticed by other factors --- loved ones or family who report them as over-due, etc. That is a dubious and undefined time frame.

Second option is, for a pilot to file a VFR flight plan. Essentially, if he/she fails to "cancel" the plan within (I think it's two hours, but relying on memory here) after their proposed ETA, then it WILL trigger some attention by authorities.

Thirdly, on IFR flight plans, the cancellation is automatic and is done by the computers (in old days, by hand by the controllers) when you arrive at destination. Alternatively, a pilot may cancel IFR before arriving, IF weather conditions are suitable for continued VFR flight. In that case, IF he turns up missing, go back to "friends or family" to report it.

As I said already, we don't have ELTs on airliners:


Air Line Pilot, January 2000, page 24
By First Officer Jennifer D. Muellner (US Airways)

As airline pilots, we assume that if we crash, someone will know that the crash has occurred and will know exactly where we are. Many line pilots don’t realize that nothing is on board our airplanes to positively identify our location if we crash.

We need to have an emergency locator transmitter (ELT), or something like it, on board our airplane in case we crash so that airport rescue and firefighting (ARFF) services will be able to find us......


LINK to the Airline Pilot Magazine (official publication of ALPA) article.

As you can see in the article, Aloha Airlines (at the time of the writing) had decided to equip their fleet (all B-737s, I believe) with some advanced ELTs. However, since then (2000-2001) if I recall, Aloha Airlines has gone out of business. SO, I have no idea as to current status of their likely (partial?) buyout airline, Hawaiian's airplanes and equipment. Can research it.....


I also found this discussion, from a Forum (one of many) hosted over at airliners.net. It reminded me of what I had forgotten, regarding ELT tests....the "top of the hour" rule, and the three-minute "sweep" maximum.

That, of course, designed to omit as many "false alarms" as possible:

www.airliners.net...







edit on 10 September 2010 by weedwhacker because: BBCode and added note.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Good work, weedwhacker. I'm going to go back to sitting on the fence.

The issue now is how simple it is for a theory to be put forward which sounds damning, but actually has no substance. Without your input the ELT issue and this thread could have taken off with a life of its own, and once it gains a foothold no amount of reasoning or evidence would bring it down.

I wonder what other 9-11 theories started like this.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by 12arc
 



I wonder what other 9-11 theories started like this.


Sadly.....just about ALL of them.....





posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by 12arc
 


There are many theories on many topics, 9/11 included, that end up either being true or false after more in-depth research. Just because one theory may be true or false, doesn't mean all others are either. The person that put out the theory may not have done as much research as the next person that looks into the theory.

Rest assured, most theories in the 9/11 truth movement are checked, rechecked, researched and re-researched.

Now, having said that, do not take "weedwhacker"'s word as law and fact, or anyone else's word for that matter. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions. Myself, I'll be checking into weedwhacker's claims to see if they have merit. Just because one airline didn't have ELT's, doesn't mean that all other airlines didn't have them either.




top topics



 
16
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join