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.

 

NTSB records: ATC waits 12 minutes to report AA 77 non-contact

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
How can you say this is an investigation, when your primary 'evidence' is your ignorant opinion that the ATC's waited longer than you think you would have, if you were an ATC. And now that we mention it it, what experience do you have with flying or air traffic control? What position are you in, or what experience do you have, to say what is too long?

I mean, there are people in this very thread with actual knowledge of how Airlines and ATC works, and yet you dismiss their opinions simply because they disagree with your view on how you THINK it happened, or what you THINK you would have done in their situation.

If that isn't clinging to ignorance, then I don't know what is.




posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Wanna know something???

I didn't see THIS POST of yours, until just now:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well....odd behavior...one hand, YOU were complimentary because I was, how did you put it? "adult"???

But, then, this weird lashing out???

I say,
from Siskell and Ebert, to this travesty......it is D.O.A. as stated. It is scraping the bottom of the barrel of stretching to reach ..... nothing.


"The '9/11 truth movement' consists of the confused, the paranoid, and the profiteer."

(Anon.)

Truer sentiments have rarely been expressed......



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Tosskey
 


you guys are relentless this thread... I give!

All I want to know is how a plane can be out of contact, make a surprise 180 degree turn, turn off its transponder, and basically disappear for 23 minutes...

I give - if you expert pilots all assume 9/11 was just a typical day like any other, and that an aircraft making an unapproved destination change 180 degree u-turn, and being out of contact for 23 minutes is NORMAL then I'm not going to get anywhere exploring this any longer.

I doubt I will be convinced this is normal but if you all say so, fine.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
You are forgetting, though, an important fact. The transponder. IN FACT! I goofed, in my post above....because I forgot too. It is quite possible I was wrong (Gasp!!)


omg! say it ain't so!


nice pic too



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
for the record this is called investigation, it is not making definitive remarks, unsubstantiated assumptions... it's a look into what might be (yet another difference between people who search for truth over fighting for what they already believe).

8:50:51 am - Last contact FROM AA 77

8: 52 am - AA 77 makes a 180 degree unplanned turn with no ATC contact

for next TWENTY-THREE MINUTES ATC agents try to contact AA 77 or simply do nothing (that's 8:52 to 9:15 am)
(before everyone goes crazy, the 12 minutes previously discussed was from last attempt by ATC to the guard frequency try by other AA flight)

9:15 am (FINALLY) - ATC asks another AA flight to check guard frequency (or however you're technically supposed to say that.)

If you guys say this is normal, fine.
I say, for an aircraft that makes an unscheduled u-turn and is out of radio contact, I wouldn't sit around on my butt for more than twenty minutes before I took action.

Can't really say much else - most people in this thread are far more interested in discrediting me personally than actually wondering if 20 minutes no-contact is out of line...
ATC agents?
77 turned at 12:54:46 and finished at 1300, a slow first time pilot like turn, a bust your check ride bad turn. Turn at 12:54:46/08:55:46, not 8:52. Get the facts right, please.
As you have learned the terrorists turned off the transponder; was that the reason ATC called?
Or was it about 56 ATC noticed the plane turned? Transponder, or turn?
What would ATC do if a plane turns without clearance? They clear the way and try to contact you. On 911 and before no one was going to shoot down a plane for turning around.

BTW, ATC calls planes on Guard Channel first, and if "no joy", they ask company or other planes to try. Did ATC call the carrier and ask them to contact 77? There are many ways to contact a plane. Bet they were busy; but the ATC controller has to work, he can't stop, he does not go outside and prepare the NIKE site to blow up the plane. How many times did ATC try contact with 77 on Guard freq? By alternate means?

There is no conspiracy involved with ATC, they had to do their job, they can't stop, people could die. ATC controller was busy telling each sector and his supervisor! It was amazing the shut down the AIRSPACE on their own! Not a top down, but a sideways decision; a kind of I am in charge moment for who figured it out.

ATC actually made plans to keep traffic away from large cities which would give NORAD a clear sky to find the bad guys if any remained. UBL only conned 19 dolts into flying suicide kinetic energy weapons on 911. Plus by the time everyone figured out the rules, no passengers would let terrorist hold the plane! UBL and his suicide dolts ruined hijacking forever! No more trips to Cuba...

The time it takes to figure out 911 completely and take action, is the time it took Flight 93 passengers to get up and attack the murderers. BINGO, it takes minutes to figure out 911 and take action. After 9 years with the proper knowledge and research silly topics like this would not come up. Flight 93 passengers figured out 911 first, and the first to take action. ATC did the job they were suppose to, and had to do.

NTSB does not do crimes, the FBI does crime. Notice you were confused on what the NTSB does or something. If you are trying to build a case for 77 not hitting the Pentagon as it did in the real world, using evidence of 77 in this tread refutes your Pentagon thread statements.

ATC worked right away when 77 turned or turned off their transponder! It was instant, no 20 minutes late. They did their job like any-day. They did what they do if any plane turns without clearance, or turns off the transponder.
The response was quick because that is what ATC does, keeps aircraft safe. They had to warn other sectors a plane was turning, or lost, etc. That is what they did you are backing in fantasy procedures you think ATC should do for terrorists. What is your point? What does it mean? How does taking about 77 as a real flight affect your thread where you say the aircraft parts were planted? IT took minutes for Flight 93 passengers to figure out 911, who would brag about looking for the truth for over 9 years? What was the purpose of the OP now that you understand more of what ATC does?

Your OP is only a reminder of what ATC does; their job. The guard thing was funny, thanks for the humor. That was great, reminds me of Stand-Up in UPT. I first flew in 73, only 38 years experience with ATC... What did ATC do wrong? Remember, ATC is in-charge of the airspace, the report of non-contact is instant.

I am not supporting what I believe happened. You can't debate away 19 terrorists did 911. You can't debate Pittsburgh into winning the Super Bowl. 19 terrorists did 911, the rest of the stories are conspiracy theories, which end up here in 911 conspiracy theories. If you wish to make up stuff about 911, you need to get the details and jargon down. What was the big conspiracy on this topic going to be if you had not messed it up?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by iSunTzu
 


congratulations, you seem to have all your facts in line and are not at all confused. Thanks for setting me straight that 9/11 was carried out by 19 terrorists... I can probably sleep better now.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tosskey
there are people in this very thread with actual knowledge of how Airlines and ATC works, and yet you dismiss their opinions simply because they disagree with your view on how you THINK it happened, or what you THINK you would have done in their situation.

If that isn't clinging to ignorance, then I don't know what is.


I dismiss some of their opinions because they completely disregard anything was amiss that day. Sure they have great information and experience concerning ATC - do they have insider information on a day when multiple planes crashed? Do they have insider ATC information for when a plane loses contact for 20 minutes while deviating off course? No... and they continually disregard any attempt at recognition of these facts. I am not clinging to ignorance, I'm trying to engage in a conversation with people who continually refuse to acknowledge the events of the day and keep falling back on standard operating procedure.

(by facts I mean from the flight data, as if it were AA 77, since that's what we're talking about)



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


No matter if the world is on fire, the ATC controller has to do his job, lives hang on his attention to detail. Unknown to you, the ATC controller has a supervisor who is watching and helping. The work load went up when 77 turned off the transponder, did not answer, and turned. Not only did ATC have to worry about 77, ATC had to warn other sectors. ATC does not stop doing his job because the USA is being secretly attacked by morons who can't fly very well. What a sloppy turn! The time constant for figuring out 911 is when Flight 93 passengers stood up and rushed the murderers who did 911. What was ATC suppose to do. You don't understand, the can't stop planes. The USA on 911 did not intercept planes over the USA with intent to destroy. Our very existence is to not have military presence in our daily life, our inception was not to have military involved in domestic activity's. WE are a civilian run country, we are the government.

It is clear your OP was based on nothing real, and you have no conspiracy theory to tie to this "on guard" stuff. However, I found it invigorating, reminding me of pilot training (UPT), where guard was the sign of oops. It reminded me of the time my navigator was 30 miles off, weighing his celestial position heavy over his (zero drift) DR. We approached Okinawa 30 miles off. ATC, Okinawa ATC, warned us on Guard to not fly into W179 (or what ever it was off the east coast) or risk being fired on. Your misunderstanding guard brings back memories of being a new pilot, learning how to fly, learning how to inspire a crew. Thank you very much.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Tosskey
there are people in this very thread with actual knowledge of how Airlines and ATC works, and yet you dismiss their opinions simply because they disagree with your view on how you THINK it happened, or what you THINK you would have done in their situation.

If that isn't clinging to ignorance, then I don't know what is.


I dismiss some of their opinions because they completely disregard anything was amiss that day. Sure they have great information and experience concerning ATC - do they have insider information on a day when multiple planes crashed? Do they have insider ATC information for when a plane loses contact for 20 minutes while deviating off course? No... and they continually disregard any attempt at recognition of these facts. I am not clinging to ignorance, I'm trying to engage in a conversation with people who continually refuse to acknowledge the events of the day and keep falling back on standard operating procedure.

(by facts I mean from the flight data, as if it were AA 77, since that's what we're talking about)


OK, this is a good time to summarize a bit. This is NOT a personal attack on the poster any more than the paragraph above is an attack against "people who continually refuse to acknowledge the events of the day and keep falling back on standard operating procedure".

In the original post to start this thread the poster indicated the material which is the subject of this thread came from the NTSB. When it was pointed out as WRONG It was then argued that there was really no confusion at all, merely semantics.

After 4 pages and umpteen posts explaining the misperceptions and confusion here it is again. Obviously, the poster still thinks this is flight data. It is not a matter of semantics at all it is simply a basic understanding of the subject of the thread. It is obvious to even a casual observer that the original poster STILL does not understand the subject of his own thread.

Everything we have discussed from the very beginning post until now comes from Air Traffic Control recordings certified by the FAA. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with flight data, which comes from the FDR on the aircraft and is known to us because the NTSB released the contents of the Flight Data Recorder via FOIA.

So, tosskey, your comments are absolutely correct. Is the ignorance simply a failure to learn? Is it willful? Or are some people so blinded by their bias and prejudice that nothing can fix it? I don't know......your call.....
edit on 11-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


"flight data" is not a copywritten term associated with a flight data recorder... it could actually mean data about a flight. Sorry you don't have the ability to look at the etymology of those words and see them for what I meant. I'll keep it in mind that you can only recognize terms in an airline sense, say if I used the term service, you probably think I mean flight attendants delivering food or drinks.

I recognize that it's part of your duty to attempt to discredit me and divert the thread toward anything but the actual question at hand, but you do recognize you never did, in FOUR pages, address the actual POINT of the thread!!?

an airplane was out of contact for 20+ minutes, after making a 180 degree change in direction - I think it would be normal for someone to notify a supervisor or authorities and take some action, given they already knew at least one airplane crashed that day.

for reasons I can't know for sure, you refuse to address the one question I'm asking; it's not that hard - is the situation I mention in the above paragraph NORMAL?



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Kleinfor reasons I can't know for sure, you refuse to address the one question I'm asking; it's not that hard - is the situation I mention in the above paragraph NORMAL?


Post # 3 in this thread: My first post.....


Originally posted by Reheat
One other point that is ignored is that the Controllers at Indianapolis did not know about the events in NYC. They were working instead of watching TV. I guess all truthers were glued to the TV's in 2001 and presume everyone else was too. If you don't work or never have I suppose that's a logical assumption... That along with a poor education and a lack of critical thinking skills promotes some of the crap, but some of it is also intentional I believe.....


How many more distortions are you going to post in one thread? Don't you think there's been enough already? You have been repeatedly told the exact same thing MULTIPLE times in this thread. The fact that you don't understand it or refuse to accept it is YOUR problem that only you can fix. Nah, you're smarter than everyone else who are all telling the same thing over and over again. And you have the AUDACITY to WHINE that I'm not addressing the question in the OP.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


sorry, your point must have gotten lost in the sarcasm...

your point that because someone is doing an important job they don't know anything else going on in the world is not realistic (except in this one video I saw once of Chinese workers putting playing cards into decks! those guys have no time...).

Let's do a visual for you:

Inside ATC control room. Controllers are talking to flights, watching monitors, etc.

Supervisor walks in, "yo guys, we got a bird down in NYC. I'll update you if I got any details, carry on."


your argument simply doesn't hold water, yet as I've said a few times, it seems to be all you guys have because it just keeps getting parroted over and over again.

so... it's a point we disagree on. Since this thread is basically me and 5-6 OSers it's not going to change anything if we just keep discussing it.


I know many of you OSers will find ANY possible detail to discredit a person so for the record that is a made up scenario and I chose to say "got" to allege a particular vernacular even though the correct grammar would be "get"; please ignore that under the guise of artistic license.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


again your post makes zero sense just like your brain zero in there

god you must be bored and have nothnig better to occupy your time with

sorry but im not waiting for a jummper or a splat im just waiting for justice and i reallly hope its served!



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Tosskey
 


Tosskey,

My knowledge is out of date but the basics are still true, so let me try to help.

ATC is keeping safe separation. If two or more targets are on a collision course and they can contact all but one to change course it is a manageable problem.

Flight conditions that day were clear and unlimited visablity, under such conditions pilots have primary responsibilty for their own safe separation. Loss of radio contact with one flight is a problem but not as immediately critical as it would be on a cloudy rainy day.

The transponder going off is a problem, but that does not necessarily mean loss of radar contact.
A takeover by force might cause the flight crew to send the prearranged signal for a takeover. I understand that
did not happen.

An inquiry as to why the diviation from the approved IFR flight plan is observed, not normal but the target has not vanished. This need attention but hey, stuff happens, and as long as there are not two out of contact targets of a collision course not a big problem.

Now please do not poke a lot of holes in my message an tell me I am part of a coverup. I am just saying the facts we have would be an incident on an outherwise normal day.



you guys are relentless this thread... I give!

All I want to know is how a plane can be out of contact, make a surprise 180 degree turn, turn off its transponder, and basically disappear for 23 minutes...

I give - if you expert pilots all assume 9/11 was just a typical day like any other, and that an aircraft making an unapproved destination change 180 degree u-turn, and being out of contact for 23 minutes is NORMAL then I'm not going to get anywhere exploring this any longer.

I doubt I will be convinced this is normal but if you all say so, fine.

edit on 13-3-2011 by whatwasthat because: spelling



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
"is this real-world or (an) exercise?"



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Your right thermo...not one of them has addressed the points you made re. the 12 minutes.

I dont claim to be a knowitall when it comes to 9/11, but I can recognise deliberate obfuscation when I see it....

This thread qualifies as being loaded with obfuscation.


The question is why??Could it be they are attempting to muddy the waters to confuse the average Joe reading this??


Yet another interesting thread thermo...keep up your logical thinking and research....


The 9/11 Official fairytale Fanclub is made up of naive "....blind patriots, right wing crackpots, disinfo agents......and liars..big fat liars who will say anything, regardless of fact, if it helps confuse the masses"

Anon.

....and not a truer word spoken on this thread.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
Your right thermo...not one of them has addressed the points you made re. the 12 minutes.

I dont claim to be a knowitall when it comes to 9/11, but I can recognise deliberate obfuscation when I see it....

This thread qualifies as being loaded with obfuscation.


It is quite difficult to create obfuscation when the premise is a non-issue in the first place. To imply that 12 minutes is too long for an FAA Center to identify whether or not an aircraft is hijacked based only on radio transmissions is the epitome of ignorance. Nowhere in this thread has it been established that 12 minutes of radio transmissions in attempts to contact a non-responding aircraft is too long. No where in this thread is there any evidence that Telephone Calls might have been made. It has been established by the historical record that Indianapolis Center did not know about the incidents in NYC. Several posters have stated this numerous times. That is not simply an opinion. If one is willing to do the research as opposed to looking at something and drawing an ignorant conclusion, there are many things that don't make sense. I am not willing and I suspect no one else is either to dig for the proof that Indianapolis Center did not know of the NYC events just to have it hand waved away by shallow minded conspiratrists. The controller involved followed established procedure in attempting to contact the non-responding aircraft. In addition, the 12 minutes of the OP stated non-action is wrong. The controller contacted the USAF Rescue Coordination Center at Langley AFB, Virginia approximately 10 minutes after the loss of radio/radar contact.

As verified by one of the 9/11 Staffers who was on the team investigation this the Controller or his Supervisor took action at 9:10, 5 minutes earlier that the OP calculates. Records and verified recordings are available from all agencies to verify the action taken. Do some more research Truthers as opposed to mindlessly pointing fingers at issues you don't comprehend.


At about 9;10, the Center reported that fact [loss of radio and radar contact] to FAA’s Great Lakes Region and to the Air Force’s Rescue Coordination Center at Langley AFB, Virginia.


www.oredigger61.org...

The actions taken by Indianapolis are logical and should demonstrate that they did not know of the NYC events, but presumed AA 77 had crashed due to loss of radio and radar contact. They did not have benefit of 20/20 Hindsight not understood by those who are looking for a scapegoat to accuse of nefarious intent....



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join