| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| New obtained FAA transcripts confirm Op.Northwoods; FOIA request | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 18 2008, 03:01 PM (672 Views) | |
| Woody Box | Oct 18 2008, 03:01 PM Post #1 |
|
Kevin Fenton has obtained a very interesting FAA transcript via FOIA: http://www.911blogger.com/node/18187 I've already detected two details that are toxic for the official story: Flight 11 is reported 15 miles west of JFK airport (a place where it allegedly never was): ZNY (New York Center): o k this is new york center uh we're watching the airplane he's fifteen west of kennedy now we had uh one or two confirmations that he was still at twenty nine one at twenty nine one at thirty one didn't couldn't see him uh i also had conversation with american airlines and they've told us that they believe that uh one of their stewardesses was stabbed and that there are people in the cockpit that have control of the aircraft and that's all the information they have uh right now... Flight 93 is reported over Hagerstown, Maryland, right near Camp David. Needless to say, it never was there according to the official story: UAL ellen ellen ninety three it's over haggerstown now and you're not aware of it it's heading toward washington d c and we are under a threat uh uh of a uh hijacking on board and this flight is out of our control now heading toward washington d c This is in absolute accordance with the NORAD tapes. Who will now seriously deny that the planes have been swapped? |
![]() |
|
| mynameis | Oct 18 2008, 03:37 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Internet Jujitsu
|
![]() A swap wouldn't have taken place there, 93 was the last plane and the flight path shows it crashing near Maryland. Edit: I guess Hagerstown part part of Maryland right below PA...is near David Looking at this closer than before if the ATC didn't get planes in the air confused it would seem the ATC was wrong about 93 and it's location as stated in the FOIA. On these links, you can see the distance between Shanksville, Hagerstown, and Camp David. http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&client=firefox-a&q=Shanksville,+PA&ie=UTF8&ll=39.77688,-77.920532&spn=0.928777,2.449951&z=9 http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=5RJ&q=The%20Naval%20Support%20Facility%20Thurmont&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl Edited by mynameis, Oct 18 2008, 04:31 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Phoenix Knight | Oct 20 2008, 11:04 PM Post #3 |
|
How confusing. |
![]() |
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Oct 20 2008, 11:15 PM Post #4 |
|
yeah but the problem is the official story of "flight 93 flight path" is junk and therefor i would lean towards the atc being correct. Edited by Domenick DiMaggio, Oct 20 2008, 11:16 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Woody Box | Oct 21 2008, 02:44 PM Post #5 |
|
Yes, indeed, the FAA memo and the ATC's message seem very authentic to me. Proposers of the official story will say that the ATC only watched the "projected flight path" of UA 93, i.e. there was no plane there, just a radar blip on the screens. This explanation is weak, of course ("incompetent controllers"). Like most people, Kevin Fenton doesn't scrutinize it and sticks to the official story here. But let's just assume it is right. Then the projected path can be represented by a straight line between Shanksville and Washington. But this line isn't even close to Hagerstown. Conclusion: either the "projected flight path" was a curve (Shanksville-Hagerstown-Washington) or it was no projected path, but the "real" UA 93. |
![]() |
|
| Stundie | Oct 21 2008, 04:09 PM Post #6 |
|
I've not read it, but someone called Lynn Spencer wrote a book with accounts from various people watching the skies on 9/11. She reckons that a ghost track of UA93 was put onto the system and apparently, this was the right thing to do?
I'm not sure how she comes to this conclusion, but maybe her book might reveal some answers. If this ghost of UA93 was put on, who ordered it to be put on a heading towards DC? As it sounds like this is where the confusion for certain people believing it was still flying when it was shot...er....I mean crashed. Not that I am recommending this book, from what I gather she comes to the ridiculous conclusion that Mineta et all were never watching AA77, but a ghost of UA93, even though it flies in the face of logic and other evidence.
|
![]() |
|
| Cheap Shot | Oct 22 2008, 01:01 PM Post #7 |
|
There is a difference between the projected flight path which is observed by viewing a TSD (Traffic Situation Display) and an actual radar monitor. Some individuals manager types were probably using a TSD which only shows projected data of an aircraft's flight. The DSR which is what controllers use, has the actual radar data. A radar blip is only on the DSR Scope, idf the target is within the parametes it will generate a "Flat Track", if it remains in a flat track the information being received on the TSD will be fairly accurate. If it falls out of the parameters it will become a Free Track" and any data on the TSD now becomes projected, and it is tracking the published route of flight not the actual radar track. If you lose radar the data block the controller see's will now become a "Coast Track" and drift on the controllers DSR Scope, resulting in the same indication on the TSD nothing more than a projected flight path. Certain people on 9-11 viewed the TSD and assumed this is was the aircraft were. In reality they were no where near it. |
![]() |
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Oct 22 2008, 11:06 PM Post #8 |
|
here cheap shot i will now propose this to you since none of your duh-bunking cohorts will address it : According to the 9/11 Commission, less than a minute after Flight 93 acknowledged a routine radio transmission from the FAA’s Cleveland Center (see 9:27 a.m. September 11, 2001), John Werth—the controller handling the flight—and pilots of other aircraft in the vicinity of Flight 93 hear “a radio transmission of unintelligible sounds of possible screaming or a struggle from an unknown origin.” [Federal Aviation Administration, 9/11/2001; 9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004; CBS News, 9/10/2006] Someone, presumably Flight 93’s pilot Jason Dahl, is overheard by controllers as he shouts, “Mayday!” [New York Times, 7/22/2004] Seconds later, the controller responds, “Somebody call Cleveland?” Then there are more sounds of screaming and someone yelling, “Get out of here, get out of here.” [Toronto Sun, 9/16/2001; Newsweek, 9/22/2001; Observer, 12/2/2001; MSNBC, 7/30/2002; 9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004] Then the voices of the hijackers can be heard talking in Arabic. The words are later translated to show they are talking to each other, saying, “Everything is fine.” [Newsweek, 12/3/2001] Shortly before Flight 93 reverses direction and heads east, someone in its cockpit radios in and asks the FAA for a new flight plan, with a final destination of Washington, DC. [ABC News, 9/11/2001; ABC News, 9/14/2001] Jeff Krawczyk, the chief operating officer of a company that tracks aircraft movements, later comments, “We hardly ever get a flight plan change. Very unusual.” [Washington Business Journal, 9/11/2001] Who it is that makes this request is unclear. The hijacker takeover of Flight 93 occurred around 9:28 a.m. (see (9:28 a.m.) September 11, 2001) [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 11] , so it is presumably made by one of the hijackers. Twenty-five minutes later the pilot hijacker will also program a new destination into the plane’s navigational system (see 9:55 a.m. September 11, 2001). so this shows up as an arrival at dca because al qaeda [after being heard hijacking a plane on a day when 2 other hijacked planes have already been slammed into the wtc] contacted faa and made a highly unusual request for a flight path change to help them reach their target which is approved. is that what you're claim is? |
![]() |
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Oct 24 2008, 09:14 PM Post #9 |
|
cheap shot & all other duh-bunkers worldwide, does this evidence prove beyond all shadow of a doubt "al qaeda" was being assisted from within the us? |
![]() |
|
| SPreston | Oct 24 2008, 10:08 PM Post #10 |
|
Patriotic American
|
Gee whiz Domenick, you had to go and ask him a toughie? |
![]() |
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Oct 25 2008, 01:31 PM Post #11 |
|
yea. turns out this is a home run. killing threads around the internet. sending duh-bunkers scrambling with their tails between their legs. uh oh. someone is assisting 'al qaeda' from within......or flight 93 really did land at reagan. now they have to make a choice.
|
![]() |
|
| Boonedoggled | Dec 15 2008, 10:40 AM Post #12 |
|
The flight plan was updated to reflect Hagerstown-Washington. It was updated by Linda Justice at 10:08 a.m. http://aal77.com/faa/aal11_ual93_flightplans.xls |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · The Lounge · Next Topic » |









7:48 PM Jul 10