10:28AM EST Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport

Flight 93 arrived.

www.orbitfiles.com...

This file provided to Brian Stark via FOIA 2008-3195. It is an Excel sheet recording the DCA departures/arrivals for 9/11/2001
aal77.com...(Stark).xls

DCA is Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
www.airportcodes.us...

Mod edit: Fixxed Gippers name in title


[edit on 10/1/08 by FredT]

lol.

wassa matter? no one got anything on this?

So it appears that:

1. You have posted a screen cap and want us to compare it to the file received by Stark under FOIA.

2. Edited out- unnecessary

3. UAL93 listed on your screencap arriving at 10:28 is the obvious bone of contention.

Edit: it appears you can't save link directly as from right click in Firefox, cause it throws up an htm destination, so here is the link directly to the page where the xls FOIA file is:

www.aal77.com...

look at:
Brian Stark's FOIA Materials

This file provided to Brian Stark via FOIA 2008-3195. It is an Excel sheet recording the DCA departures/arrivals for 9/11/2001

FOIA 2008-3195 (Stark).xls (xls file, 102 kb)

and get it from there.

[edit on 1-10-2008 by TrueAmerican]

try clicking the "arrivals" tab.

That's funny, I'm looking at that Excel file myself (add a space and (Stark).xls to the URLs provided), and in the sheet labelled DCA Arrivals (there are two sheets, the file opens to the DCA Departures sheet) I'm seeing the same information as shown in OP's screencap. I don't know if the information in the file is accurate, but the screencap is.

Originally posted by Domenick DiMaggio
try clicking the "arrivals" tab.

ok ok I see it. Making an ATS Comrade work for it I see.

ok, so now prove that it is the actual xls received via the FOIA act from the government.

And ok, so let's assume it is the real xls.

Is the government really that stupid? Or do they just think WE are that stupid?

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by Domenick DiMaggio
try clicking the "arrivals" tab.

ok ok I see it. Making an ATS Comrade work for it I see.

isn't more rewarding that way?

ok, so now prove that it is the actual xls received via the FOIA act from the government.

ok well i guess you got me there........

And ok, so let's assume it is the real xls.

Is the government really that stupid? Or do they just think WE are that stupid?

oversight? mistake? carelessness?

more concerned to make sure nothing resembling aa77 is listed anywhere....????

i don't know but it is what it is and it says what is says......

so according to this flight 93 did not crash in shanksville but landed at reagan national roughly 20 minutes after the shanksville event. so how long do you suppose it would take a plane over shanksville to arrive for a landing in dc?

Well another thing I am noticing is that is an unprotected xls, allowing me to sort, edit and save at will. That is suspicious to me. Seems like a true government doc, especially with the controversy surrounding this, would be pw protected against edits, or at least cell data protected... They could have released that in any number of ways better and data locked.

Air traffic controllers when suspecting that Flight 93 was hijacked updated
flight plan in FAA computer to show path toward Washington. This
was a "ghost track" where computer showed estimated flight path
toward Washington. The 10:28 time was the estimated time plane would
arrive .

In other forum have discussion of the Flight 93 track and if the F 16 could
have detected and intercepted it . Poster "CHEAP SHOT" was in Boston
ATC and made the call to NEADS about first hijacking (Flight 11) to
scramble the fighters from Otis toward New York. Watched the track of Flight 93 on scope ...

forums.randi.org...

Originally posted by thedman
In other forum have discussion of the Flight 93 track and if the F 16 could
have detected and intercepted it . Poster "CHEAP SHOT" was in Boston
ATC and made the call to NEADS about first hijacking (Flight 11) to
scramble the fighters from Otis toward New York. Watched the track of Flight 93 on scope ...

forums.randi.org...

But I thought the excuse of no intercept was that once the transponder was turned off, they couldn't track the flights? Can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by thedman
Air traffic controllers when suspecting that Flight 93 was hijacked updated
flight plan in FAA computer to show path toward Washington. This
was a "ghost track" where computer showed estimated flight path
toward Washington. The 10:28 time was the estimated time plane would
arrive .

I was hoping no one would reveal this for a few days as it's been posted on several CT sites. I had planned to let it run for a few days and then drop the bomb on them.

John Werth, the Cleveland Controller, who "truthers" are all excited about entered the information update to DCA after he noticed that the hijackers had entered DCA into the aircraft's FMS. It's the same information that the SS were receiving that was being passed to Cheney in which Mineta had the time line wrong. That conversation Cheney had was based upon this same information about UA 93, NOT AA77.

Arrivals and Departures are kept on FLIGHT STRIPS, not in this kind of database. These listing are simply projections, not actual arrival/landing times.

Rest assured that UA93 crashed in that abandoned strip mine near Shanksville, PA.

Dom ought to be really burning as this is the same type of thread that he started at JREF about how the US controlled the BBC. This one "stinks" as badly as that one.

[edit on 1-10-2008 by Reheat]

[edit on 1-10-2008 by Reheat]

Sup Griff,

Yeah, but I thought they were able to still track it with a second type of radar/ vectoring? Would have to dig, but you probably already know what kind that was. I'm not as fresh on it as I used to be.

Checking in properties on the xls:

The file was last saved by Mark Lesko
Wednesday, April 16, 2008 5:15:25 PM

If it was genuine, seems like that date should be a lot older. And the missing block of data on row 159 is also curious. That might explain the save on April 16?

I wanna believe, but still having a hard time believing that xls.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Sup Griff,

Yeah, but I thought they were able to still track it with a second type of radar/ vectoring? Would have to dig, but you probably already know what kind that was. I'm not as fresh on it as I used to be.

Sup.

I would have no idea. I just remember arguing with the skeptics over the years about intercepts and their excuse was that once the transponder is off, it's "can't track them." Now we have ATCs saying they did? Just struck me as strange.

Originally posted by Griff
I would have no idea. I just remember arguing with the skeptics over the years about intercepts and their excuse was that once the transponder is off, it's "can't track them." Now we have ATCs saying they did? Just struck me as strange.

When transponders are deactivated, the plane cannot be identified automatically. It remains visible on the primary radar returns and can be tracked that way if you already know which of the returns it is. I believe on 911 after turning off the transponders, the planes were almost immediately turned around and as such were hard to locate. I know very little about this though, just thought I would chip in with what little I know.

Originally posted by Reheat
Arrivals and Departures are kept on FLIGHT STRIPS, not in this kind of database. These listing are simply projections, not actual arrival/landing times.

Rest assured that UA93 crashed in that abandoned strip mine near Shanksville, PA.

Ok, so you are saying that upon a FOIA request, they sent a projection and not the actuals? I have a harder time believing that than I do the xls.

First, I will just laugh off the condescending attitude long enough to prove you wrong.

Originally posted by Reheat
NORAD did not know about UA93 or AA77 until the very end, so had no reason to look for them. The FAA did not pass the information that either had been hijacked to any military agency to include NORAD until the last couple of minutes.

As Werth struggled to keep other jets away from United 93, he had to turn the Delta flight (Delta 1989) several times. The pilots responded normally. He couldn't be sure of anything that day, but it seemed a safe bet that the Delta flight hadn't been hijacked.

However, Werth recalls, someone in the military seemed to have mixed up the Delta flight with the hijacked United jet. A supervisor rushed up to Werth and said, "It's the Delta!" Werth recalled. She told him that a military liaison on the phone had confirmed that the Delta jet was hijacked.

www.freep.com.../20080911/NEWS07/809110406/1009/NEWS07

Interview with actual people who were there.

It helps to know the facts and engage your brain before posting. Otherwise, it might be embarrassing.

Exactly.

reply to post by Griff


Based upon a Detroit Free Press second hand "hearsay" Media report. You must be joking!

Using "truther" tactics, who called and what time did he/she call? If you can not furnish that information there was no call from anyone in the military. How can you prove that it wasn't some "truther" who called pretending to be someone from the military?

Why did you change the subject from UA93 to to the DL flight.?

12/21/2001 pdf file; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 28; CBS News, 9/10/2006] The Cleveland Center immediately notifies United Airlines’ headquarters of the loss of communication with Flight 93 (see (9:30 a.m.) September 11, 2001). However, the FAA chain of command is apparently not also immediately informed. And the Cleveland Center will not contact NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) about Flight 93 until 10:07 a.m. (see 10:07 a.m. September 11, 2001). [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 28 and 30]

www.historycommons.org...

So, actually in the case of UA93 NORAD did not know after it until AFTER it had ALREADY CRASHED.

To Quote myself again - "It helps to know the facts and engage your brain before posting. Otherwise, it might be embarrassing. "

[edit on 1-10-2008 by Reheat]

[edit on 1-10-2008 by Reheat]

reply to post by Griff


Furthermore, What does the confusion about the Delta Flight have to do with UA93? Oh, I know the answer, so don't bother.

There is an interview conducted with the Co-Pilot of the Delta Flight with "quotes" as to why the FAA (or was it NORAD) thought they had been hijacked. You can find that for yourself if you're interested.

If you're point is to prove there was confusion on 9/11 then you are correct, but if you're point is to cast "mysterious suspicion" on anyone in the military, good luck with that fraudulent tactic.

The point is that UA93 had crashed before anyone in the military to include NORAD knew about it. It crashed there in Shanksville and no amount of spin and confused desperate "trutherism" is going to change that. The passengers figured out what 911 "truthers" can not figure out even after 7 years. They recognized that they we going to die if they didn't do something and they did. 9/11 "truthers" are still confused about events and their Cult is dying too. No heroes among 911 "truthers". The heroes were on UA93.

That freakin' database obtained through a FOIA is based on FLIGHT PLANS and UA93 had changed it's FLIGHT PLAN to DCA. Every tower in the US to include military towers keep actual departure and arrival information on FLIGHT STRIPS, period. There is no database of those FLIGHT STRIPS, but there is a record. Why doesn't a CTist or one of your cronies who want to prove something request them. At least, it would keep you busy for a month or so sorting through them and not posting nonsense on Internet Forums.

Originally posted by Reheat
Why did you change the subject from UA93 to to the DL flight.?

Since the first sentence of my external reference clearly states that he was keeping other flights away from....hmmm...flight 93, I'd say to take your own advice and read.

He was tracking flight 93 and keeping other flights away from it....including the DL flight.

Read that again...tracking flight 93 after the transponder was off. So back to my original statement of "I thought once the transponder was off, it was impossible to track?".



BTW, your condescending attitude is being reported. I'm not Craig and as such will not tolerate it for ratings.

[edit on 10/1/2008 by Griff]

reply to post by Griff

But I thought the excuse of no intercept was that once the transponder was turned off, they couldn't track the flights? Can't have it both ways.

Griff, this is a common misconception. The FAA had no problems tracking the flights, with the exception of Flight 77. The problem with no intercepts is that the FAA failed to inform NORAD in a timely manner. The commission covers the subject quite well.

NEADS wasn't aware of Flight 93 or Flight 175 until after they crashed. They had two minutes warning with Flight 77 and eight minutes warning with Flight 11.