3 Strange Facts About Flight 93

I thought I'd check out the BBC website, to see if they had a page from the day of the attack, you know to maybe find some inconsistencies. What I did notice were these 3 strange facts:


1) Flight 93 took of at 0842, which is only six minutes before flight 11 CRASHED, and on average 30 MINUTES before Flights 175 & 77 were hijacked. It seems amazing to me that there was no warning or nationwide grounding by this stage. According to Wiki an ACARS message was sent at 0846 to flight 93 warning of the WTC crashes, asking for confirmation that all was ok. Surely they would have seen this before the hijackers had time to make their move.


2) All four flights were flying at a very low passenger capacity. However flight 93 had only 37 passengers. Staggering considering a 757-222 holds 228 passengers.


3) Of all the four hijacked planes, once hijacked only flight 93 had such large amount of phonecalls made from the plane. Flight 77 had two, flight 175 had three, flight 11 had one, but flight 93 had TWELVE, TEN passenger and TWO crew calls.


Anybody else find this strange?



[edit on 20-4-2009 by kiwifoot]

Originally posted by kiwifoot

Anybody else find this strange?

Not really, becuase...

a) There were warnings sent out, and flight 93 not only received them, but responded back for confirmation. The problem is that the hijackers (according to ground controllers picking up cockpit conversations) invaded the cockpit two minutes later, so they didn't have any time to prepare.

b) Hence, the reason why a lot of airlines are/were being hammered- reduced numbers of air fares.

c) It made the most number of calls becuase it was the last one to be hijacked. By this time the passengers calling out were receiving news about the other attacks from the people they were calling, and word quickly spread among the passengers.

reply to post by kiwifoot


1) Why would there be a ground stop issued prior to the first airplane crashing? Yes an ACARS message was sent, and the Flight 93 crew replied. The plane was in the air, short of a kamikaze dive into the ground, what do you really think the pilot could have done? Land prior to the FAA ground stop without any idea something was wrong on his plane? Do you know how much trouble the man would have gotten into with his employer?

2.) As has been discussed numerous times on ATS, the four flights were flying with near normal passenger levels for those four flights on a Tuesday morning.

3.) Yes, the passengers on Flight 93 knew they had been hijacked and they knew that airliners had been flown into the Towers. Damn skippy I would be phoning home to say good bye....why do you think its strange that the passengers on Flight 93 would do the same?

Oh I forgot there is one more. The flight 93 from 911 is not the first flight 93 to be involved in a terrorist attack:

en.wikipedia.org...

The Dawson's Field Hikackings 1970, involved a Pan Am flight 93. Probably means nothing, but is weird none the less!

[edit on 20-4-2009 by kiwifoot]

very good points you make there
i think it was a inside job but how dose the amount of fone calls made prove that? not having ago just wondering the significance.
how would a plane of that size be that underbooked and be aloud to take off it there was terroist threats already going on.

I did not think theyre were any facts about 911 apart from the fact it seems like fiction.

I wish i had more to fill up the text quota, sorry.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Oh so you're saying that if you were on a hijacked plane, you would wait for confirmation that others were in the same predicament before you called anyone!?

Flight 93 had at least 12 fewer people than the others. I bet if you compare the four hijacked flights of the day with all the flights not involved. they would be a hell of alot down, pity I can't prove it.

And for God's sake, by the time 93 had taken off, flight 11 had crashed, but it still took 30 minutes for the warning to reach 93!

[edit on 20-4-2009 by kiwifoot]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

c) It made the most number of calls becuase it was the last one to be hijacked. By this time the passengers calling out were receiving news about the other attacks from the people they were calling, and word quickly spread among the passengers.

Hmm....the whole phone call story is indeed strange to me.
12 calls from flight 93, around half of them claimed to be made by cell phones, the other half by on board satellite phones.
There is the first flaw. It's not possible, technologically, to call anyone from a cell phone while in air on a plain. The phone would constantly seek for networks because the plain would never be long enough in the range of one tower.
So, I don't know who called from where but the official story is very flawed.

Originally posted by kiwifoot


Oh I forgot there is one more. The flight 93 from 911 is not hte first flight 93 to be involved in a terrorist attack:

An assassin shot Lincoln in a theater and hid in a warehouse, while an assassin shot Kennedy from a warehouse and hid in a theater. Oh, and the theater and the car where the two presidents were killed were both named, "Ford".

Interesting coincidence, true, but in the end, largely immaterial.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Immaterial yes, as these coincidences had no bearing on the outcome, but were these similarities by chance? Some would say otherwise, the mirky underworld that was responsible for these acts surely believes in the occult, numerology and astrology, so there may be more here than you think!

Peace, kiwi.

[edit on 20-4-2009 by kiwifoot]

Originally posted by thegreatobserver

There is the first flaw. It's not possible, technologically, to call anyone from a cell phone while in air on a plain. The phone would constantly seek for networks because the plain would never be long enough in the range of one tower.

But then, since you concede that half the calls were made by the on board air phones which *did* have the range, and since those calls all relayed the exact same information that the cell phone calls had made, the cell phone calls necessarily had to be legitimate.

I don't know, but I heard somewhere that the reason they ban cell phones on aircraft is that the cell phone signals use the entire arcraft's frame as one big relay antenna, causing their frequencies to bleed into the aircraft's own frequencies. If so, that would explain how the cell phones were able to have sufficient signal strength right there. Perhaps there's a technician here who can enlighten me, one way or the other.

At any rate, there is still more evidence to support the reported events of the day, then there is to refute it.

So, I don't know who called from where but the official story is very flawed.

OR, there are a lot of normal, perfectly explainable things going on, it's just that we don't know what they are yet.

reply to post by thegreatobserver

There is the first flaw. It's not possible, technologically, to call anyone from a cell phone while in air on a plain. The phone would constantly seek for networks because the plain would never be long enough in the range of one tower.

No, the first flaw, is not doing the research. Flying over a city, with short range towers, close to the ground, yes its hard to make a phone call from a plane...but not impossible...could be the C-130 (just a cargo version...I know someone will be thinking EC-130) I was on made it easier..not sure, but it did last for about 10 seconds.

NOW, for Flight 93, the majority of its flight was over rural areas. Cell towers in rural areas have much longer range compared to those in a city. In addition, rural towers also tend to be much taller, and in the case of that area of the country...on top of hills/mountains. All this would make it easier to connect from an airliner..especially one that is not at a normal cruising altittude. But since the majority of the phone calls from Flight 93 were from the Airfones....really does not matter now does it?

Originally posted by kiwifoot
Immaterial yes, as these coincidences had no bearing on the outcome, but were these similarities by chance? Some would say otherwise, the mirky underworld that was responsible for these acts surely believes in the occult, numerology and astrology, so there may be more here than you think!

Using a unproven theory to support more unproven theories is circular logic.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by kiwifoot
Immaterial yes, as these coincidences had no bearing on the outcome, but were these similarities by chance? Some would say otherwise, the mirky underworld that was responsible for these acts surely believes in the occult, numerology and astrology, so there may be more here than you think!

Using a unproven theory to support more unproven theories is circular logic.

Hm, if you mean 'circular reasoning' I disagree, what I'm trying to say is what may be merely an insignificant coincidence to you or I, may, in actuality be a planned and deliberate act using methods and means that we are unaware of. Are you an expert in the fields I mentioned above? me neither, but the malevolent forces that carry out the assasination of Presidents, believe me are.

Here are some other anomalies for Flight 93.

1. The last three minutes of the cockpit voice recorder are missing.

2. The timeline was fudged. The offical records have it crashing at 10:03 A.M. However, independant sources such as a seismic station and radar, as well as witness accounts, put the time at 10:06.

3. One passenger made a phone call saying he could see white smoke and heard something explode or break.

4. Several ground witnesses saw another plane in the vicinity of the crash, before and after. The mystery white jet.


Yes, the planes were flying well below capacity, especially for a Tuesday morning.

reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


Sorry Skadi, but the white smoke was not reported during Mr Felt's phone call.

But in a phone interview, Felt's younger brother Gordon, who was played the 911 tape by the FBI when he went to hear the cockpit recordings in a special event for the victims' families, said, "There was no mention of white smoke or an explosion." Also, the dispatcher who took the call, John Shaw, confirmed that Felt had mentioned neither bomb nor white smoke. "It never happened," he stated

web.archive.org...://www.pittsburghpulp.com/content/2002/11_28/news_cover_story.shtml

I'm aware of what later claims state. I also know that the supervisor, who was listening in on the call, stated that Felt had indeed mentioned an explosion and white smoke.

I also know that the tape was first seized by the FBI, and the operator who answered the call was put on a gag order, being told not to discuss the incident with the press.

The feds probably were unaware that the supervisor was listening in on it.

That is the earlier version of events. It is possible the phone call was edited later, since the recording was in the hands of the feds for a while. They have the tech and know-how. And the operator is probably forbidden to say anything else.

The fact that the feds came and seized the tape and wouldn't release it or allow it to be discussed for a long time is pretty suspect. I mean, all the other passengers phone calls were pretty much made public knowledge and released pretty quickly, inclusing Beamer's call to the operator.

Yet Mr. Felt's call remained unknown and supressed for quite some time?

Sorry, it smells like you know what.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I'm aware of what later claims state. I also know that the supervisor, who was listening in on the call, stated that Felt had indeed mentioned an explosion and white smoke.

I also know that the tape was first seized by the FBI, and the operator who answered the call was put on a gag order, being told not to discuss the incident with the press.

The feds probably were unaware that the supervisor was listening in on it.

That is the earlier version of events. It is possible the phone call was edited later, since the recording was in the hands of the feds for a while. They have the tech and know-how. And the operator is probably forbidden to say anything else.

The fact that the feds came and seized the tape and wouldn't release it or allow it to be discussed for a long time is pretty suspect. I mean, all the other passengers phone calls were pretty much made public knowledge and released pretty quickly, inclusing Beamer's call to the operator.

Yet Mr. Felt's call remained unknown and supressed for quite some time?

Sorry, it smells like you know what.

The man who took that call mentioned NOTHING about white smoke or an explosion.

There was no GAG order, as the man who took the 911 call did an interview in 2002. (look it up)

The 911 tape was kept for many years for evidence in a criminal trial. There is nothing suspect about it at all. It is done in virtually all criminal cases.

reply to post by CameronFox


Um, in the FBI report the day after, we see clearly that the FBI was told about the explosion and white smoke.


FBI Report

And Yes, Cramer was gagged.

dailynews.philly.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Philidephia Daily News

www.mirror.co.uk..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Daily Mirror

Glen Cramer was listening in on the call, so he is as good a witness as the operator who took it.

As far as his tape being held for so long, and a copy not being released to the public for a very long time, yes, this is suspect. The other phone calls were also evidence for a criminal trial, and they were plastered all over the news, some the same friggin day.

Again, they were all evidence too.

reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


Mr Felt's relatives have heard the tape. They state that it did not mention any smoke of any kind. In addition, John Shaw, the operator says there was no smoke and Mr Cramer, was not actively listening to the conversation and has said more than once that the "smoke" issue came up because he was reading a transcript.