United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash According to ATC Radar

reply to post by Reheat
We are all entitled to our opinions so here is mine. I believe the flight UA 93 landed in Cleveland and all the passengers were unloaded. I watch the television broadcast that morning of former Mayor of Cleveland stated very clearly that flight 93 did indeed land at the Cleveland International Airport. The Mayor said the plane had been evacuated and the FBI was using bomb-sniffing dogs to try to find the bomb. I remembered it like it was yesterday and I thought that was very strange indeed, because an early report had already been made on the same station that flight 93 had crashed in Shanksville PA.

Former Cleveland Mayor Reported Flight 93 Landed at Cleveland Airport on 9/11 and Flight 175 in Vicinity. Cincinnati WCPO TV Cover-ups Why Account Removed From Web Site

State sponsored U.S. media ignores story, leaving 'internet hounds' to smell out the truth behind what really happened to the passengers on the doomed flights.
11 Nov 2005
By Greg Szymanski

On the morning of 9/11 a little known Cincinnati television station ran a story saying Flight 93 landed at Cleveland International Airport instead of crashing in Pennsylvania as claimed in the official government story.

Reporters at WCPO Channel 9 quoted then Cleveland Mayor Michael R. White as saying “a Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing due to a bomb threat,” the airplane landing safely, moved to a secure location and evacuated.

www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com...

No one can dispute this to me because I saw this report on TV that morning, and I can not forget it. I knew there was something wrong about those hijackings, there were conflicting News reports.
“NO” airplane crashed in Shanksville, PA. Why would a “Mayor” and a “CEO” James Goodwin, risk their reputation to go on live TV and report this information, furthermore, I am sure this information was checked out before they had broadcast it.

I have to believe United Airlines had called the Mayor and the CEO to do their Press release. It was obviously clear that UAL 93 landed at Cleveland, or the Mayor would not have done the press release. As far as the wreckage in Shanksville in that little hole, it has “never” been proven that the pieces of wreckage found belonged to flight 93.

F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I. To Formally Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Now with that being proven, “you” have no proof that anything crashed in PA.
All you have is hearsay from the FBI nothing more.

Go take a look at the pffft home page sometime and list all of the false stuff posted there. This latest exposure just scratches the surface.

Why don’t you demonstrate to us “all the false stuff” for Pilots for 911 truth has that has been proven false?

They accept items as being valid if it supports their delusions, but don't accept them when it destroys those fantasies.

Ridiculing other people's ideas, or their opinions will not get people to listen to you.

Case in point, the OP of this very thread must accept that transcript of the John White/Doug Davis conversation as being a valid document.

Not so, the OP has the right to his own beliefs

It was developed from an FAA tape of the conversation.

Frankly, we don’t have any proof who made those tapes, or where they came from. or if they where all conjured up in a back room by a bunch of actors.
Here is a fact for you; the FAA is still under a gag order to never to discuss anything related to 911.

Yet, most of them either don't accept or ignore this tape of the hijacking which shows that Arabic speaking individuals obtained control of the cockpit of UA 93.

Again, no proof of where those recordings came from since the FBI refuses to release serial numbers of the black boxes.

Pffft thinks they are quite clever by stating that they have NO CONCLUSIONS, it's just that "the Government supplied information does not support the Government story".

That is correct unless you can prove something else.

Some of their CRAP is implied and other parts are specifically stated as in the case of this OP, which was the result of a GROSS misinterpretation/misrepresentation of FACTS.

Well you are entitled to your opinions, however, I don’t believe the OP has misled anyone in here and under the circumstances has been polite and patient with you.
As for the “GROSS misinterpretation/misrepresentation of FACTS” You have failed to prove the OP is lying, or that Pilots for 911 truth has misled anyone with their information.

Why others are fooled by this charade is beyond my comprehension.

Maybe, because some people are wiser than you think.





[edit on 8-5-2009 by impressme]

[edit on 8-5-2009 by impressme]

[edit on 8-5-2009 by impressme]

[edit on 8-5-2009 by impressme]

[edit on 8-5-2009 by impressme]

[edit on 8-5-2009 by impressme]

[edit on 8-5-2009 by impressme]

Originally posted by Reheat
I will be posting a refutation of this article in a little while. So, I suggest that you don't get to deep into this until you know and understand the full CORRECT story. There is nothing to see here that's not already known, but you'll have to wait for the correct analysis to be written.

Has it occurred to you that some of us have been waiting to see your refutation posted here (complete with verifiable sources this time)? Reading back through this thread, I see that you posted a link to the magician's forum of "lively and friendly" insults earlier, but I haven't found much of anything worthwhile posted over there in the past and didn't click the link.

Could you merely be here to advertise for the magician's forum and to ridicule ""Cap'n King Air of pffft" perhaps, Mr. Reheat?

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash According to ATC Radar

Going back to the link provided in the OP, since this thread appears to have somehow devolved into a semantical ad hominem game of "attack the messenger" and other logical fallacies:

United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash - According To Atc/radar

It's a transcript within the FAA Command Center, between the National Traffic Management Officer, East Position ("ntmo-e") and Doug Davis of the Operations Center ("doug")

1405 (10:05 a.m.)

ntmo-e: ok united ninety three we're now receiving a transponder on and he is at eighty two hundred feet

doug: now transponder and he's eighty two-hundred

ntmo-e: southeastbound still

doug: eighty two hundred feet and now getting a transponder on him

ntmo-e: correct

doug: ok buddy

10:06

ntmo-e: ok we've lost radar contact with united ninety three
doug: all right

10:07

ntmo-e: sixteen south of Johnstown where they lost united ninety three and it was heading turning one four zero heading

doug: which will put him to what do you think

ntmo-e: uh I guess that put him down coming right just west of Dulles

doug: ok
...
10:10

doug: hey john

ntmo-e: yes

doug: do we have anything on delta nineteen eighty nine is she still heading to cleveland?

ntmo-e: delta nineteen eighty nine was returning to Cleveland and they were no longer treating it like a hijacked aircraft

doug: ok

ntmo-e: I don't know if he's landed ok; the last position of united I'm going to give some coordinates united ninety three

doug: yes

ntmo-e: three nine five one north zero seven eight four six west

doug: zero seven eight four six

ntmo-e: west

doug: west

doug: all right

ntmo-e: you got the thirty nine fifty one north

doug: ya thirty nine fifty one north zereo seven eighty four six west

ntmo-e: that's the last known position of united ninety three

pilotsfor911truth.org...

www.scribd.com...

To review a little English grammar for those who apparently obsess over small matters of semantics:

Slash (/)
* The slash is punctuation also called the virgule, diagonal, solidus, oblique, or slant.
* It is mainly used to show that a word is not written out.
* A slash represents 'or' or 'and/or' in alternatives such as: yours/mine.

dictionary1.classic.reference.com...

So, reading carefully at the link provided apparently the OP left out a character or two of punctuation in the title- not a huge deal to me. Perhaps one of the moderators could fix that thread title for us (or perhaps the forum software won't take punctuation characters- I don't know).

Now perhaps the discussion could rationally and civilly move onward and upward toward the content of the article (the FAA transcript between the National Traffic Management Officer, East Position ("ntmo-e") and Doug Davis of the Washington Operations Center Complex). I didn't see objective sourced references where these specific, quoted "falsehoods" lie either.

My question now is- if all the FAA telephone traffic wasn't based on primary and secondary RADAR returns, then what did they base it upon? That is perhaps the much more disturbing question (in the context of the UA93/Pennsylvania events).

Some may not have realized it yet, but the various and multiple discrepancies/anomalies between/in the various "official" sources are the more interesting part of these discussions for many of us.

reply to post by rhunter


The original title of their thread reads verbatim:

United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash - According To Atc/radar, PilotsFor911Truth.org

The - and / were both unnecessary imo, and of course I knew I was going to provide the source link, so the PilotsFor911Truth.org was not necessary in the title either. And besides, this is not the BAN forum, where titles must be copied verbatim.

@reheat

I'll be the first to admit I have no experience as a pilot. I cannot discuss in depth technically issues with this. But I can make my own opinions on this based from sources I choose to trust. And the government or its shills are damn sure not one of them.

And why in the heck would I trust them after watching this:
EXPOSED: Bush Planned on Invading Iraq Before 9/11-Part 1


CHENEY CONSIDERED KILLING AMERICAN SERVICEMEN DRESSED AS IRAN TO START WORLD WAR 3


On the other hand, 14 more international pilots just joined PilotsFor911Truth.org:

Captain Scotty Zeches
8,000 TT
Type ratings J3100, D328jet, A320
ATP, CFII, Advanced Ground Instructor
Air Astana Airlines, IndiGo Airlines, Skybus Airlines,
Independence Airlines, Atlantic Coast Airlines, and Florida Air Cargo
US Army, Paratrooper - 82d Airborne

Mik Eriksson
Denmark
225 tt ppl
pa28 pa22 pa18 c172 c177.
Bellanca tailwheel
12tt ul
Skyranger

Captain Timothy Self
6500 Hrs total time ATP, CFI, CFII, Flight Engineer, A&P Mechanic
135 Capt Lear Jets
121 FE/FO Japan Airlines, Omni Air International
Retired Air Force
Simulator Instructor
C141, DC-10, Lear Jet

Captain Claude Sourzac
21000+ TT
15000 B737, BBJ
rated F27, DC3, B744

Ed Parise
Captain TWA, retired
747, 767, 707, 727, DC9, L 1011
USN
F8, F9, F4, A4, P2, S2
TT 10,000+

Brent D.Greenwood
21,000+ hrs. (retired)
Hawaii Air Academy, DHL, United.
ATP: DC-3, 6, 7 L-188, B-737 B-757, 767, A&P

Gerald P. New
captain with Grant Aviation
Bethel, AK.
2500 tt. ATP, CFII, MEI.
Mostly operate PA-31-350'S.

Bob Price
Commercial/instrument
American General Tiger
Cessna 172 RG

Captain Hadi Rizvi
Flying 43 years
Courses on Accident Investgation
22 Years with Pakistan Air Force as fighter -Total about 3500 Hrs,
Types Flown: T-6G; T-37; T-33; F-86F/E, F-5; MirageIII/V; MIG-15; MIG-19, QFI
21 Years with PIA (Pakistan International Airlines) ~13000 Hrs
Types Flown: F-27; Boeing 737; Boeing 747; Airbus 310


Joseph F. Hamilton, III
BS: Aviation Technology/Avionics, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL.
AS: Aviation Maintenance Technology, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL.
FAA: Private Pilot: SEL
FAA: Airframe and Power plant Mechanic / 25 years
FAA: Inspection Authorization / 12 years
FCC: General Radio-telephone operator
IPC-A-610 Certified IPC Trainer
IPC-JSTD-001 Certified IPC Trainer

Christian Österdahl
2300 hrs TT F/O
737NG, A319/320
Easyjet

Capt Fred Fox (ret)
33 years experience flying for American Airlines
Commercial aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 727, 747, 767,
McDonnell Douglas DC-10, MD-80, and MD-11, Douglas DC-6,
and General Dynamics/Convair 990 Coronado
Former U.S. Navy pilot.
Aircraft flown: Douglas A-4 Skyhawk, 8 years experience

Edward A. Meyer
FAA Air Traffic Control Specialist
La Guardia Air Traffic Control
FAA Certified Airline Transport Pilot
Certified Flight Engineer/Turbojet
Certified Flight Instructor
3,000+ total hours flown

pilotsfor911truth.org...

All soon to be liars too, according you reheat? Why are these people joining this movement if P4T is such an untrustworthy source? Just cause they have some agenda against Bush? Uh, no. They know as well that many, many things are terribly wrong with the official story of 911. Apologize? I don't think so. You trust your sources, and I'll trust mine.

911 was the result of the Bush/NWO plan to seize Iraq's and Iran's vast oil fields. Iran just hasn't happened yet. They are working on it though, and in the most deceptive ways. Currently more than 2/3 of Iran is surrounded.

www.rumormillnews.com...

93 was most likely shot down, from everything that I have read on this, but I cannot be certain. It may have landed in Cleveland. I have always wondered why no tests (that I know of) have ever been done on soil extractions from the alleged Shanksville crash site to determine if explosives of any kind were used to create that crater. I think that needs to be done if it has not. I believe that the stories about them having to dig way down to unearth the plane are total hogwash. The picture of the engine in the crater was of an old rusty engine and I just don't buy it.

I'll bet if someone digs deep enough, some of the local residents had to have seen something prior to 911 of people prepping the site.

Another issue is the bodies on the plane. If the plane was buried that way, it would stand to reason that the bodies would have been buried right along with it, and unearthed along with the plane wreckage. Anyone seen anything on that?

Originally, Wally the coroner said there were no bodies or parts anywhere. Later he changed his story, as per the Dimaggio interviews.

If the OP report is accurate though, it certainly lends credibility to the plane landing in Cleveland idea. Maybe they did 93 the same way they did at the pentagon: decoys, multiple planes, cover stories, etc.

Originally posted by impressme

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, but those beliefs need to be based on FACT, when they are available. Your beliefs, on the other hand, are based upon hearsay, misinterpretations, or simply delusions that have no basis in anything other than wild speculation.

I've seen your comment about serial numbers for parts repeated dozens of times in your posts. Do you know WHY the NTSB generally identifies critical components' serial numbers for an ACCIDENT?

Psssst. Clue Bird - It's not necessarily to prove the identification of the aircraft, that is generally already known by other means.

If you really knew what you were talking about and paid attention you would realize that the FDR itself proves that the identity of the aircraft that crashed near Shanksville in rural PA was UA 93 because the FDR has approximately 24 hours of previous flights in memory. I fully realize you will then start a rant about "Chain of Custody", so I won't waste my time with any more FACTS. You obviously wouldn't recognize FACTS even if they bit you in.... stared you in the face, which they actually do.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I'll be the first to admit I have no experience as a pilot. I cannot discuss in depth technically issues with this. But I can make my own opinions on this based from sources I choose to trust. And the government or its shills are damn sure not one of them.

Since your entire post is based on "Appeal to Authority" fallacies, hearsay, or speculation, there is nothing to address here.

look...the government is not going to answer hard questions from these groups. and the fact that they have not brought all these people to the table to settle these inconsistancies in a public forum is why there is people that don't believe the official story.

the government is done with this, they have told their story and they will not allow any more investigations to take place. so you can continue to fight amongst yourselves, because nobody in government cares.

Originally posted by Reheat
Since your entire post is based on "Appeal to Authority" fallacies, hearsay, or speculation, there is nothing to address here.

And nothing to address at the following link either reheat?

To all considering 93 landing at Cleveland, please read this compelling article at the following link. More information and sources are provided. Very interesting article!:

source

Moreover, the company that installed UA's tracking computers in 1998—United Visual—also installed in each airline manager's workstation, to the left of the aircraft-tracking monitor, six TV monitors for 24/7 satellite cable news viewing.8 So when an aircraft impacted the south tower at 9:03 AM, at the precise time that Flight 175 disappeared from UA’s tracking monitors over New York City, UA's airline managers saw the impact, as did those of us who were watching television that morning. Immediately UA airline managers would have put two and two together, and known that the aircraft they just saw on satellite television news fly into the south tower was, in fact, their aircraft that had just disappeared from their aircraft-tracking monitors at the same time, at the same altitude (the aircraft’s transponder reporting a rapid decelerating from approximately 540 mph to near 0 mph in less than a second) and over the same precise location. Consequently the AP article would not have been a story that focused on a diverted aircraft, with a passing mention of another aircraft that UA was "deeply concerned" about, but instead a story where the spotlight would have been thrown full blast on the crash of Flight 175 over New York City (and a mention of the earlier crash into the north tower), after a short initial account of Flight 93's landing at Cleveland Hopkins Airport. Since AP doesn’t mention the crash of a second aircraft in the article (and tentatively identify the aircraft as UA Flight 1759 according to FAA and UA sources) that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that AP got the UA quotes before 9:03 AM.10 Why before 9:03 AM? Because as discussed above United Airlines would have been tracking Flight 175 throughout it’s journey and instantly known through UA's Special Operations Center that it had crashed when it did at 9:03 AM over New York City.

Therefore when UA CEO James Goodwin says in the AP article, "United is working with all the relevant authorities, including the FBI, to obtain further information on these flights [UA Flights 175 and 93],"11 this tells us that AP was talking to UA long before Flight 93 was known to have been hijacked, which was at 9:28 AM.12 Since UA would have had no reason to be discussing Flight 93 with AP before 9:28 AM according to the official 9/11 narrative, that leads us to the inevitable conclusion that the AP article does indeed confirm the landing of Flight 93 at Cleveland Hopkins Airport when it quotes UA saying, "United identified the plane as Flight 93".13

Interestingly, minutes after the AP article was posted at WCPO it was retracted with the following message as to why, "This story has been removed from WCPO.com. It was a preliminary AP story, and was factually incorrect."14 No reason was given by WCPO as to why the article was "factually incorrect", however based on the article itself we can hypothesize where the "factually incorrect" came into place: To speed things up on that busy morning, the AP reporter took the spiked Flight 93 story he wrote-up earlier in the morning and copied and pasted it onto another word processing file for reediting to confirm with the Delta 1989 landing that took place at 10:10 AM. Since the first two paragraphs would remain the same, except for two minor revisions in the first paragraph (767 for 757 and Boston Airport for Newark Airport) and the deletion of the word ‘evacuated’ in the second paragraph, the reporter then would only have to update the remainder of the article with the Delta 1989 landing. However the reporter must have gotten distracted in the chaos of that morning and neglected to 1. Delete the word ‘evacuated’ in the second paragraph, and 2. Replace the last four paragraphs that specifically mentioned Flight 93, UA and its CEO with the story of Delta 1989’s landing!

We can now begin to understand the true reason for Delta 1989's landing at Cleveland Airport. Delta 1989 was landed at Cleveland Airport because of the media's error in releasing the story of Flight 93's landing there. The Delta 1989 landing could then be used to explain away as an error the report that Flight 93 had landed at Cleveland Airport, an error due to a misidentification of one flight for the other.

So what happened to Flight 93? Thanks to the AP article we can say that Flight 93 took off from Newark Airport as scheduled at 8:00 AM (or close to it), and not at 8:42 AM as the official Flight 93 narrative claims, and landed safely at Cleveland Hopkins Airport no later than 8:48 AM. Why no later than 8:48 AM you ask? Because thanks to UA admitting it was also "deeply concerned" about Flight 175, we know that AP got the story by 9:03 AM, and it would have taken at least fifteen minutes for Flight 93 to have been, as mentioned by Mayor White, moved to a secure area of the airport and evacuated before UA and its CEO could have made their particular comments as reported by AP.

Further proof that UA and its CEO gave their interview to AP no later than 8:48 AM is the curious omission in the AP article of any mention of aircraft impacting the towers. Since Delta 1989 landed at Cleveland Airport at 10:10 AM EDT in the morning, one would expect some mention of these two disasters, which occurred at 8:46 AM EDT (Flight 11) and 9:03 AM EDT (Flight 175).

[edit on Fri May 8th 2009 by TrueAmerican]

Originally posted by rhunterMy question now is- if all the FAA telephone traffic wasn't based on primary and secondary RADAR returns, then what did they base it upon? That is perhaps the much more disturbing question (in the context of the UA93/Pennsylvania events).

I addressed this in the article at the link. Apparently, you don't understand or you didn't read my article. If you sincerely want a personal explanation, ask and I will try again AFTER YOU PROVE THAT YOU'VE READ THE ARTICLE.

Originally posted by rhunterSome may not have realized it yet, but the various and multiple discrepancies/anomalies between/in the various "official" sources are the more interesting part of these discussions for many of us.

There is not an anomaly or a real discrepancy here at all, if you understand the ATC System and how it works. All of the FAA transcripts are developed from actual tape recordings "ex post facto" by Administrative Specialists employed by the FAA. Note, these folks are Administrative Specialists, not Controllers, nor are they trained in Air Traffic Control. At the links provided you will note a difference between the Cleveland Transcripts versus the NTMO transcript. You'll note that the Cleveland Transcripts denoted times to the SECOND for each radio transmission, whereas, the NTMO transcript listed an ESTIMATED time for a block of conversation. That's because the Cleveland Center transcripts involved the actual control of air traffic, whereas, the NTMO transcript was an extraneous passage of information from NTMO-E to FAA Headquarters by telephone. In other words, the NTMO-E telephone conversation with FAA Headquarters was NOT VERY IMPORTANT. NTMO was mostly concerned/involved with getting aircraft on the ground and trying to determine if there had been a fighter scramble for UA 93. Understand now?

Now, ask yourself why p4t used an extraneous unimportant telephone conversation transcript with ESTIMATED times to show that UA 93 was still airborne after it crashed. Why not use the the more accurate Cleveland Center transcripts, which do not show this. Could it possibly be because there was a BIASED AGENDA to support? Or was it because of ignorance?

[edit on 8-5-2009 by Reheat]

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by Reheat
Since your entire post is based on "Appeal to Authority" fallacies, hearsay, or speculation, there is nothing to address here.

And nothing to address at the following link either reheat?

I read that article and it involves some deceptive speculation by the author regarding the TIMES of telephone communications between ANOTHER party with United Airlines. The author DOES NOT KNOW THE TIMES of the conversations, but devises theories to develop speculative conclusions. Why didn't the author of this garbage call the AP and verify the times of the conversations with UA? If you can't see through this I can not help you.

If all you read is "TRUTHER" written claptrap, it's no wonder you have the opinions that you do.

[edit on 8-5-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 8-5-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 8-5-2009 by Reheat]

Originally posted by rhunterHas it occurred to you that some of us have been waiting to see your refutation posted here (complete with verifiable sources this time)? Reading back through this thread, I see that you posted a link to the magician's forum of "lively and friendly" insults earlier, but I haven't found much of anything worthwhile posted over there in the past and didn't click the link.

Could you merely be here to advertise for the magician's forum and to ridicule ""Cap'n King Air of pffft" perhaps, Mr. Reheat?

You're the only who has asked that the article be posted here, so far. Several seem to have read the article at the link I provided.

It is customary practice and within Forum rules to post links to other sites.

In that

I haven't found much of anything worthwhile posted over there in the past and didn't click the link.

Don't try to waste my time with any other posts in the thread unless you read the article. I won't reply.

ETA: This Forum software is a "PITA" to format a previously written Word Processor document. That is the specific reason I didn't post it here. If you don't want to go read it, then stay out of the thread.

[edit on 8-5-2009 by Reheat]

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

TrueAmerican, let me put it on the table for you.

There are radar tracks from multiple radar sites, entire and complete ATC tape recordings, airborne and ground based witnesses, ACARS data from United Airlines, DNA recovered from the site, multiple people who participated in the recovery of the DNA and aircraft wreckage, the FDR and CVS from the aircraft and perhaps more that escape my memory now that cast NO DOUBT that UA 93 crashed in that field in rural PA. Only part of the evidence is from Government sources.

If you can devise a plausible coherent theory that makes sense how all of this could be either manipulated or faked perhaps someone might listen to you. Otherwise, you are just like all other truthers that haven't been able to come up with an alternate cogent explanation to counter all of this evidence in almost 8 years.

You can "Cherry Pick" at supposed anomalies and base your opinion on "truther" based theory and LIES, but you can't put together a plausible cogent explanation for all of it that makes any sense.

And you wonder why some people call you derogatory names.

[edit on 8-5-2009 by Reheat]

Originally posted by Reheat
Don't try to waste my time with any other posts in the thread unless you read the article. I won't reply.

ETA: This Forum software is a "PITA" to format a previously written Word Processor document. That is the specific reason I didn't post it here. If you don't want to go read it, then stay out of the thread.

[edit on 8-5-2009 by Reheat]

Sorry buddy, but you don't get to dictate whose or which posts I respond to on this public forum. The Moderators and Administrators would have that right, but I don't believe that you do.

I was actually hoping for a response from pale5218 on this FAA telephone matter (the part you quoted), as that poster appeared quite mannerly as well as knowledgeable on civilian Air Traffic Control procedures a couple of pages back on this thread.

As far as your recent ultimatum that I go over to that "forum" (which IMHO has traditionally been something of an intellectual cesspool) and read your material, well you can just hold your breath and pout while you wait for that to happen, I suppose. Er, thanks but no.

It seems extremely odd to me that someone would come to this forum to announce (in advance mind you) that they will be soon be making a post to answer a question, then demand that forum members here go over to another forum to read it. Wouldn't it be much simpler to type what you intend to say here on this forum, where the question originated in the first place???

I've heard the "time slip and latency explanations" appealed to several times before. I have also worked with GPS PPS timing and geolocation systems since well before 9/11/2001 as a matter of fact. I have also worked with NTP time server systems (and have been using them since the 1990s with various systems).

tycho.usno.navy.mil...

I have found firsthand over the years that many military personnel (and some government agencies, especially the scientific or technical ones that take and record data of various forms) are often very particular about time synchronization and punctuality, but "mileage may vary" I suppose.

I wonder what the latency is of FAA "land-line" telephone systems (I'm sure that it has one, albeit quite small I would expect). Had there not already been 3 catastrophic events at WTC and the Pentagon by that time? Were all the FAA ATC's out on a coffee or smoke break for ~120 seconds? [/rhetorical, or else open to TrueAmerican if he? likes.]

reply to post by Reheat


Why is all that even necessary? If the FBI, FAA, or NTSB was serious about identifying the aircraft, they would simply supply serial numbers from parts of the plane, show them, and then show the matching part numbers from maintenance records and other records so that there would be no question- the way they do in every other investigation. Can you explain to me please why they haven't done this? And the same with all the other planes involved in 911.

The bottom line Reheat is that they know how many people are onto their trail, and yet in the face of this, still refuse to provide the conclusive information necessary to satisfy even the most skeptical. This is typical of people that are hiding something.

Originally posted by jimmyx
because nobody in government cares.

You are mostly correct. Why should the Government care?

It has been vividly shown that no matter how many documents are released, no matter how many tapes are released, and no matter how many videos are released or answers given to explain why they are not, SOME PEOPLE WON'T ACCEPT THE ANSWERS.

Quite frankly, I don't want even $1 more of my tax $ spent to release one more piece of paper, one more tape, one more video for people who are not willing to accept them.

This Forum and others could be used as a learning experience for people who don't understand. Instead, there are a lot of "know nothings" arguing and bickering over minor issues, some of which can be easily answered and some of which can never be answered, but in the "BIG Picture are not important. Such is life among "Conspiracy Theorists".

[edit on 8-5-2009 by Reheat]

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Why is all that even necessary? If the FBI, FAA, or NTSB was serious about identifying the aircraft, they would simply supply serial numbers from parts of the plane, show them, and then show the matching part numbers from maintenance records and other records so that there would be no question- the way they do in every other investigation. Can you explain to me please why they haven't done this? And the same with all the other planes involved in 911.

The NTSB's purpose for existence is to investigate ACCIDENTS. None of the aircraft that crashed on 9/11 were accidents, they were CRIMINAL ACTS. As a result the FBI was the lead investigative agency with the NTSB ONLY providing the assistance requested by the FBI.

The NTSB recovers serial numbers from parts, NOT FOR AIRCRAFT IDENTIFICATION, but to determine if those parts were a factor in the ACCIDENT. These part serial numbers can show if a "time change" part was or was not changed on time or as directed by FAA mandates.

In other words, the NTSB uses this serial number information in an attempt to determine if mechanical parts were the cause of the accident and how to prevent a similar occurrence in the future.

Truthers know there are no serial number in the public domain and repeatedly use this to promote their "inside jobby job" crap. All it tells me is that the NTSB did not do a typical ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION because the aircraft that were deliberately crashed on 9/11 were not accidents, they were CRIMINAL ACTS carried out by jihadists who wanted to kill True Americans. They not only were successful in killing Americans, but many other nationalities, as well.....

As I stated in another post, the aircraft were identified by multiple sources, but truthers don't buy it just as they don't buy other information that does not fit the delusions.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
The bottom line Reheat is that they know how many people are onto their trail, and yet in the face of this, still refuse to provide the conclusive information necessary to satisfy even the most skeptical. This is typical of people that are hiding something.

My reply to this delusion is a simple

[edit on 8-5-2009 by Reheat]

Originally posted by rhunter
I was actually hoping for a response from pale5218 on this FAA telephone matter (the part you quoted), as that poster appeared quite mannerly as well as knowledgeable on civilian Air Traffic Control procedures a couple of pages back on this thread.

Folks, this is a excellent example of "irreducible delusion", so common among people in the "Truth Movement".

I have stated that the National Traffic Management Office in Herndon, VA did not have a radar feed from Cleveland on 9/11, pale5218 confirmed it. I intentionally did not provide a link to the Area Supervisor's statement in an MFR (which was submitted to the 9/11 Commission) who stated that a telephone line was devoted to communications with Herndon because they were blind. There are other tapes/transcripts available which recorded conversations on that line. In addition, there are photographs available on the Internet that show the layout and equipment located in the NTMO facility on 9/11.

Anyone can call the FAA and ask someone who was around in 2001 and familiar with the NTMO at that time to ask them the question to prove my information wrong.

You can lead a horse to water, but ........

reply to post by Reheat

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, but those beliefs need to be based on FACT, when they are available. Your beliefs, on the other hand, are based upon hearsay, misinterpretations, or simply delusions that have no basis in anything other than wild speculation.

Wrong! You did not read my thread as usual. I just “proved” to YOU there was no tangible proof that a plane crashed in Shanksville, PA.
I gave you my opinion of my beliefs and I showed you why I believed in my theory. As far as your comment of : (Your beliefs, on the other hand, are based upon hearsay, misinterpretations, or simply delusions that have no basis in anything other than wild speculation.) You just described the OS, which I do not support.

I fully realize you will then start a rant about "Chain of Custody", so I won't waste my time with any more FACTS.

Thank you.

You obviously wouldn't recognize FACTS even if they bit you in.... stared you in the face, which they actually do.

Your comments are appalling to say the lease, your ridiculing and insults have no place on this forum and you are being disrespectful to me and everyone in here who is trying to have a civil conversation.

Psssst. Clue Bird - It's not necessarily to prove the identification of the aircraft, that is generally already known by other means.

It is obviously clear you do not know what crash scene investigators protocol calls are and how they go about collecting evidences to prove the plane in question is the real plane. Besides the OS, which lacks any evidences to supports its self, one, must wonder why anyone would support such a ridiculous fallacy.

posted by Reheat

Don't try to waste my time with any other posts in the thread unless you read the article. I won't reply.

posted by rhunter

It seems extremely odd to me that someone would come to this forum to announce (in advance mind you) that they will be soon be making a post to answer a question, then demand that forum members here go over to another forum to read it. Wouldn't it be much simpler to type what you intend to say here on this forum, where the question originated in the first place???

The reason Mr Reheat posts his BS over there is so the mods over there at the James Randi Forum of Magicians and Illusionists can censor any answer you post over there which does not comply with their strict government loyalist rules, and so they can quickly ban you over there if they do not like your answering post over here at ATF or elsewhere.

Another reason is so that the mods over there can quickly remove Reheat's disinfo over there if some of the bright minds over here discover some more serious flaws in his BS.

The one good thing about the James Randi Forum of Magicians and Illusionists is that they are very predictable.

Some time ago I had registered over at P4T as username 911analyzer- just a name off the top of my head so I could have membership access to the forum. I never posted anything and just read. But since Reheat seems to be so intent upon bringing those people down any way he can, I replied to the thread over there regarding this story, and suggested that someone from there respond.

Well, it appears that Rob Balsamo split my response out from the thread and then made a new thread over there in the debate section regarding this story. He then sent me a pm there to inform me of this. I guess they affectionately call you ReTreat over there Reheat? Heh. So much for derogatory names, eh? Why can't we all just get along?

Anyway, he made the following reply, as well as gave permission to post this here, so here it is:

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Looks like ReTreat fell off the wagon again and isnt getting enough attention at home.

Mostly speculation, unsourced, litered with ad homs and personal attacks, typical ReTreat rant... his spin is as twisted as his flight path depictions for witnesses we exposed in "The North Flight Path."

I also see that Farmer/911Files replied in the thread... i remember when Farmer was trying to point out to me UA93 continuing past the crash site in the RADES data, i was never able to spot it and Farmer kept badgering me to keep looking... that was the first time i started thinking the guy is off his rocker. Its been confirmed since.

ReTreat does not address lat/long position without speculation and excuse for a 16 mile margin of error...too funny.. and typical...

Also be sure to ask when he will step up to the plate for debate with an actual opponent instead of from his cave. Poor ReTreat...

We're not surprised he doesnt come here to post his BS. Be sure to let him know his account here (which he used to try to portray himself as a college female) is still valid, although the name has been changed to ReTreat if he wants to log in. Im sure we wont see him stop by anytime soon. He as been thoroughly exposed and discredited. This is one of the reasons he stays anonymous.

Feel free to post the above at ATS if you wish. I'll split this out to the debate forum.

Why is it every time I post a 911 topic the spooks come out of the woodwork? You and 911files are supposed to be retired? I am not interested in the drama. I just want reliable answers like most honest truthers.

Reheat, I said FAA, FBI, or NTSB. Why did you go off on a tirade about the NTSB? Fine, if this falls in the FBI's jurisdiction, then you still have not answered the question- and they still have not provided conclusive evidence, via part serial numbers, of identification of any of the aircraft.

In any case, looks like you have some debating to do against people who can technically really debate you. I'll be watching the thread over there for your response. Or does your retirement only apply to P4T?