View Full Version: Flight 93 landed at 10:28AM EST

CIT Research Forum > Shanksville > Flight 93 landed at 10:28AM EST


Title: Flight 93 landed at 10:28AM EST


Domenick DiMaggio CIT - October 1, 2008 04:41 AM (GMT)
according to this :

http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id3314169481.html

This file provided to Brian Stark via FOIA 2008-3195. It is an Excel sheet recording the DCA departures/arrivals for 9/11/2001
http://aal77.com/faa/FOIA%202008-3195%20(Stark).xls

DCA is Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
http://www.airportcodes.us/us-airports.htm

skeptic - October 1, 2008 07:28 AM (GMT)
Thanks Domenick, I was following this one on p4t.
Truly bizarre.
Add to this Todd Beamer's cell phone calls that were coming out until 20:58 that day,
and everything makes perfect sense…that and red bandanas of course.
:D

Domenick DiMaggio CIT - October 1, 2008 09:29 PM (GMT)
yeah not crashing and dying would explain how todd was able to continue making calls to new jersey to try and tip someone off that he wasn't dead yet.......


roundhead - October 3, 2008 06:59 PM (GMT)
Dom, could you elaborate about Beamer

Domenick DiMaggio CIT - October 4, 2008 02:25 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (roundhead @ Oct 3 2008, 06:59 PM)
Dom, could you elaborate about Beamer

http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-29-F...one-records.pdf

todd beamer's cell on 9/11 tried calling a residence in new jersey until 20:58 each call lasting about a minute in length.

Ligon - October 4, 2008 05:18 AM (GMT)
Very interesting. Is there any way I can verify the authenticity of the FBI Todd Beamer document and the excel file provided to Brian Stark?

parlouroftruth - October 6, 2008 09:34 AM (GMT)
Hi Dom - Jus been looking at the document provided by Brian stark containing arrivals n departures on 9/11. Very interested indeed ! - Especially as the phonecalls from Tod Beamer seem to check out with it. I do however have one piece of confusion that I'm hoping you can help me with. According to my notes, 'national groundstop' was put into operation at 9.26am on 9/11 if I'm not mistaken. Therefore how can there still be many arrivals at Reagan as shown on the document provided by Stark after 9.26am and right through to 10.30am including Flight 93? I'm just concerned as to the validation of the document. Shed any light Dom??

TrueOrFalse - October 6, 2008 07:09 PM (GMT)
QUOTE ("streetcar304")
Actually, your interpretation of the data is wrong.

That spreadsheet came from fligh PLAN data, not actual landing data. That information came from the FOIA request.


So, is this landing data of flight plan data? :huh:

skeptic - October 6, 2008 09:20 PM (GMT)
How can it be a flight plan if UAL93 was destined to land in San Francisco international airport?

TrueOrFalse - October 6, 2008 09:34 PM (GMT)
I'm quoting him again, same post
QUOTE ("streetcar304")
Re-read up on what the ATC system controllers did regarding UA 93's in-flight plan and how they changed it to DCA from its original destination of SFO, resulting in the data on the spreadsheet showing DCA as its destination with a projected landing time.'
QUOTE
9:30 a.m. September 11, 2001: Flight 93 Requests a New Flight Plan

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. eff Krawczyk, the chief operating officer of a company that tracks aircraft movements, later comments, “We hardly ever get a flight plan change. Very unusual.” Who it is that makes this request is unclear. The hijacker takeover of Flight 93 occurred around 9:28 a.m., 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).


Why the hell would a hijacker request a new flight plan?

Domenick DiMaggio CIT - October 7, 2008 01:01 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Ligon @ Oct 4 2008, 05:18 AM)
Very interesting. Is there any way I can verify the authenticity of the FBI Todd Beamer document and the excel file provided to Brian Stark?

i dont believe there are other sources for these documentations so the best thing to be for confirmation would be requesting copies from the sources for your own records.


Domenick DiMaggio CIT - October 7, 2008 01:03 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (parlouroftruth @ Oct 6 2008, 09:34 AM)
Hi Dom - Jus been looking at the document provided by Brian stark containing arrivals n departures on 9/11. Very interested indeed ! - Especially as the phonecalls from Tod Beamer seem to check out with it. I do however have one piece of confusion that I'm hoping you can help me with. According to my notes, 'national groundstop' was put into operation at 9.26am on 9/11 if I'm not mistaken. Therefore how can there still be many arrivals at Reagan as shown on the document provided by Stark after 9.26am and right through to 10.30am including Flight 93? I'm just concerned as to the validation of the document. Shed any light Dom??

i'm going to say the reason there are so many arrivals after the national groundstop is because those planes were already airborne when it was issued. dca may have been the destination for some while others were diverted here most likely.

Domenick DiMaggio CIT - October 7, 2008 01:07 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (TrueOrFalse @ Oct 6 2008, 07:09 PM)
From Loose Change forums

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums...143314&t=700788

QUOTE ("streetcar304")
Actually, your interpretation of the data is wrong.

That spreadsheet came from fligh PLAN data, not actual landing data. That information came from the FOIA request.


So, is this landing data of flight plan data? :huh:

i don't believe it to be.

i'm trying to get a better understanding of it now as both sides are making argument over this point. i can't see how even if flight 93 changed its flight path that would put it in the arrivals for the dca. i still think it would have to actually land there before it gets logged. i don't think those who document all these intricate details day to day come to work and log everything in before lunch. know what i'm sayin? lol

Domenick DiMaggio CIT - October 7, 2008 01:14 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (TrueOrFalse @ Oct 6 2008, 09:34 PM)
I'm quoting him again, same post
QUOTE ("streetcar304")
Re-read up on what the ATC system controllers did regarding UA 93's in-flight plan and how they changed it to DCA from its original destination of SFO, resulting in the data on the spreadsheet showing DCA as its destination with a projected landing time.'
QUOTE
9:30 a.m. September 11, 2001: Flight 93 Requests a New Flight Plan

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. eff Krawczyk, the chief operating officer of a company that tracks aircraft movements, later comments, “We hardly ever get a flight plan change. Very unusual.” Who it is that makes this request is unclear. The hijacker takeover of Flight 93 occurred around 9:28 a.m., 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).


Why the hell would a hijacker request a new flight plan?

QUOTE (skeptic)
How can it be a flight plan if UAL93 was destined to land in San Francisco international airport?


there seems to be a lot wrong with this.....

so while planes are being hijacked by arabs who have some "planes" as they announced to the world, an arab makes a highly unusual or uncommon or both for that matter, request for a flight path change to the nation's capitol and be granted........

this has to send like a hundred red flags up to those who receive that request especially with all the other surrounding circumstances.........

so now the questions become if there any audio log of this?
who sent the requst?
who was the recipient?
what was the standard operating methods in place and were they followed?
if so who approved it?
if not why?

ughhhhhhhhh.

:angry:

skeptic - October 7, 2008 08:32 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Domenick DiMaggio CIT @ Oct 7 2008, 04:14 AM)
ughhhhhhhhh.

:angry:

Exactly ! :angry:

Domenick DiMaggio CIT - October 25, 2008 06:41 PM (GMT)
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?

someone is assisting 'al qaeda' from within......or flight 93 really did land at reagan.
now they have to make a choice.

skeptic - October 25, 2008 09:28 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Domenick DiMaggio CIT @ Oct 25 2008, 09:41 PM)
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).
someone is assisting 'al qaeda' from within......or flight 93 really did land at reagan.
now they have to make a choice.

I wonder what they mean by "plane's navigational system"
If by "navigational system" they refer to the FMS (flight management system), than it is important to know that operating such equipment requires knowledge and experience far beyond what you would expect from private licensed pilots, or by any pilot that has never flown "heavy" or sophisticated type jets.
There are of course easier systems to use, such as VOR or ADF, but I wonder why bother with all of this, if after all the hijacker's soul intention is crashing the plane.

Maybe they just needed to buy time to steam iron their bandanas, so they will be in good condition for the trial exhibitions.
:blink:

JonJon - October 1, 2010 07:40 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Domenick DiMaggio CIT @ Oct 6 2008, 05:14 PM)
QUOTE (TrueOrFalse @ Oct 6 2008, 09:34 PM)
I'm quoting him again, same post
QUOTE ("streetcar304")
Re-read up on what the ATC system controllers did regarding UA 93's in-flight plan and how they changed it to DCA from its original destination of SFO, resulting in the data on the spreadsheet showing DCA as its destination with a projected landing time.'
QUOTE
9:30 a.m. September 11, 2001: Flight 93 Requests a New Flight Plan

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. eff Krawczyk, the chief operating officer of a company that tracks aircraft movements, later comments, “We hardly ever get a flight plan change. Very unusual.” Who it is that makes this request is unclear. The hijacker takeover of Flight 93 occurred around 9:28 a.m., 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).


Why the hell would a hijacker request a new flight plan?

QUOTE (skeptic)
How can it be a flight plan if UAL93 was destined to land in San Francisco international airport?


there seems to be a lot wrong with this.....

so while planes are being hijacked by arabs who have some "planes" as they announced to the world, an arab makes a highly unusual or uncommon or both for that matter, request for a flight path change to the nation's capitol and be granted........

this has to send like a hundred red flags up to those who receive that request especially with all the other surrounding circumstances.........

so now the questions become if there any audio log of this?
who sent the requst?
who was the recipient?
what was the standard operating methods in place and were they followed?
if so who approved it?
if not why?

ughhhhhhhhh.

:angry:


my friend who wishes to not hear any of what I have to say...says the pre-programmed flight data, the one used for most coast to coast flights can be easily changed...is he right??

~~~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).~~~

At this point, common sense would tell NORAD to follow this plane, and then shoot it down after its first warning...one bldg has already been 'allegedly' struck--unless of course, NORAD is advised of the farce.

Domenick DiMaggio CIT - October 3, 2010 05:56 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (JonJon @ Oct 1 2010, 07:40 PM)
my friend who wishes to not hear any of what I have to say...says the pre-programmed flight data, the one used for most coast to coast flights can be easily changed...is he right??


QUOTE
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.”


it has to go through the faa.

JonJon - October 4, 2010 01:02 AM (GMT)
THANKS.

And wasn't this after 2 alleged planes had attacked??
Duh!

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.


Why, sure...need some help there old chap?
How about if I clear the entire sky for you to make it easier to get to the White HOuse??

T3QuillAMocKINGbird - October 13, 2010 09:58 AM (GMT)
Whoa... What time did the Transponders go off, if the transponder is off and they request and are granted there is even more to question.

Very interesting! Someone should look at other planes that landed and how their flightplans were changed that day as the skys were cleared. This would prove that the other planes following their flightplans that landed at DCA would be noted as changed in the same manner that 93 was or if they are not and contain the original flightplans then it would be obvious to make a solid conclusion.

rSpieker - October 13, 2010 08:38 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (T3QuillAMocKINGbird @ Oct 13 2010, 11:58 AM)

Very interesting! Someone should look at other planes that landed and how their flightplans were changed that day as the skys were cleared.

This Someone should be you!

Do your homework!!

T3QuillAMocKINGbird - October 14, 2010 10:06 AM (GMT)
I am not a Shanksville expert, and I am just brainstorming so forgive me if I don't contribute. I figured someone has the lists already which I don't have, but if you would like me to stop posting when I don't have info then I will refrain.

Winkhorst - October 17, 2011 03:29 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (JonJon @ Oct 3 2010, 05:02 PM)
THANKS.

And wasn't this after 2 alleged planes had attacked??
Duh!

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.


Why, sure...need some help there old chap?
How about if I clear the entire sky for you to make it easier to get to the White House??

What bothers me is that these supposed hijackers allowed the planes to fly hundreds of miles out and only then hijacked them and turned them around and headed for their supposd targets. In the normal course of events, this would give the authorities ample time to send up jets and to intercept them and then shoot them down if they didn't cooperate. Only under these circumstances would it be necessary to change the flight plan to avoid being shot down. And would not the authorities request an answer to the nagging question, "Why, exactly, do you want to change your flight plan when you are scheduled to fly to San Francisco?" I ask you this: Are these the actions of real-world hijackers who actually intend to accomplish something before dying and who DO NOT have reason to believe they are being aided and abetted from the inside?

If *I* were planning such an attack, I would pick a flight heading in the general direction of the target and then hijack the plane when it was nearing the target. Anything else would be idiotic and highly suspicious.

Harry_B - December 8, 2011 05:21 AM (GMT)
QUOTE
my friend who wishes to not hear any of what I have to say...says the pre-programmed flight data, the one used for most coast to coast flights can be easily changed...is he right??
Can he completely explain how he would accomplish this?
- If not, why not?
- If yes, where did he learn it?
Maybe he can give us a link to download the instruction manual? :D

onesliceshort - December 8, 2011 01:39 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Harry_B @ Dec 7 2011, 09:21 PM)
QUOTE
my friend who wishes to not hear any of what I have to say...says the pre-programmed flight data, the one used for most coast to coast flights can be easily changed...is he right??
Can he completely explain how he would accomplish this?
- If not, why not?
- If yes, where did he learn it?
Maybe he can give us a link to download the instruction manual? :D

I remember reading (a while back) at Pilotsfor911Truth of how the binary numbers recorded can be electronically changed - been searching for the link and can't find it :(

My own personal take on it is based on Warren Stutt's alleged decode of the bs FDR data of "Flight 77".

The guy used a publically available program (Excel?) and manually added numbers in the appropriate fields (even though he twisted the numbers and omitted others, it still added up to bs). The very fact that he could manually make a program shows that the "FDR data" was very open to manipulation.

The "data" was shown to have been downloaded or "got at" 4 hours before the official time it was allegedly found.

What was released was basically a series of numbers from an alleged FDR that had not only no serial number but was void of a digital identification contained within the unit itself.

And they couldn't even get their story straight on who found it and where!

Oh, and don't forget the "missing seconds" within the most controversial stage of the flightpath. <_<





* Hosted for free by InvisionFree