Support Independent Journalism!
9/11 Blogger receives no foundational or corporate support other than from the ads below. We depend on your support. Help us cover the news and improve the site by becoming a monthly donor.
What is this? UA93 requested a change of flight plans? From San Francisco to DC? (at mark 3:15)
"Danny, wasn't it a chilling moment when you made a reference there to United flight 93 asking for a change of flight plan headed for San Francisco, asking for flight plan that takes into Washington?"
There's something more at
"The Newark-to-San Francisco flight reportedly diverted its route near Pittsburgh and ignored calls from Pittsburgh International Airport controllers. Allegheny County Emergency Management Coordinator Bob Full said that Pittsburgh International Airport officials had knowledge of the plane headed for Pittsburgh and that it was taking precautionary action when the plane diverted its course. The plane actually reached the Cleveland area before turning around.
ABC News reported that a request to change the flight plan to Washington, D.C. was asked for by someone on the plane."
It is still a mystery who requested the change, who told ABC news and where the documentation for any of this resides.
First of all, DC was shut down right after the Pentagon was hit, so no flight plans would have been approved for DC destinations.
ATCs were trying to get everything on the ground after ~9:45. Pilots were being told to go to the nearest airports and land immediately.
UA93 was suspected of having a bomb aboard due to radio transmissions. Why would they approve a plane with a bomb to go anywhere near DC?
There are records that point to a change happening at 9:56, but that was taken back less than a minute later.
UA93 is sent ACARS messages saying DO NOT DIVERT TO DC AREA. So why would FAA approve?
Ask yourself why a hijacker would purposely tell ATCs where he intended to go?
The 9/11 Commission reported the hijacker keyed in the change of destination. But look at the footnote (85) on page 457 (PDF page 474) . This is about a phone call from a stewardess to her husband.(PDF page 30) There is nothing in the Philip Bradshaw interview about the flight plan change.
Are we to believe that the pilot decides to make a flight plan change while being assaulted by the passengers??
Can we find more documentation for this strange occurrence?
Kawika: "Ask yourself why a hijacker would purposely tell ATCs where he intended to go?"
The controller's name is Linda Justice, and there was no radio communication by Ziad Jarrah with ATC requesting a flight plan change. He just entered DCA in the flight computer. See below. Meanwhile, UA 93's boarding passes have been released. "Debunker" blog SLC reported it rather late. I'm sure there's a hoax somewhere in the boarding passes to latch onto, though. There's a passenger missing: ZOMG conspiracy.
An air traffic controller at the FAA’s Cleveland Center enters a new flight plan for Flight 93 into the FAA computer system, giving a new destination of Reagan National Airport in Washington, DC. Flight 93 is currently flying in the airspace covered by the Cleveland Center’s Imperial Sector radar position, which is being managed by controller Linda Justice.
Controller Enters New Flight Plan for Flight 93 - Justice changes the flight’s destination code from "SFO," the code for San Francisco International Airport, to "DCA," the code for Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
An FAA chronology will specify that she changes the flight plan "direct HGR [the code for Hagerstown Regional Airport in Maryland] to DCA."
Another FAA chronology will similarly state that Justice reroutes Flight 93 "direct to Hagerstown direct to Washington National."
Flight 93’s tag therefore now reads, "Hagerstown-National," according to Justice.
New Flight Plan Not Due to Communication with Pilot - The reason Justice enters a new flight plan for Flight 93 is unclear. A minute earlier, the hijacker pilot on Flight 93 reprogrammed the plane’s navigational system for the new destination of Reagan Airport (see 9:55 a.m. September 11, 2001).
And according to the St. Petersburg Times, controllers typically only change a plane’s destination when this is requested by the pilots.
But one of the FAA chronologies will state that Justice’s change to the flight plan is "not a result of any communication with the pilot."
Flight Plan Changed to Aid Handoff to Washington Controllers - Justice will later explain why she changes the flight plan. She will state that Flight 93 appears to be heading toward the airspace of the FAA’s Washington Center, and so, in "an attempt to expedite the situation," she enters the change of routing to reflect Hagerstown Airport to Reagan Airport. She will say she does this "only to forward [the] information [about Flight 93] to the sectors the aircraft appeared to be tracking toward."
Justice will tell the 9/11 Commission that she changes the routing when she sees Flight 93 is heading eastbound. She will say, "The easiest way to do a handoff is to change the flight plan," and also say she changes the flight plan "to show that Washington Center was the recipient." According to Justice, the "controversial step" she takes is "putting in Hagerstown, because the misconception was that she had communicated with the plane and cleared it through."
John Werth, another controller at the Cleveland Center, will tell the 9/11 Commission that Justice enters the new destination for Flight 93 "because she knew it would be easier to track the primary [radar track for the aircraft] when the computer has a flight plan to work with."
After changing the flight plan, Justice calls the Potomac Sector radar position at the Washington Center and tells the controller there to "pull up the data block" for Flight 93. Justice will say it is clear to the Washington Center controller that she has created the new destination in order to make it easier to locate the plane.
New Flight Plan Causes False Reports of Plane Approaching Washington - According to author Lynn Spencer, the new flight plan creates a "coast track" of Flight 93 on the traffic situation displays at air traffic control facilities. "A coast track," Spencer will write, "differs from a radar track in that it is not supported by radar returns but rather by a computer-generated, projected course for the flight. Although this track did not appear on controller radar screens, its presence on their [traffic situation displays] allowed Washington controllers to monitor the flight’s progression toward Washington." According to Spencer, the presence of this coast track leads to incorrect reports of an aircraft approaching Washington in the minutes after Flight 93 crashes. She will write, "A controller in Washington, unaware that the flight had crashed, was calling position reports for the coast track of United 93 to the White House (see (Between 10:10 a.m. and 10:15 a.m.) September 11, 2001)" as well as the FBI at the Pentagon (where firefighters were evacuated and the firefight suspended in anticipation of a second impact)" (see (10:15 a.m.-10:38 a.m.) September 11, 2001).
Source: History Commons
The all-knowing; all-documented; all-there; all-powerful (not to mention extemely helpful):
Complete 9/11 Timeline!
If only more blog posts were more like this...
You want something possibly worthwhile to investigate about UA 93?
"The transponder for Flight 93 briefly turns back on. The plane is at 7,000 feet. The transponder stays on until about 10:03 a.m. It is unclear why the transponder signal briefly returns. "
I have no idea why this happened.