If United and the FAA were tracking different flights, did they agree that each of their respective Flight 93s had originated at Newark airport? Were they unable to track these flights by radar after a certain point? And if so, what was the location on the flight path of each Flight 93 when it was lost to radar? Did they--as a result of actually having been tracking different flights--reach different conclusions re where Flight 93 wound up?

The first article I wrote at www.DNotice.org back in May 2008 was on Flight 93 landing at Cleveland around the time Flight 11 impacted the North Tower (as usual, 9/11 Blogger placed that article into the Blogger section, just as they did with my current shocking article on NORAD, Popular Mechanics magazine and The 9/11 Commission Report). In the article on Flight 93 I explained how United Airlines was capable of tracking as of 1998, in real time, every aircraft they had in the air all over the world.

Again DNotice.org is way ahead of the research curve!

Also, as I commented last year, my source independently confirmed to me that Flight 93 did land in Cleveland, but under a different flight number. That is why the passengers who got off the plane didn't know they were on Flight 93. This information isn't in the article below because it,

1. was disclosed to me AFTER I wrote the article; and
2. it is hearsay testimony; it can't be verified by me (though my source is always correct).

Here is the article on Flight 93 again for those of you who missed it:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 28, 2008

One of Our Aircraft Isn’t Missing

At 11:43 am on the morning of 9/11 WCPO radio in Cincinnati posted an AP article titled "Plane Lands in Cleveland; Bomb Feared Aboard"1 concerning the strange occurrence of a commercial airliner making an emergency landing at Cleveland Hopkins Airport due to a bomb threat. AP reported that Mayor Michael R. White of Cleveland had identified the aircraft as a 767 out of Boston. Mayor White added that the aircraft had been moved to a secure area of the airport and evacuated. Why, one might ask, do I consider it strange that a commercial airliner experiencing a bomb threat would be diverted and landed before it reaches its destination? Strange because the AP article identified the aircraft in question as United Airlines (UA) Flight 93, the very Flight 93 that crashed in Shanksville, Pa at 10:03 AM. In the third paragraph AP reports, "United identified the plane as Flight 93."2

Now as it happened Delta Flight 1989, a 767 out of Boston (Flight 93 was a 757) had landed at Cleveland Hopkins Airport at 10:10 AM3 due to a bomb threat and had been moved to a secure area of the airport, however this aircraft hadn’t been evacuated until 12:30 PM, forty-three minutes after WCPO posted the AP article.

In the fourth paragraph AP reports, "United said it was also "deeply concerned" about another flight, Flight 175, a Boeing 767, which was bound from Boston to Los Angeles."4 This paragraph tells us that AP was talking to UA about Flight 93 while UA was operating under the knowledge that Flight 175 was still in the air. Why? Because UA would have been tracking Flight 1755 throughout it’s journey and immediately known through UA's Special Operations Center (see next three paragraphs) that it had crashed when it did at 9:03 AM in New York City.

In times when problems arise, managers at UA can use the Special Operations Center, located at UA's operations base in Elk Grove, Illinois, where they, "can use the a/v system to watch any flight from its takeoff to touchdown.They can have constant contact with that plane in the air, and they can watch anything that may be affecting the plane's environment as it travels."6 Therefore when UA says a flight experiencing an emergency situation has landed at a specified location, UA knows it has landed and where.

During such emergency situations, the Special Operations Center—also known informally as the crisis management room—was where "the appropriate personnel take their positions. These include the president and CEO of United Airlines, vice-presidents of most of its departments and whatever outsiders might be able to help. The room's computer and communications systems have a reach of global proportions..."7 So not only would UA managers know the exact location of Flight 93 at any time of the day, but so would the CEO and other executive officers of the company during an emergency.

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 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).

----------------------------------------------------------------

1.http://web.archive.org/web/20021109040132/http://wcpo.com/specials/2001/americaattacked/news_local/story14.html

2.Ibid.

3.http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2002/2002-08-13-clear-skies.htm

4.http://web.archive.org/web/20021109040132/http://wcpo.com/specials/2001/americaattacked/news_local/story14.html

5.It should be noted that according to the 9/11 Commission Report, while "United 175’s transponder code changed, and then changed again" the transponder signal was never lost (see: 9/11 Commission Report, page 21).

6.http://unitedvisual.com/2fac/2fm109.asp

7.Ibid.

8.Ibid

9.According to Colin Scoggins, "the go-to guy at Boston Center for all things military", within minutes of Flight 175's impact into Two World Trade Center, United Airlines tells the FAA’s Boston Center that Flight 175 is down. Scoggins later recalls, "When we phoned United [after the second tower was hit], they confirmed that United 175 was down, and I think they confirmed that within two or three minutes." [Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006]

10.If the AP reporter had contacted United Airlines after 9:03 AM, the AP article would not have been a story on Flight 93 landing at Cleveland Hopkins Airport, but instead a story on Flight 175 crashing into the south tower.

11.http://web.archive.org/web/20021109040132/http://wcpo.com/specials/2001/americaattacked/news_local/story14.html

12.http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/22/911.flight.93/index.html

13.http://web.archive.org/web/20021109040132/http://wcpo.com/specials/2001/americaattacked/news_local/story14.html

14.http://web.archive.org/web/20040818002845/http://www.wcpo.com/specials/2001/americaattacked/news_local/story14.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Aidan,

thx for the ACARS specification link

so, reading thru it, yes we can find what you wrote 8 VHF failure makes system move to SATCOM), but:
that not happen on UA93.
Why?, here are my replies:

1) satcom messages are managed by GES and not by RGS
2) Winter and Knerr, never speak of GES
3) the ground bases acronym in the log is the ones of Toledo RGS, Fort Wayne RGS and Champaign RGS. It does not list any GES.
4) the log do not show any VHF failure.
In fact, all the message have a consecutive incremented UBI number, and all log have a positive ACK.

look in the document you have posted at:

page 55
it's clearly said that, with an uplink message ( the one we have in Ballinger's log ) only 3 thing may happen.
the first is the one that happened:
- received ( with ack confirmation ) and the UBI is incremente for the next message ( exactly what is shown in the Ballinger's log )

pag 66:
"the ACARS MU shall provide a positive acknowledgement to each valid uplink"
and this is exactly what we can see looking at the Ballinger's ACARS log

So, till now, the only thing we can say for sure is that UA 93 N591UA was still flying at 10:10, nearby Champaign illinois.
All the rest is pure speculatin..

Bambooboy

about Command Colonel MARR and Chicago...
it perfectly fits with what the ACARS say.

please, read this:
http://info911insidejob.blogspot.com/2010/02/un-altro-documento-ufficial...

MARR is not "connected" to ACARS, but he speaks from a radar data someone told him.
BUT:
"circling over" does not mean exactly over Chicago.
Then: if you look at the ACARS, you will see that some message swere run by RADIO GROUND STATION near by Chicago ( Toledo and Fort Wayne ).
in the post I linked, you can see images of VHF ACARS radio range..
it fit perfectly.

bambooboy

hi,
you write:
"I said it landed at Cleveland Airport right around (and probably before) Flight 11 impacted the north tower at 8:46, which means (according to your ACARS study) it took off again."

but this cant be possible.

the official UAL ACARS confirm that at 08:04:41 UA 93 was at EWR
you can read it here (page n°9) on the offial UAL doc UASSI100000398 ACARS WEIGHT MANIFEST

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16345059/T7-B18-UAL-Jumpseat-Fdr-Entire-Conten....

Ballinger s Logs presents Cleveland RGS only at 09:36 and 09:41 am

Both this docs are correctly conneted to the aircraft thru the UNIQUE ID code needed to log in, in the ACARS communication system: N591UA.

There are also all the documents of the "interviews" of the UAL personnel at EWR to confirm that ( look on scribd... and.... thx again, HistoryCommons guys! ).

so, it's no way possible UA93 ( the real official one ) could have landed at Hopkins International at 8:46.
no way, man.. no way. it can't be.

as I'm used to say:
"everyone is entiteled to his own opinions, nut no one is entiteled to his own facts".
and anyway, topic is on UA 93 ACARS message ( time and places ), and your reply was, imho, OT.
stick to the facts, pls

bambooboy

Hi Swingdangler,
two thibgs:
1°) I do not care that much about what Marr said ( his words are not strictly related to what ACARS shows ).
I mean, the CASE STUDY only relies upon FBI, NTSB, and UAL documents.
The 'news' about Marr comes out later.

2°) as I said, I do not care that much about that memo (not only because it is impossible to prove anything with that, but also because Marr do not specify any Time for that, so.... ).
The thing I said about it ,is that is, if correctly interpreted, NOT in CONTRAST with what the ACARS show.
but anyway it can only be considered a "one-thing-more" and not the core of the topic.

pls, read also my comment on PFT
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18073

and HERE
http://info911insidejob.blogspot.com/2010/02/un-altro-documento-ufficial...
you can see images of overlapping RGS and Chicago.

I think is more sensiteve than Marr's words, what the Commission wrote in its "Staff Reports" ( but deliberately omitted in the Final Report" ):
"10:10 am ballinger sent an ACARS message to Flight 93"

again, even with this quotation or without it, the real matter are the FBI, NTSB and UAL documents; because logs show that messages were sent and received. and they also show which RGS sent them.
and all these facts are totally poisonous for the 9/11CR.

Untill now, no one has come out with a reasonable explanation of this ( I think because it is impossible to explain, unless admitting UA93 was still flying at 10:10, and inthe airzone: Toledo-Fort Wayne- Champaign)

the real core-business of this case study is asking people to demonstrate, to comes out with an offcial paper that states, at least the last few ACARS messages, went wrong someway.
I do think this is no way possible to demonstrate. but, I published this release of the ACARS Study, to "ask around". if no one can answer... well, the conclusion of the Study are correct!
it cant be 50%. or A or B. no one can run away from it. these are official documents. and do not exhista another one that states that those are "wrong" or "mis-interpreted".

what can I tell you is that I believe that no one discard this information with fault ( not the FBI, not the NTSB, not the Commission ).
Think this way:
- since that morning, all the media were talking about the "fact" "ua93" crashed nearby Shanksville.
- lots of media coerage on that.
- FBI found a (an unknown ) black box at the field and they give it to NTSB to analyzed it.
- NTSB analyze it ( with also other docs, ACARS included )
- all these docs were turned to the Commission too.

then, all of them have in their own hands 8 and heads ) to "facts":
1°) an allegedly palane crash at 10:03:11 near by Shanksville
2°) UAL UA93 ACARS message s showing another time and place ( in the last messages ).

I think it was "normal" for them ( all of them ) simply to say:
"everything they told me, tells me that a plane crashes at 10:03 near by Shanksville, so - for exclusion - all the info ( and is only one source: the UAL ACARS ) that are in contrast with this "fact", can't be alse that wrong. and so they 'forgot' about ACARS message ). I believe this is pretty human. never the less, is wrong!
we have no prove at all from the black box that that one was UA93 ( no serial number identification, for example ), but we are sure that the ACARS system needs tha unique ID code ( the aircraft registration code N591UA ) to allow communication in between aircraft and UAL ( rgs ).

hope to have cleared your doubts.

have a nice day

bambooboy
( and agian, sorry for my poor english )