Flight 93 crash -- 400 passengers on board reported to local 911 number?

[spooked911]

Does this make any sense?

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12940.html

Initial reports received by Somerset County 911 indicated there may have been more than 400 passengers on board. “I don’t know fact from fiction,” said county Commissioner Brad Cober.

Why would someone call the local 911 (and not just once apparently: "reports") and say there were 400 people on baord the plane?

Particularly in light of the fact that the first people at the crash site saw no evidence of human remains!

Anyone care to speculate what this is about?

[stickdog]

1. Weird that I hadn't seen that before. Another passage stuck out to me.

Perhaps MercutioATC can tell us who at his workplace ordered the Johnstown ATC controllers to evacuate and why they did so:

McKelvey said officials at the Cleveland En Route Air Traffic Control Center in Oberlin, Ohio, ordered Johnstown controllers to abandon the tower and close the airport.

[spooked911]

3. Yeah, what up with that?

[petgoat]

5. Maybe while he's at it he can find out if the Sarasota airport was closed.

Were they using that one for clearing the skies? The Booker School was
only a couple of miles away.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

19. The shrub flew out of Sarasota when leaving Florida. Have you ever seen

this video of it? It is a must see. You would never think that America was under attack in the skies.

Right click and save target as.

http://www.attackonamerica.net/AirForceOneLeavingSarasota.ram

[philb]

7. Seems unreasonable to think Johnstown AP could be a target

There have been threads on strange things about Johnstown before

Why Johnstown rather than other more likely targets?

[philb]

8. Is it clear who was suggesting 400 passengers? The article seems

poorly written, as most media reports seem to be these days.

Is it intentional or are most incompetant? Why are they more careful to check facts and indicate sources? Supposedly they have good educations and some training. Why are media reports so generally undependable?

[stickdog]

14. kick for MercutioATC

[MercutioATC]

17. The simple answer is NOBODY.

Cleveland Center simply doesn't have the authority to evacuate another facility.

[stickdog]

18. So was McKelvey lying or were there OTHER officials at the Center

on 9/11?

McKelvey said officials at the Cleveland En Route Air Traffic Control Center in Oberlin, Ohio, ordered Johnstown controllers to abandon the tower and close the airport.

What reason would McKelvey have to lie about this, in your opinion?

[MercutioATC]

20. I don't think it was a lie, just a misunderstanding.

The media tends to do that a lot.

The simple fact is that Cleveland Center has absolutely no authority to order another facility to evacuate. It would be like Ohio ordering Indiana to evacuate...

[stickdog]

21. So who did? (nt)

[MercutioATC]

22. Dunno, but it sure as hell wasn't us. n/t

[Kevin Fenton]

2. Tail

Thanks for the link

"“The tail was a short distance from the rest of the wreckage,” said would-be rescuer Brad Reiman, 19, who lives near Berlin in Somerset County. “It looked like the plane hit once and flopped down into the woods.”

The largest piece of wreckage he could identify looked like a section of the plane’s tail, he said."

Gee, guess it wasn't a hologram after all.

400 people is crap. Only a 747 can hold that many people. I guess if somebody saw (and/or heard/learned of) a plane crash, they might call 911 and they might then venture a rough estimate of the fatalities.

[spooked911]

4. Never said flight 93 was a hologram, but what is the deal with this part:

"the plane hit once and flopped down into the woods”?

I thought the plane basically went into the ground and blew up. No one ever said the plane bounced and went in the woods. Reminds me of Pentagon witnesses who said the plane hit the ground and cartwheleled before it went into the wall.

Actually, if you look at all the different accounts of both the Pentagon adn Shanksville crash sites, they are wildly disparate. Either these crashes produced the worst reporting ever, or people were just making shit up.

[Kevin Fenton]

6. So you admit there was a real plane then?

Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable and always offer contradictory and nonsensical accounts of what happened. People's memory is just basically crap and they make stuff up all the time.

This article contains a discussion of the poor quality of eyewitnesses testimony in relation to the stooting at Stockwell tube station:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4177082.stm

The quality of eyewitnesses at the Pentagon and Shanksville was not "the worst ever", but simply as bad as usual.

[spooked911]

9. I'm not convinced flight 93/a Boeing 757 crashed at Shanksville

but something blew up there, that is for sure.

It is still odd that the guy only finds part of what looks like the tail. Where is the rest? It is a rather large structure.

The only thing I can say for sure is that there was no normal plane crash there: either the crash site was faked somehow or there was a huge bomb on the plane or something even weirder. Planes simply don't disappear like that and I don't buy that the plane buried itself into the ground but also blew up such that above ground only teeny tiny pieces were found-- except for a very few large pieces such as a section of engine, a section of fuselage and a section of tail. It is just too reminiscient of the Pentagon where there was a huge explosion, a few pieces of recognizable plane debris, and the rest of the plane essentially gone.

[Kevin Fenton]

10. Boeing 757

I believe that both were 757s and were the planes the official version claims (although I'm surer of the first part than the second).

If the plane at Shanksville buried itself in the ground, then it didn't need to blow up into tiny pieces (although some small pieces may have been scattered around). The ground is soft, the plane went into the soft ground. The other reason the crash site is slightly different to what we usually see is that the plane hit at a steeper angle than is usual in other plane crashes. If a plane didn't hit the ground at 10:06, what caused the seismic reading? How does supposing it wasn't a Boeing 757 help? I can't see that the crash site fits a Boeing 737, say, any better. Also, if you posit another aeroplane, then you have to explain why the perps were so dumb that they couldn't swap it for an aeroplane of the same type.

The same goes for the Pentagon. The site is consistent with the impact of any medium-haul jetliner. There's nothing to base a claim that it wasn't American 77 on.

[spooked911]

11. but the plane apparently DID blow up into tiny pieces. Something shredded

the tail up for instance, and thousands of small pieces of plane-like parts were found around the "crash site".

Sorry, but I still don't understand how the bulk of a plane disappears into the ground but also blows up so catastrophically, shredding everything above ground into small pieces.

I suppose this could have happened, somehow, but it simply doesn't make sense to me. I can't construct a sequence of events where this crash site could have happened, and believe me, I have tried. The only thing I can figure is either the crash was faked or they are lying about the plane going in the ground and the plane hit the ground and then was blown up completely into small pieces by missiles or bombs or both. But the timing of the latter is tricky, which is why I favor that the crash was faked and the plane crashed elsewhere.

[Kevin Fenton]

13. What's the point?

The various parts of the plane should react differently to the crash because:
(1) Some of them are loaded with fuel (i.e. the wings). It's the fuel that blows up (or what's left of it if it's been leaking in the air). However, this explosion could damage the rest of the plane;
(2) Different parts of the plane are made of different materials;
(3) Different parts of the plane have different structural strengths, i.e. the wings are light, long and thin and should break easily, whereas the fuselage and the engines are heavy and should not break easily - they are much more likely to go into the ground.

The reason bodies were thrown clear in Shanksville, but not at the Pentagon is that the Pentagon passengers were strapped to their seats, which were bolted to the toughtest part of the fuselage - the bottom third. However, in Shanksville, the passengers were moving around and not wearing their seatbelts, so some of them were thrown clear.

What would be the point of faking the crash site?

[spooked911]

15. Bodies were not "thrown clear" in Shanksville. There were only bits and

pieces of human remains, and curiously, no blood.

Why fake it? Because they didn't want any incriminating evidence at the crash site. The plane that people saw flying crazily was a drone without passengers.* If they crashed that, then they would have obvious plane debris and no dead bodies.

If they create a crash site where it looks like the plane both disintegrated and disappeared into the ground, people aren't going to wonder too much about the lack of passengers because the plane is gone too. In the awfulness of the moment, people will simply accept the official story that the plane both disintegrated and disappeared into the ground.

But no one YET has explained how the official flight 93 crash scene makes any sense.

Nonetheless, the crash site works beautifully as a cover story.

All they needed was something that looked sort of like a plane crashed there but that didn't leave too many traces of a plane-- just like at the Pentagon.

*The drone probably crashed into nearby Indian Lake.

[Kevin Fenton]

23. No blood?

Where did you get that from?

"Because they didn't want any incriminating evidence at the crash site."
But the crash site is incriminating, the roving engine makes it look like it was shot down.

What's the point of a drone without passengers? Why not crash it into soft ground? Just seal the drone crash site off and don't let anybody in - it's easy.

If they have a drone and remote control and DU-tipped warheads and God knows what else, why can't they get the plane to take off on time? And how come United 23 didn't get airbourne at all? Or do you think the AQ operatives on that were just out for a jaunt?

[flyarm]

12. no way could a 757 carry 400 pax!

a 757 200 can carry up to 201 passengers max..most airlines do not carry that many..american carries 180 passengers on a 757 200

american carries 188 passengers in a 757 300
i do not know united's configuration , but max is 201 passengers on a 757 200
and 243 passengers on a 757 300..as per boeing..

most airlines do not carry the full compliment depending on their own configuration of their seating and galleys, and lavs...

from a retired flight attendant....

no way any 757 can carry 400 passengers!

fly

[spooked911]

16. Thanks. That is why I am wondering why someone thought

400 people were on the plane-- actually there was apparently more than one call.

Was it disinfo? Or was someone just awfully confused about the size of the plane?