USAF 84 RADES Data For UA175 Indicates Mach 1 Speed?, edited title Options

[tumetuestumefais...]

No, I don't want to discuss it, because the mininukes seem to me as a realy wild nonsense. Even the elevated levels of tritium can be atributed to the exit signs, the fire alarm sensors etc.

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Nov 15 2007, 09:50 AM

[Factfinder Gener...]

We must stick to something else.

Sorry, Tume, but I'm not done analyzing the significantly anomalous radar returns. Something is up with all this, and though I can't be sure as to exactly what yet, further analysis may yet yield possibilities. I find your attempts to brush it all under the carpet a little surprising, but each to his own. Personally speaking, I believe that a deeper understanding is called for and I intend to give it my best shot. Thank you for all your help up until now, though.

Sincerely, FfG. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 15 2007, 09:51 AM

[Factfinder Gener...]

No, I don't want to discuss it, because the mininukes seem to me as a realy wild nonsense. Even the elevated levels of tritium can be atributed to the exit signs, the fire alarm sensors etc.

But you are discussing it: On the wrong thread! This is all beginning to look like intentional disruption to me and I do not appreciate this. Kindly keep your comments here to the appropriate subject matter. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/angry.gif)

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 15 2007, 09:55 AM

[tumetuestumefais...]

But you are discussing it: On the wrong thread!  This is all beginning to look like intentional disruption to me and I do not appreciate this.  Kindly keep your comments here to the appropriate subject matter. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/angry.gif)

OK, OK, OK. I shut up. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

To your previous post, I don't want to brush anything under the carpet, I just constated the "Mach 1 way" is a false direction. I was studied the data from the other radars and they unfortunately strongly don't support such a claim as provable. Also the anomaly of the flightpath on the beggining of the record is for me now a bit doubtful. But I made me understand other inconsistencies they seem to me be even more significant. I was writing about all of that above in the thread, try to go through without presupositions. I think logicaly it is very revealing.
In fact the data and the possibility of the revealing fakery seems to me be even more interesting than any banal unprovable Mach 1 claims. Try please to reconciliate yourself with the fact there the Mach 1+ is improvable, it was a seductive, but false trail.

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Nov 15 2007, 10:10 AM

[Factfinder Gener...]

For now I am going to stick with the so called

banal unprovable Mach 1 claims.

I am not through looking into this quite yet, thank you.

[Factfinder Gener...]

Let's review one of the more intriguing anomalous returns from 84th Rades, collating data from woody and Tume:

The near-collision with Delta 2315

About the same time, the transponder code suddenly changed on United Flight 175, which was flying near the New Jersey-Pennsylvania border. The hijackers had taken over the plane, and the jet began to head back east. This time, the controllers could read the altitude because the hijackers hadn't turned the transponder off; instead they had just changed the code.

But now the jet was headed into the path of other aircraft.

Chris Tucker was working Yardley sector, a busy slice of space, when he saw the United jet turn toward the path of a Delta Boeing 737, which was headed southwest at 28,000 feet. Tucker told the Delta pilot that the aircraft was a suspected hijacking and he didn't know what it was going to do next. The United plane continued to turn. "Delta 2315 turn left immediately heading two zero zero," Tucker said. He had to guess; he didn't know which way the hijacked plane was headed, or if it was going to climb or descend. Just below and four miles behind the Delta was USAir Flight 542, another Boeing 737. Tucker turned him left, too.

The hijacked jet began to speed up and turn toward the northeast, and as the radius of its turn became wider and wider, it came closer to both planes. Tucker told the Delta to take evasive action. On the USAir jet, an on-board collision alert system sounded an alarm as the planes came closer and closer.

"I thought they were going to hit," Tucker said later.

They didn't. The closest they got was half a mile. But the relief was short-lived. United Flight 175 was descending fast and heading for the city.


http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/newsday091002.html




New details also emerged yesterday about the final moments of the two hijacked airliners that slammed into the World Trade Center. United Flight 175, a Boeing 767 headed from Boston to Los Angeles, was on a collision course with at least two other airliners after it veered off course and descended toward Manhattan.

In one case, the hijacker controlling the plane appeared to maneuver the flight to avoid a collision, according to government sources.

Another aircraft descended rapidly after being warned of an imminent collision with a hijacked plane by the on-board collision warning system.

As it flew toward Manhattan, United 175 turned to the left and began descending. One controller reported to investigators that he realized the plane had turned head-on toward a Delta aircraft, "and was descending into his face." The Delta plane began a turn, but the other aircraft also turned, and their radar targets merged on the screen, sources said.

However, the hijacked plane leveled off for a moment, perhaps to avoid the Delta aircraft, then began its descent again. The hijacker pilot "knew what he was doing," a controller said.

Shortly after that, the hijacked plane was headed straight for a US Airways flight. The US Airways plane's collision-avoidance system detected the approaching plane and advised the US Airways pilot to descend, which he did, averting a collision.

Controllers scrambled to direct other planes out of the way of both United 175 and American Airlines Flight 11 -- which also originated in Boston -- as they headed toward the twin towers.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/wpost091701.html

Just to ilustrate that "1.775Mach" anomaly

(IMG:http://sweb.cz/xmarinx/1.775Mach.jpg)

It is not very convincing to me as a proof of the 1.7 Mach. It looks more like a radar misread.

But in rades using 4 radar filter it looks like this:

(IMG:http://sweb.cz/xmarinx/rades%201.775Mach%20anomaly.jpg)

Mind that trafic around: the three! planes (beacons: 3321, 1323, 2324) - crossing the path of each other - were all at flight level 27-28000ft... sholdn't be the air traffic controller fired too?...  (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)   (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
(The blue is beacon3321 - "UA175" )

... something... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/nonono.gif)




It happened at 8:55:35 - 8:55.47 (less than 8 minutes before impact)

The blue data of UA175 are from Riverhead, the brown close below are from Gibbsboro and Remsen. The same for other planes, just there is not a color highlight. It needs a realy thorough analysis this incident and I'm already very tired.
But some notes: The "UA175" was already "hijacked" so they probably did'nt divert it - the traffic controllers -  the other planes on contrary do not seem to change the course, so I don't really know what to think about. Is the blip a radar misread? The other radars data seem to support this assumption, but at least the 400m descend and the reascend there was surely and the speed well over 620mph as well. Only problem is the both other planes were below! the flight level of "UA175", so why that descend of it to be closer to a collision... maybe just the hijackers confused the up and down in a panic...  (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) But WHY instead of diverting the other planes down, the traffic controller let them ascend?!  (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/nonono.gif)

Who were those planes exactly? Is somebody able to find out?

So, from reading the two reports above, supplied by woody, it's clear that the two planes that the "object" nearly collided with were Delta 2315 and USAir 542 and it is highly probable that some sort of evasive action was expertly handled by the "object". In this regard the sudden veer NNE as recorded by 84th Rades could well have been one of the "objects" evasive maneuvers and the subsequent rapid acceleration to Mach 1.7 speed could thus be seen as a time-critical adjustment to get back on target strike schedule rather than the product of a data error or inject. The fact that the other two sets of data do not record this anomaly is most probably due to an attempt at cover up by the other agencies.

As a general rule, when things are excluded from the record it is because of cover up. In this regard I believe that, on balance, the fact that there are portions of data left off the other radar return records, in actuality, tends to support the fact that the 84th Rades data is sensitive material that somehow slipped through the net (more whistle blowing?)

It seems to me that a forger wouldn't forge an impossible radar return; he/she would make it credible. Also, forged records are presented as complete not partial. In this regard, the radar return documents do not come across as faked/forged; instead, the whole thing smells very strongly of an intent to cover up sensitive material. At this point I believe that there was an attempt to hide the use of supersonic cruise missiles by obfuscating the data that would otherwise reveal the missiles' tell tale signatures.

Furthermore: (as previously noted) the possibility that "black project" supersonic missiles were used as the penetrating weapons of 9/11 seems to be greatly strengthened by the presence of the E-4B in the skies, concurrent with the impact events.

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 15 2007, 01:32 PM

[tumetuestumefais...]

So, from reading the two reports above, supplied by woody, it's clear that the two planes that the "object" nearly collided with were Delta 2315 and USAir 542 and it is highly probable that some sort of evasive action was expertly handled by the "object". In this regard the sudden veer NNE as recorded by 84th Rades could well have been one of the "objects" evasive maneuvers and the subsequent rapid acceleration to Mach 1.7 speed could thus be seen as a time-critical adjustment to get back on target strike schedule rather than the product of a data error or inject. The fact that the other two sets of data do not record this anomaly is most probably due to an attempt at cover up by the other agencies.

I'm not sure this was the same incident. Because 1. the planes in incident I was describing were heading almost south and ascending and not visibly changing neither the course neither the ascend, 2. the incident happened more than 8 minutes after "the terrorists changed" the beacon last time. 3. there are no turns visible in the data of the other planes. 4. the "UA175" was not making the "evasive action", on contrary it descended just in the way of the planes.
But I can of course be simply wrong. It should somebody look at the rades data and say what he thinks. And also somebody confirm the beacons with the flight numbers. I have no idea how to made something like that, or if it is possible after so many years. Some Ideas?

Just a note: If we'll admit the "other agencies" made a coverup of the incident would'nt it be an assumption the data are fake? Why wouldn't they change all the data?

And also, the "acceleration" from ~450mph to almost 1200mph in 12s. ??? Is it possible?

Anyway the incident in the data looks a bit weird, but I don't believe there was provable 1.7 Mach in 12 secs., or even there was a Mach 1., because the other radars data don't confirm it. The blue blip out "of the way" has probably other meaning than this.

[Factfinder Gener...]

I don't believe there was provable 1.7 Mach in 12 secs., or even there was a Mach 1., because the other radars data don't confirm it.

Does this mean that if (1) reports something as fact and (2) and (3) report an opposing view you'll categorically discount the report from (1) even though that report might be consistent with the other evidence?

[tumetuestumefais...]

I don't believe there was provable  1.7 Mach in 12 secs., or even there was a Mach 1., because  the other radars data don't confirm it.

Does this mean that if (1) reports something as fact and (2) and (3) report an opposing view you'll categorically discount the report from (1) even though that report might be consistent with the other evidence?

1. the two other radar records are consistent with each other
2. the third report (your 1) is a striking anomaly
3. it seem to me quite unbelievable such an acceleration (the 1.7 mach would be just the mean speed during that 12 seconds, so there probably might be moments of well above Mach 2 -especially when we consider the 12 seconds later the plane flies again 500 something
4. that sharp angle turn and at that speed? It would destroy probably anything with many many G's

We must stick to the provable and probable things, not with the unprovable unprobable almost nonsenses. This is an investigation with the possible goal of legal prooving against the criminals, not just a play with imagination.
Show me the other "evidence" - I hope you don't mean that reports in newspaper and you didn't want to use a probable covert story to support the speed claims....

but anyway the beacon 2324 does very weird manouevers long before is meeting the 3321. In fact the 2324 looks like be alonging with 1323 and then flying very close with, then meeting the3321 and then spliting the ways again but both flying stright in the same corridor heading to the south...weird

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Nov 15 2007, 05:02 PM

[Factfinder Gener...]

I don't believe there was provable  1.7 Mach in 12 secs., or even there was a Mach 1., because  the other radars data don't confirm it.

Does this mean that if (1) reports something as fact and (2) and (3) report an opposing view you'll categorically discount the report from (1) even though that report might be consistent with the other evidence?

1. the two other radar records are consistent with each other
2. the third report (your 1) is a striking anomaly
3. it seem to me quite unbelievable such an acceleration (the 1.7 mach would be just the mean speed during that 12 seconds, so there probably might be moments of well above Mach 2 -especially when we consider the 12 seconds later the plane flies again 500 something
4. that sharp angle turn and at that speed? It would destroy probably anything with many many G's

We must stick to the provable and probable things, not with the unprovable unprobable almost nonsenses. This is an investigation with the possible goal of legal prooving against the criminals, not just a play with imagination.
Show me the other "evidence" - I hope you don't mean that reports in newspaper and you didn't want to use a probable covert story to support the speed claims....

The anomaly describes an apparent evasive maneuver, albeit an amazing one, but then again the object had two oncoming planes to avoid according to the radar returns and published interviews with ATC.

If such an amazing evasive maneuver took place, I could well understand FAA and JFK accomplices removing the maneuver from the record.

I think it is safe to say that No Plane penetrated either of the Towers. Planes can't do that. I know of only one class of munition that can penetrate in the manner depicted: penetrator missiles. The pyrophoric D.U. tip that is visibly ejected from the impact explosion of WTC2 proves that the munitions used were penetrator missiles, IMO.

When I'm assessing the evidence, I am bearing this in mind.

Black Projects to produce supersonic, high maneuverable cruise missiles have been ongoing for the last few decades.

There was an airborne operations center deployed, which it seems to me would only be necessary in the event of special technology being used.

Let's not forget that the NTSB report designates the start point of the penetrating object's flight path as being in the air and over the ocean.

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 15 2007, 11:25 PM

[Factfinder Gener...]

but anyway the beacon 2324 does very weird manouevers long before is meeting the 3321....

Edit: I was losing track of the plane numbers for a bit here. I guess 3321 is the so called UA 175. See my post below.

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 15 2007, 09:36 PM

[tumetuestumefais...]

i just aded something to the previous post.

[Factfinder Gener...]

but anyway the beacon 2324 does very weird manouevers long before is meeting the 3321. In fact the 2324 looks like be alonging with 1323 and then flying very close with, then meeting the3321 and then spliting the ways again but both flying stright in the same corridor heading to the south...weird

I'm telling you, Tume: I don't think the perps would be making this stuff up! That makes NO sense to me (unless you or amazed! have a reasonable hypothesis???). There's definitely something fishy here, so IMO: we ought to be fishing. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

(IMG:http://www.rldb.co.uk/images/tweeedguide.jpg)

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 15 2007, 05:35 PM

[Factfinder Gener...]

There's definitely something fishy here, so IMO: we ought to be fishing.  (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

(IMG:http://www.rldb.co.uk/images/tweeedguide.jpg)

Speaking of which:

During the 1960's Russia started producing the KSR-5 (NATO designation AS-6 Kingfish)

KSR-5 is a highly supersonic, liquid fuel, long-range cruise missile derived from Kh-22 and designed for use on the Tu-16 medium bomber as a replacement for KSR-2. Kh-22 was originally designed for the massive Tu-95 Bear strategic bomber. Armed with a conventional or nuclear (KSR-5N) warhead KSR-5 is suitable against ships, radar sites (KSR-5P) and land targets.

The United States and NATO refer to this missile as the AS-6 Kingfish. Its guidance system is based on inertial navigation, pre-programmed flight, in-flight command updates through radiofrequency and active radar homing seeker when utilized against ships. KSR-5 was also provided to the T-22M Backfire medium bomber in the 1970s. (KSR-5 ref.)

(Just a little military history so we can put current potential missile capability in context.)

In summary: The KSR-5 (AS-6 Kingfish] is a long range, supersonic, air to ground cruise missile capable of receiving in-flight command updates through radio-frequency, developed in the 60's.

(IMG:http://www.ausairpower.net/Badger-G-DN-SN-83-05845.jpg)
(Tu-16K-16-26 Badger G armed with KSR-5)

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 15 2007, 11:39 PM

[Factfinder Gener...]

Informative thread here about secret cruise missile development and capability from www.secretprojects.co.uk forum: 1980's Intercontinetal Cruise Missile and ATCM Project

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 17 2007, 05:09 PM

[dMz]

RATTLRS is designed to maximize the effectiveness of a cruise missile's ability to achieve success in this respect but I don't believe that time-critical target capability is a capability exclusive to RATTLRS: though its name definitely suggests that it reaches a new level in this regard.

RATTLRS is apparently one HELL of a piece of engineering IMHO (in the death-n-destruction sense-- it's what originally caused me to sign up at P4T)... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

[dMz]

... Some Ideas?

Just a note: If we'll admit the "other agencies" made a coverup of the incident would'nt it be an assumption the data are fake? Why wouldn't they change all the data?

And also, the "acceleration" from ~450mph to almost 1200mph in 12s. ??? Is it possible?

Anyway the incident in the data looks a bit weird, but I don't believe there was provable  1.7 Mach in 12 secs., or even there was a Mach 1., because  the other radars data don't confirm it. The blue blip out "of the way" has probably other meaning than this.

Is it possible? By my "estimation":

N2L (Newton's 2nd Law [of classical mechanics]): F= dp/dt = ma

a := dv/dt = d^2r/dt^2

a= (1200 mph - 450 mph) / 12 sec = 750 mph / 12 sec

converting to "reasonable" units (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) :

a= (335.28 m/sec) / 12 sec ~= 27.94 m/(sec^2)

a/g = (27.94 m/sec^2) / (9.80665 m/sec^2) ~= 2.851 "G"

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?...ty+acceleration

I suspect that a Space Shuttle, MiG, F-16, F-22, or F/A-18 pilot would say "yaaaawwwwn"... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

Mach 1.7 could SUGGEST solid-propellant rockets (which would have some problems going sub- and trans-sonic IMHO). (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

[tumetuestumefais...]

I'm telling you, Tume: I don't think the perps would be making this stuff up!  That makes NO sense to me (unless you or amazed! have a reasonable hypothesis???).  There's definitely something fishy here, so IMO: we ought to be fishing.  (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Yes, yes, I'm fishing. B)
I was now digging in other flights and I'm trying to make a list of anomalies. Quite funny is f.e. that the "UA93" after it reappeared on the radar again sended last two blips with full beacon as it would say "indeed, that's me, UA93 here, hello, that's me...", and then "crashed"... no (military) traffic around on the radar - in contradiction to the witnesses reports they've seen a military fighterjet...

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Nov 17 2007, 10:54 PM

[tumetuestumefais...]

I suspect that a Space Shuttle, MiG, F-16, F-22, or F/A-18 pilot would say "yaaaawwwwn"...  (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

Thank you for the calculation. The only problem is that the "plane" was not going straight but making sharp turns, so the lateral overfreight might be much more.

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Nov 17 2007, 11:00 PM

[dMz]

... The only problem is that the "plane" was not going straight but making sharp turns, so the lateral overfreight might be much more.

So, calling all Boeing 757/767 pilots- 2.85+ G "straight away" acceleration: deal or no deal?