IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash - According To Atc/radar, PilotsFor911Truth.org

woody
post Apr 25 2009, 03:48 PM
Post #1


Woody Box


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 266
Joined: 28-August 06
Member No.: 20



Admin Edit: Article merged with original posts from United 93 Forum section. Article is posted below.


I'm still in the process of gathering evidence that the radar blip beyond Shanksville which was believed to be Flight 93 by every controller, supervisor, and official, was a real plane and not just an artefact on the Traffic Situation Display. (This TSD theory is promoted by the govt loyalist site, Cheap Shot aka Colin Scoggins, Lynn Spencer etc.). And there is plenty of evidence.

But what I found now is so far-reaching, and in the light of Domenick's findings and the shootdown discussion I think it's helpful to make it public right now. It's a transcript within the FAA Command Center, between the National Traffic Management Officer, East Position ("ntmo-e") and Doug Davis of the Operations Center ("doug"). I've highlighted the relevant parts.

1405 (10:05 a.m.)

ntmo-e: ok united ninety three we're now receiving a transponder on and he is at eighty two hundred feet

doug: now transponder and he's eighty two-hundred

ntmo-e: southeastbound still

doug: eighty two hundred feet and now getting a transponder on him

ntmo-e: correct

doug: ok buddy

10:06

ntmo-e: ok we've lost radar contact with united ninety three
doug: all right

10:07

ntmo-e: sixteen south of Johnstown where they lost united ninety three and it was heading turning one four zero heading

doug: which will put him to what do you think

ntmo-e: uh I guess that put him down coming right just west of Dulles

doug: ok

ntmo-e: if he stays on that heading of course

doug: how we doing John with getting stuff on the ground

ntmo-e: uuhh we're the're not the're still going to their original destinations if you look at TSD you'll see that the eastern part of the unites states is thinning out

doug: ok

ntmo-e: uh you know airports like dulles uh new york there we have no aircraft going into there

doug: ok

10:08

ntmo-e: ok uh there is now on the on united ninety three

doug: yes

ntmo-e: there is now a report of black smoke in the last position I gave you fifteen miles of Johnstown

doug: from the airplane or from the ground

ntmo-e: uhh they're speculating it's from the aircraft

doug: ok bud

ntmo-e: uhh who hit the ground that's what they're speculation it's speculation only

doug: ok

10:10

doug: hey john

ntmo-e: yes

doug: do we have anything on delta nineteen eighty nine is she still heading to cleveland?

ntmo-e: delta nineteen eighty nine was returning to Cleveland and they were no longer treating it like a hijacked aircraft

doug: ok

ntmo-e: I don't know if he's landed ok; the last position of united I'm going to give some coordinates united ninety three

doug: yes

ntmo-e: three nine five one north zero seven eight four six west

doug: zero seven eight four six

ntmo-e: west

doug: west

doug: all right

ntmo-e: you got the thirty nine fifty one north

doug: ya thirty nine fifty one north zereo seven eighty four six west

ntmo-e: that's the last known position of united ninety three

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14141827/NYC-B1-...-Fdr-Transcript

SUMMARY:

United 93 switched on the transponder at 10:05 (two minutes after its alleged crash), and the transponder indicated an altitude of 8200 ft. It is heading southeast.

One minute later, at 10:06, radar contact with United 93 is lost, at the position 39,51 north, 78,46 west. This point is about 13 miles southeast of the crash site.

This is the death of the TSD theory. An extrapolated radar blip (without an underlying plane) is hardly capable of switching the transponder on, is it?

There can be no doubt that United 93 did not crash at Shanksville.

This post has been edited by rob balsamo: Apr 28 2009, 10:40 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 25 2009, 04:10 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,717
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Good work Woody.

From my understanding, a coast mode radar track does not indicate a transponder being turned on. A coast mode occurs when a transponder is switched off and loss of primary radar track. I dont believe ATC would mistake a transponder being turned on for a coast track. Very good work! Especially the lat/long.

By the way, Colin "Cheap Shot" Scoggins is a member of this forum. I invited him via email to join in the conversation when he first joined, but it appears he doesnt have much to talk about with other aviation professionals who can be verified as such. It appears he would rather only speak with those who make excuses for the govt story anonymously from behind their screens.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
woody
post Apr 25 2009, 04:59 PM
Post #3


Woody Box


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 266
Joined: 28-August 06
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Apr 25 2009, 09:10 PM) *
Good work Woody.

From my understanding, a coast mode radar track does not indicate a transponder being turned on. A coast mode occurs when a transponder is switched off and loss of primary radar track. I dont believe ATC would mistake a transponder being turned on for a coast track. Very good work! Especially the lat/long.



By the way, Colin "Cheap Shot" Scoggins is a member of this forum. I invited him via email to join in the conversation when he first joined, but it appears he doesnt have much to talk about with other aviation professionals who can be verified as such. It appears he would rather only speak with those who make excuses for the govt story anonymously from behind their screens.


Thanks Rob. I also think the dialogue clearly indicates that "coast modus" is not the case here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 25 2009, 05:35 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,717
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



If it were in coast mode, ATC wouldnt have been able to observe an altitude of 8200 feet with the target. Clearly the transponder was on and squawking Mode C. Why Colin and/or Lynn did not pick up on such basic aeronautical knowledge... only they can answer i suppose.

Im thinking of writing an article based on your work above for release in the near future, for more exposure. I been doing some fact checking since i read the above and it all seems to check out so far. Let me know how you would like to be credited.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 28 2009, 10:37 AM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,717
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash - According To ATC/Radar

04/28/09 (PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Recently it has been brought to our attention that Air Traffic Control (ATC) transcripts reveal United 93 as being airborne after it's alleged crash. Similar scenarios have been offered with regard to American 77 and American 11 showing an aircraft target continuing past its alleged crash point in the case of American 11, or past the turn-around point in the case of American 77. However, both these issues can be easily explained by "Coast Mode" radar tracking. This is not the case with United 93.

Radar Coast Mode activates when a transponder is inoperative (or turned off) and primary radar tracking is lost, which enables ATC to have some sort of reference of the flight after losing radar coverage of the physical aircraft. When an aircraft target enters "Coast Mode", ATC is alerted in the form of a blue tag on the target as well as the tag letters switching to CST. ATC will readily recognize when an aircraft enters "Coast Mode".

According to National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Flight Path Study, United 93 allegedly impacted the ground at 10:03am, September 11, 2001. The following transcript excerpts are provided by the Federal Aviation Administration. It is a conversation between Air Traffic Control System Command Center - East, Management Officers (ntmo-e) and other various facilities. The conversation is as follows in real time:

(relevant portions have been placed in bold)


1405 (10:05 a.m.)

ntmo-e: ok united ninety three we're now receiving a transponder on and he is at eighty two hundred feet

doug: now transponder and he's eighty two-hundred

ntmo-e: southeastbound still

doug: eighty two hundred feet and now getting a transponder on him

ntmo-e: correct

doug: ok buddy

10:06

ntmo-e: ok we've lost radar contact with united ninety three
doug: all right

10:07

ntmo-e: sixteen south of Johnstown where they lost united ninety three and it was heading turning one four zero heading

doug: which will put him to what do you think

ntmo-e: uh I guess that put him down coming right just west of Dulles

doug: ok

ntmo-e: if he stays on that heading of course

doug: how we doing John with getting stuff on the ground

ntmo-e: uh we're they 're not they 're still going to their original destinations if you look at TSD you'll see that the eastern part of the unites states is thinning out

doug: ok

ntmo-e: uh you know airports like dulles uh new york there we have no aircraft going into there

doug: ok

10:08

ntmo-e: ok uh there is now on the on united ninety three

doug: yes

ntmo-e: there is now a report of black smoke in the last position I gave you fifteen miles of Johnstown

doug: from the airplane or from the ground

ntmo-e: uh they're speculating it's from the aircraft

doug: ok bud

ntmo-e: uh who hit the ground that's what they're speculation it's speculation only

doug: ok

10:10

doug: hey john

ntmo-e: yes

doug: do we have anything on delta nineteen eighty nine is she still heading to cleveland?

ntmo-e: delta nineteen eighty nine was returning to Cleveland and they were no longer treating it like a hijacked aircraft

doug: ok

ntmo-e: I don't know if he's landed ok; the last position of united I'm going to give some coordinates united ninety three

doug: yes

ntmo-e: three nine five one north zero seven eight four six west

doug: zero seven eight four six

ntmo-e: west

doug: west

doug: all right

ntmo-e: you got the thirty nine fifty one north

doug: ya thirty nine fifty one north zero seven eighty four six west

ntmo-e: that's the last known position of united ninety three

Full Transcript Here


United 93 transponder is recognized by Air Traffic Control as airborne after alleged impact time. Some have made the excuse this is due to Coast Mode tracking. ATC did not recognize any signs of CST (Coast Mode). Further confirmation that this was not any type of "Coast Mode" is that ATC also recognized United 93 reporting an altitude. The only way ATC could observe a reported altitude is if United 93 were squawking Mode C on the transponder, which means altitude reporting capability. Further confirmation comes in the form of latitude and longitude positions reported by ATC. N39 51 - W78 46 were reported as the last known radar position of United 93. It is unclear if the position is reported as Degrees, Minutes or Decimal, however, standard aviation terminology is in Degrees, Minutes. With that said, both positions are well past the alleged United 93 Crash site.


(click image to enlarge)

It is impossible for ATC to have observed United 93 transponder and altitude after the reported impact time and southeast of the crash site, if United 93 did in fact crash in Shanksville as the 9/11 Commission would have you believe.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The data does not support observed events. See Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Three - Flight Of United 93 for full in depth analysis of United 93 Flight Data Recorder (Black Box) data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join to join.

Comments? Discuss this article here
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=17064

Other Articles Of Interest:

Conflicting Data, Hardcore Questions and the Media Blackout
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/media_blackout022908.html

United 93 Press Release
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/UA93_Press_Release.html

Special thanks to "woody" for alerting us to this issue.

###
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
woody
post Apr 28 2009, 02:53 PM
Post #6


Woody Box


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 266
Joined: 28-August 06
Member No.: 20



I have another argument against the "coastal track" theory.

The official story tells us that UA93 crashed at Shanksville, that its radar sign went into coastal modus, and that the controllers did not recognize the coastal status but thought the plane was still airborne.

Is this plausible? As I understand it - correct me if I'm wrong: IF a plane drops the transponder or goes off radar, its signal changes to coastal modus, BUT the controllers are able to identify the coastal track as a coastal track and will no misinterpret it as a real plane!

Here's the account of Mark Barnick, who was a supervisor at Cleveland Center. He refers to 9:41, after UA93 had completed its U-Turn over Cleveland and switched off the transponder for the first time:

UAL93's transponder was then lost or shut off and the radar tag went into coast. Other aircraft in the area verified that they had visual ontact with UAL93 and that it was still flying southeastbound. In order to follow the aircraft, John Werth started a new flight following tag on UAL93's primary radar target. No altitude information was available and all other controllers were advised to keep all aircraft well away from the target of UAL93.

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2008/12/cl...r-memos-on.html

Obviously the controllers realized immediately that UA93's radar tag "went into coast" and started tracking the primary target. Why didn't they recognize the coastal status at 10:03 then?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Domenick DiMaggi...
post Apr 29 2009, 01:00 AM
Post #7





Group: Contributor
Posts: 312
Joined: 27-August 07
Member No.: 1,875



thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Enver
post May 4 2009, 10:01 AM
Post #8





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 14
Joined: 5-January 09
Member No.: 4,057



In my book "9/11 Unveiled" I concluded the section on Flight 93 with the following:

There is yet another twist to the saga of Flight 93.

ABC affiliate WCPO in Cleveland reported: "A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White. . . . United identified the plane as Flight 93."

However, in February 2006, Liz Foreman, whose name was attached to the original story, stated that "an Associated Press bulletin, was posted on WCPO.com during the morning of September 11, 2001. The story stated that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland. This was not true. Once the AP issued a retraction a few minutes later, we removed the link."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
datars
post May 4 2009, 12:55 PM
Post #9


New Terrorist in Town


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 997
Joined: 14-August 06
From: S.F. Bay Area
Member No.: 6



Nice! thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cheap Shot
post May 4 2009, 09:59 PM
Post #10





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 11
Joined: 26-August 07
Member No.: 1,857



QUOTE (woody @ Apr 26 2009, 06:53 PM) *
Is this plausible? As I understand it - correct me if I'm wrong: IF a plane drops the transponder or goes off radar, its signal changes to coastal modus, BUT the controllers are able to identify the coastal track as a coastal track and will no misinterpret it as a real plane!

Obviously the controllers realized immediately that UA93's radar tag "went into coast" and started tracking the primary target. Why didn't they recognize the coastal status at 10:03 then?


It takes a couple of minutes for a track to switch to a coast track, it will free track for a little bit then switch to caost, very recognizable though when it does. Where the digitized target symbol is the coast track will show a # sign, when in free track a triangle will appear over the target symbol, free tracks occur when the aircraft is outside of its flightplan limitations. When it is flat tracked it will show a diamond shape over the target.

The TSD is only updated when the aircraft is generating a flat track. In a free track the flightplan will normally continue on its last known heading and speed. Someone looking at a TSD would not know without slewing over the TSD track and clicking for additional information whether the track is flat or free. Watching the TSD someone could assume that the aircraft is still flying its track.

Someone watching the actual radar display would first see a free track with no target, loss of altitude infromation, and eventually the track would turn into a coast track, and just float until the edge of the scope.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peaches
post May 5 2009, 01:36 AM
Post #11





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 6
Joined: 13-April 09
Member No.: 4,253



The following website may prove to be a tremendous value to your research http://vimeo.com/4067633

Recent interviews with one of the first eyewitnesses at the Pentagon...the 9/11 taxi driver who had pole go through his car ...says wife works for FBI....wife says she knows plane went over the Pentagon and not into it...taxi driver says it was a game by the people with money, that he didn't want to be part of it, but he is.

He also said History means His Story..."you know what I mean...his ....story". The guy that took the images of the taxi just happened to move in across the road from them the day before 9/11, he didnt even know him, and just happened to be on the bridge the next day before the taxi arrived, he was waiting for the show to start! Much, much more NEW evidence in this video and in others ... at the website below. Other video interviews include Pentagon Policemen, garage attendants, Arlington cemetery workers putting the "plane" at the north side of the Pentagon, not the South...which totally blows the 911 Commission out of the water.http://vimeo.com/4067633

QUOTE (woody @ Apr 26 2009, 06:48 AM) *
Admin Edit: Article merged with original posts from United 93 Forum section. Article is posted below.


I'm still in the process of gathering evidence that the radar blip beyond Shanksville which was believed to be Flight 93 by every controller, supervisor, and official, was a real plane and not just an artefact on the Traffic Situation Display. (This TSD theory is promoted by the govt loyalist site, Cheap Shot aka Colin Scoggins, Lynn Spencer etc.). And there is plenty of evidence.

[Mod edit- long quote snipped]

ntmo-e: three nine five one north zero seven eight four six west

doug: zero seven eight four six

ntmo-e: west

doug: west

doug: all right

ntmo-e: you got the thirty nine fifty one north

doug: ya thirty nine fifty one north zereo seven eighty four six west

ntmo-e: that's the last known position of united ninety three

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14141827/NYC-B1-...-Fdr-Transcript

SUMMARY:

United 93 switched on the transponder at 10:05 (two minutes after its alleged crash), and the transponder indicated an altitude of 8200 ft. It is heading southeast.

One minute later, at 10:06, radar contact with United 93 is lost, at the position 39,51 north, 78,46 west. This point is about 13 miles southeast of the crash site.

This is the death of the TSD theory. An extrapolated radar blip (without an underlying plane) is hardly capable of switching the transponder on, is it?

There can be no doubt that United 93 did not crash at Shanksville.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post May 5 2009, 01:44 AM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Thank you peaches. There are several threads about Lloyde England (the cab driver) and the lightpoles in our Pentagon forum.

Here is a recent thread about CIT's new short film about Lloyde:

New Short Highlighting Lloyde's Virtual Admission, excerpts from "National Security Alert"
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=17106
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
IRIQUOIS227
post May 5 2009, 11:23 AM
Post #13





Group: Core Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 22-September 08
From: New Mexico
Member No.: 3,841



The impact site of alleged impact site of United 93 was inconsistent with crash of an aircraft. no debris, no bodies, no nothing. I believe the aircraft WAS fired on by US interceptor aircraft since allegedly and engine was found along with other materials leading to the "site." Whether these were from United 93 though, i'm not sure has been established. Further testimony states that whilst Cheney, his wife and others were in the bunker, HE (Cheney) gave the permission for the shootdown.

tedbohne
N321MM@msn.com
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
brian78046
post May 6 2009, 09:07 PM
Post #14





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 8
Joined: 2-July 08
From: Washington, DC
Member No.: 3,654



QUOTE (Domenick DiMaggio CIT @ Apr 29 2009, 02:00 AM) *
thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif



Enver, see my article on Flight 93, "One Of Our Aircraft Isn't Missing", at www.DNotice.org. It has new information I found on UA. The aircraft definitely landed at Cleveland Hopkins, though much earlier than previously thought.


Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kesha
post Jun 1 2009, 03:13 PM
Post #15





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 54
Joined: 30-August 06
Member No.: 34



QUOTE (brian78046 @ May 7 2009, 02:07 AM) *
Enver, see my article on Flight 93, "One Of Our Aircraft Isn't Missing", at www.DNotice.org. It has new information I found on UA. The aircraft definitely landed at Cleveland Hopkins, though much earlier than previously thought.


Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC


Hi Dean,

Your article and the evidence it`s showing are worth discussing, but there`s one factual error, just for the records:

Quote:
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."


WCPO didn`t retract it within some minutes... in fact, it took them nearly 5 years. I should know, as I found it back in
early 2004. See Woody`s Blog for reference:


WCPO, a local Ohio radio station, had posted a short message on its website that Flight 93 had landed in Cleveland. This piece has become most popular among the 9/11 research community, probably more popular than CAM. Here's its history:

After sleeping well for 2 1/2 years, The WCPO story experienced its re-birth in CAM. It was discovered by a befriended researcher of mine with nickname Kesha. Interesting as the Flight 93 info was, I considered it to be of minor relevance for the mystery, particularly because I was not able to find confirmation. But it was worth mentioning, anyway.

A few weeks after releasing CAM, someone picked up the story, isolated it from the article and spread it across diverse websites where it soon got huge attention. People contacted WCPO to learn more, so many that WCPO felt impelled to retract the story and delete it from their site (to be exact, they substituted the story by a disclaimer). However, the original story had been downloaded and mirrored by several researchers already. It was still an embarassment for WCPO.

After the release of "Loose Change"/2ed, WCPO was bombarded with inquiring calls and emails. At February 8, 2006, Liz Foreman, who was in charge for the website on 9/11, published a clarifying comment. Foreman stated that the story was not a genuine WCPO piece, but based on an erroneous AP press release.
http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2007/02/cl...rt-mystery.html


BTW, shouldn`t Air France know where their A330 vanished? This is 2009, not 2001.


Kesha
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Aug 1 2009, 06:59 AM
Post #16





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



The 93 story is such a joke for anyone with a brain.

How did all these supposed phone calls from the plane
happen in such a short amount of time and at nearly
30,000 FT ???????

And then the plane goes from 30,000 Ft to the ground
in seconds after the supposed transmission by the the
"hijackers" of a bomb onboard...........but they never
replied to the hailings........ cuz recorders cant answer
questions..........

its laughable......

Its Northwoods in action.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LaBTop
post Jul 8 2010, 10:46 AM
Post #17





Group: Troll
Posts: 81
Joined: 30-March 08
Member No.: 3,064



Woody, and Rob and others,
In this thread there aren't any remarks about the ATC'er giving the distance from Johnstown Airport to the point where, at 10:06 AM EST, the ATC'er lost the transponder signal again.
He gave at 10:10 AM the geographical coordinates for that signal loss spot, but at 10:07 already, also the distance in miles :

QUOTE
- 10:07 AM : Sixteen (16) miles south of Johnstown they said they lost radar contact with UAL93 and it was heading turning one four zero heading.


Later, about 10:10 AM he gave the geographical coordinates for the point where they lost contact via the transponder signals on their screens.
However, that's nearly 2 times further than the distance he gave a few minutes earlier for the same spot.

See for more details this thread-post of mine at ATS, which thread I seemed to have hijacked, as usual when I get hooked to a subject :
Visit My post at this 7 page long ATS-thread.
It's not really lost time to read the whole thread for those who believe that something stinks in the official UAL93 story.

QUOTE
Originally posted by LaBTop at ATS
-- I snipped some first text lines --

4. Two ATC controllers had a conversation about one of them registering UAL93's transponder signal again at 10:05 AM, and thus having all the associated readings back on his screen again, like height (8,200 feet!!!), distance, rate of descent and flight path heading during the short time (circa one minute) the signal was on again. He lost it again at 10:06 AM, and gave the exact geographical coordinates to his ATC colleague for the moment he lost track again :
3951'0.00'' N and 7846'0.00'' W.
He did not give the height! I will come to that later on.

5. This is a post from the Google Earth Community-Forums from 09/09/2006 (that's 4 years ago already) :
http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/ubbthreads.php?...p;Number=575075
[ex]Location of "end" on flight path of flight 93.
Airport closed 1999 - runway in top condition.[/ex]

It's the Indian Lake Airpark (5G2) Central City, PA which is situated just 0.5 mile east of Indian Lake, where all that debris rained down on the marinas and on the fishermen on the lake. And then we have another debris site cordoned off by the FBI on 911, 8 miles from the official crash site, near New Baltimore.
It is however not at all the coordinates that the ATC'er gave for the last known position of UAL93, that's much more southeast!
So, how did this person got to his remark in 2006 already, makes me wonder.

6. This is looking straight down onto the Flight 93 crash site. North is to the top. Note the impact point north of the road, and the burned trees to the south of it. On the left side of this aerial photo you see the two perpendicular ditches you can see in the big 1994 USGS-photo I linked to in my last post.
It's clear that the crash spot is definitely not in the soft refilled soil but instead in the original soil just beside the gravel road.
Just enlarge this 911-photo so far, until you can overlay it on the 1994 USGS photo. Then you see my point.



=========================

Ok, also found that link to the official transcription of the last known position of UAL93 from the Pilots for 911 Truth forum by member Woody Box :

Pilots for 911 Truth - Board message :
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/united-93-still-airborne.html

Thread started by Woody Box (this thread here) :
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17089

Flight Data Recorder Transcript of ATC communications. Scroll to page 29 and 30 to look at the last time ATC found the 93-transponder back :
FDR transcript of ATC'ers talking about UAL93 on 911.
It can take some time to load these pages from Scribd.

At the first position when the transponder came on again at 1405 UTC (10:05 EST), the height reported by that transponder was 8200 feet.
At 1406 UTC (10:06 EST) they lost that transponder contact again.
They did not give a height at that moment!
But they talked on about the last heading of 140, and pondered on, that it would take the plane then just west of Dulles Airport in the end.
So I wonder if this means that the plane was still at that same height of about 8,000 feet, as reported earlier on already by a VFR (another pilot) around 09:57 AM, who also said it was waving/rocking its wings flying past him at 8,000 feet high, and 8,000 feet was also reported by the transponder when it briefly (1 min) came on again at 10:04.
Logic tells us, that if the last height reported by the last transponder signal was much lower than 8,000 feet, those two ATC'ers would not go on contemplating about where it would end the flight, and even proposed a landing spot just west of Dulles Airport. They would have shouted that they lost signal at a very low height and that it was going to crash. But such a nervous conversation did not happen at all in reality!


I (or another member?) will eventually try to calculate speeds along the flight path based on times and positions reported in the Scribd list by those two ATC'ers, and see if they match the NTSB speed diagram, see the link in my above post. The distance flown, as the crow flies, was about 60 miles from Pittsburgh, and thus the official flight-time 7 minutes from 09:56 until 10:03 AM, over this NTSB trajectory ( however it had a slight half-circular ending ), that means an overall speed of 514 miles/hour to cover that 60 miles :

- At 09:56 : They tracked UAL93 until they lost it at 09:56 right above Pittsburgh. The crash site is about 60 miles southeast of Pittsburgh.
- At 09:57 the plane was 20 miles (NM?) northwest of Johnstown Airport, as reported by another plane's pilot.
- At 10:00 the ATC'er gives another sort of position reported by that VFR (visual flight report) from another pilot at 09:57 :
Eleven, so 11 miles south of Indian Head and just north of Cumberland, Maryland.
- Page 28 : 10:03 AM Secret Services called and said there was another plane coming from Pittsburgh inbound for Washington DC that's unaccounted for. American 77, says one ATC'er to the other.
- 10:04 AM : Indiana State police reports a plane down just between the boundary of Ohio and Kentucky, the Cincinnati area.
(I don't know what to make from that.?.They also waited on confirmation)
- 10:05 AM : Unknown (Secret Service man on direct land line probably?), says they know about 93 already.
- 10:05 AM : Transponder on again, 8,200 feet and still southbound.
- 10:06 AM : Lost radar contact (is that for sure the transponder, or main radar returns?).
- 10:07 AM : Sixteen (16) miles south of Johnstown they said they lost radar contact with UAL93 and it was heading turning one four zero heading.
"" Which will put him to what do you think? ""
"" Uh I guess that put him down coming right just west of Dulles.
If he stays on that heading of course."


Thus I think I found something what has not been taken in consideration yet, by the members and pilots from Pilots for 911 Truth.
At 10:07 EST the ATC'er remarks that they lost contact when the plane was 16 south of Johnstown (airport) and it was heading turning one four zero. Do they mean turning to 140 on a compass scale, or what does "heading turning" mean between one ATC and another ATC (or pilots).
And is 16 south in miles or nautical miles? I guess NM.
You can see back in one of my posts in the NTSB diagram from their 93 flight path, that the plane made a wide quarter circle till down south at the end.

When you measure in Google Earth the distance from Johnstown Cambria County Airport (JST) to the official crash site, you find it to be 18.66 miles = 16.21 Nautical miles.
The distance however from JST to that position given by the ATC'er for the moment he lost contact with the transponder for the last time, is far more, 3951'0.00 N 7846'0.00 W, and that's 32.36 miles = 28.12 Nautical miles (further southeast) from the crash site. Nearly two times further away in nautical miles. In a very desolated spot, see for yourself in Google Earth. Just fill in the above coordinates in Search.

Thus, the questions which arise now, are :

1. How can an experienced ATC'er give two data which exclude each other COMPLETELY, namely a rather precise last known geographical position in degrees, compared to a distance from JST in nautical miles?
Which do not fit each other by any means!

2. Could UAL93 dive from 8,200 feet at a 40 angle to the ground within 60 seconds, without breaking apart in mid air?
I think it could, but I did not look into the mechanical aspects of its resulting speed over that 40 trajectory related to its airframe endurance, yet.

3. They lost contact again at 10:06 EST, and talk on a bit about the heading at 10:07 EST, and the point where it then will come down, just west of Dulles Airport. They would not do that when the height reading and rate of descent at the last transponder loss time wasn't about the same as before.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LaBTop
post Jul 8 2010, 06:36 PM
Post #18





Group: Troll
Posts: 81
Joined: 30-March 08
Member No.: 3,064



In your Board Message article regarding : United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash - According To ATC/Radar
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/united-93-still-airborne.html

I tried to use this link as provided :
Comments? Discuss this article here
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=17064

That link is dead : ""Sorry, the link that brought you to this page seems to be out of date or broken."".

Thus I searched the Flight 93 forum here, and found this thread.
It seems appropriate that this thread should be the one referred to as "Discuss this article here" in your Board Message article.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jul 8 2010, 07:13 PM
Post #19



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,717
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Hi LaBTop,

Yes, we bolded the sentence "16 miles south of JST" in our original article, copy/pasted from the ATC Transcript. But the last known position given in lat/long is used by ATC to give a more accurate position.

Please review this particular statement made in our original article...

"It is impossible for ATC to have observed United 93 transponder and altitude after the reported impact time and southeast of the crash site, if United 93 did in fact crash in Shanksville as the 9/11 Commission would have you believe. "


In other words, if ATC observed the last transponder return at 16 south of JST, where did they get the lat/long coordinates far past the impact crater?

This is one of the many reasons why we call for a new independent investigation. A real one this time. Some others prefer to make excuses.

And yes, thanks for the heads up on the broken link in the article regarding forum discussion. I merged the original forum discussion with this thread originally started by woody, and as noted in the first post of this thread. I forgot to update the original article on the website. If it is not done within a week or two (my plate is pretty full), please give me a reminder.

Hope this helps and thanks again...

Rob
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FreshKills
post Aug 6 2010, 05:58 PM
Post #20





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 45
Joined: 12-July 10
Member No.: 5,140



QUOTE (Cheap Shot @ May 4 2009, 10:59 PM) *
It takes a couple of minutes for a track to switch to a coast track, it will free track for a little bit then switch to caost, very recognizable though when it does. Where the digitized target symbol is the coast track will show a # sign, when in free track a triangle will appear over the target symbol, free tracks occur when the aircraft is outside of its flightplan limitations. When it is flat tracked it will show a diamond shape over the target.

The TSD is only updated when the aircraft is generating a flat track. In a free track the flightplan will normally continue on its last known heading and speed. Someone looking at a TSD would not know without slewing over the TSD track and clicking for additional information whether the track is flat or free. Watching the TSD someone could assume that the aircraft is still flying its track.

Someone watching the actual radar display would first see a free track with no target, loss of altitude infromation, and eventually the track would turn into a coast track, and just float until the edge of the scope.



I didn't see a response to this post. Seems like some points that are quite relevant to the discussion here. Perhaps it was addressed elsewhere?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th November 2014 - 11:09 AM