It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Flight 93 Experiment You Can Try At Home

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Just the fact that cell phones didn't function properly at high altitude back in 2001 is a red flag. Even now, I believe jet blue is the only co. with it's own cell phone antenna.

Maybe the jet was low enough? Even so, a phone needs time to handshake and transmit it's CTS (clear to send) signal. A jet traveling fast moves from one cell to another too quickly for these commands to be completed in time before the phone reaches it's next transponder. So we ave the altitude AND the handshaking issue. I just can't see how all those people were able to talk to their loved ones. Understood that some calls were made on the Air phone but most weren't.

Flight 93, IMO was shot down. I have done quite a bit of research into everything that happened on that day. Videos are great but it leaves a lot open for argument. Still, I find it difficult for anyone to believe the government wasn't at least complicit at some level after watching the videos.

Look at most parts of the official story with boolean algebraic (and) logic and the government comes up lame. Too many are looking into this with (or) type logic.

Call me anti-semetic if you'd like but Zionism plays a big role here. Our media is in on this big cover-up and that's the biggest reason why most Americans have been fooled.




posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261

What difference does the number of "tracks" make? And it's the microphones that are comparable. The small mic in the mouth piece of a cell phone is comparable to the mic in the headset of the pilot. These are not omni-directional mics. These are both close-range, directional mics.


It's called a multi-track recording. It directly relates to the amount of individually recorded material that can be simultaneously captured.

1 track=1 recording, 6 tracks=6 individual recordings captured with 6 individual transmitters. There would be no reason to record the same track 6 times. That's the reason for multi-tracking. It allows one to isolate specific waveforms from one another. It's the reason you can hear just the snare drum on a recording if you wish. This tells me that there are multiple transmitters deployed in this system, and not just the pilot's mic.

And that's just what I found out;


www.amtonline.com...




Cockpit Voice Recorders

Cockpit Voice Recorders (CVR) are also a product of the Jet Age and especially a result of magnetic tape. In fact by 1965, all commercial transport aircraft were required to have one. This device will record the voices of the flight crew as well as any other sound occurring in the flight deck. Most voice recorders have the ability to record up to four tracks. One input is from the pilot's microphone, headset mike ore oxygen mask microphone. A second recording is made from all the copilots' voice sensitive devices. A third channel is dedicated to a stand-alone cockpit microphone. This is installed in a central location within the flight deck so that it can pick up the conversation of the flight crew as well as any other sounds such as fire alarms, stall warnings, gear or flap alerts and ground proximity warnings.



]Originally posted by nick7261
What legitimate reason does the government have for withholding these tapes?


So they don't end up here on the internet.

Good thought, but the cell phone test would not prove anything as someone else has previously stated.

2PacSade-



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Are:

1. The cockpit door was open
Sound fishy

2. There were microphones all over the plane to monitor it (if CIA did it)
They then edited what they wanted out and in


3. Some kind of 1 in 3 million chance.

4. The voice recording was edited to @#$#$@ off a nation



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Nick-

Can you point out where these voices can be heard on the CVR? I've read the transcript on a few different sites, and they are all the same. It does appear that the hijackers were concerned about people breaching the cockpit, but I don't see any reference to them actually doing so. It appears that the hijackers were drastically varying the altitude to possibly keep the passengers & crew off balance so they could not accomplish their task.

The thing I find puzzling when I read the transcript is right at the very end.



10:03:09 — (Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.)

10:03:09 — (Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.)


Can someone explain to me how someone can say "Allah is the greatest" four times in ONE second. Even speed talkers that do the disclaimers on car dealers commercials would have a tough time accomplishing this task would they not? AND- If it were multiple people, wouldn't it probably end up all garbled?

There may be a good explanation but this seems very strange to me.

2PacSade-



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2PacSade

Can someone explain to me how someone can say "Allah is the greatest" four times in ONE second. Even speed talkers that do the disclaimers on car dealers commercials would have a tough time accomplishing this task would they not? AND- If it were multiple people, wouldn't it probably end up all garbled?

There may be a good explanation but this seems very strange to me.

2PacSade-


Well first of all, I do not know how transcripts are put together, but here is my initial thought/query after I read your post. Let's say there were two hijackers and they said it at the same time, would they each have their own line on the transcript?

If they were in sync with each other then it would not be garbled. If thousands of people can sing along at a concert and be understood then a couple of people doing it should be clear also IMO.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   


The fact that you even mention that the mics don't compare in relation to the track issue displays a certain lack of expertise on this subject


No, that was me combining two assertions of yours into one response.




You seem to lack even the most basic understanding of the concept of multiple track recorders.


I highly doubt you have the first clue about my understanding of avionics.




Maybe those who've actually heard the tape realized that the only way those voices could have been picked up by the pilot's mic was if the door was already open


This shows a distinct lack of knowledge of the systems currently in use.




Please don't confuse the final scene from the movie "Flight 93" with reality.


I wouldnt.



Working on intercom and data recorders does not qualify you as an expert on the design and engineering of the audio recording system on Flight 93. If you were an expert, you'd have a better understanding of what multiple tracks referred to.


Sigh...guess its time to break my reference books out so I can type enough words in to satisfy you. Of course, Ill need over 10,000 characters for that post...




The voice recordings are not "intel" and have no national security value.


Really Sherlock? "Intel" is information. From your earlier post....



The government is supposed to be serving the citizens of the U.S. The government is not supposed to be withholding information that the citizens paid for to be collected. We, the citizens, are the owners of this information.


Do you think the CIA/DIA/FBI are funded with corporate money? Heres a hint, the taxpayers fund them, so using your statement, they should publicize ALL information they collect.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 10:56 PM
link   
I guess anybody can post anonymously on the internet and claim to be an expert in avionics. I guess maybe a real expert wouldn't need to break out any reference manuals to discuss the recording systems on Flight 93.

How many tracks does the voice recorder have?

What are the input sources for these tracks?

In the Moussaui case, the government specifically claimed that the voice recording came from the pilot's cockpit voice recorder. Are you claiming that the government misstated this and that the sounds of the passengers were picked up by a mic or intercom in the cabin?

Does the voice recorder actually record the audio from the cabin intercom? As an avionics expert, this should be an easy question for you.

Further, it is not in dispute that the recording from Flight 93 is not protected by the exemptions outlined in the FOIA. This is why the transcripts were made public. However, there is no legal justification for not making the audio public.

The way this country is being run right now in terms of individual rights is a complete disgrace more worthy of the Soviet Union than the U.S. For people to willingly subjugate their rights to the government for what they believe is their own good is sad.

Do you honestly believe the government has produced ANY evidence that al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11? Do you really believe that it is impossible that Flight 93 could have been shot down?

Do you think the American people deserve to know the truth? Or do you prefer to just believe whatever the government tells you?



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2PacSade
Nick-

Can you point out where these voices can be heard on the CVR?



No, because the government won't permit the public to hear the tape. According to the transcripts, it was suggested that there are at least two places where the passengers could be heard through the cockpit door.

One is when they are talking about getting into the cockpit or else they're going to die, and the second is when somebody says, "roll it," apparently in reference to the drink cart.

Maybe they got their stories screwed up, and the tape was supposed to say, "Let's roll."

I also think it's very odd that there is so little talk from the control towers on the tape. Of course, considering that the FAA ordered the Cleveland, Johnstown, and Pittsburgh control towers evacuated maybe it's not so odd after all.

Wonder why the FAA wanted the air traffic control towers evacuated???



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muppetus Galacticus

Well first of all, I do not know how transcripts are put together, but here is my initial thought/query after I read your post. Let's say there were two hijackers and they said it at the same time, would they each have their own line on the transcript?

If they were in sync with each other then it would not be garbled. If thousands of people can sing along at a concert and be understood then a couple of people doing it should be clear also IMO.


I understand what you are saying and agree with you that many people can be in sync with eachother. I still want to know how it can be heard four different times in one second. Try it yourself. They must have heard it that many times to put it in the transcript?

Still seems strange to me because they have posted time stamps right down to the second.

2PacSade-



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   


I guess maybe a real expert wouldn't need to break out any reference manuals to discuss the recording systems on Flight 93.


To discuss no, to type a long enough post to satisfy you...or make it clear to you since I confused you with an earlier post.




TextIn the Moussaui case, the government specifically claimed that the voice recording came from the pilot's cockpit voice recorder. Are you claiming that the government misstated this and that the sounds of the passengers were picked up by a mic or intercom in the cabin?


No, it is the cockpit voice recorder, not the pilot's, not the copilot's, not the flight attendant's. The cockpit, period. Personally I think you are misquoting what was said. The recorder, as mentioned previously has more than one pick up to record conversations and yes, it is quite possible for audio from the intercom or the cabin itself to be picked up.




Does the voice recorder actually record the audio from the cabin intercom?


Depends on the particular model. Some are wired in, some are not. However, depending on the volume of said intercom, it can be picked up by a crewmember's mic.




However, there is no legal justification for not making the audio public.


No legal reason to force them to release a tape, which in the end belongs to United Airlines either. But im sure the families would feel much better turning on the news and hearing that tape. Again, I refer you to the Challenger, the audio recorded after the explosion has never been made public, and hopefully never will be.




The way this country is being run right now in terms of individual rights is a complete disgrace more worthy of the Soviet Union than the U.S.


NOW its time for the B.S. flag. Which right in particular do you think you have lost? Because I havent lost a single one.



Do you honestly believe the government has produced ANY evidence that al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11?


Doesnt matter if I believe it or not. You will never believe it, because in the end it would come from the GOVERNMENT, of which you have shown you have absolutely no faith, trust or believe in.



Do you really believe that it is impossible that Flight 93 could have been shot down?


Yes I do.



Do you think the American people deserve to know the truth? Or do you prefer to just believe whatever the government tells you?


Once again, this is a no-win situation, you think the government has lied to you, but in the end, you arent going to believe anything the government has to say anyway.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999





The way this country is being run right now in terms of individual rights is a complete disgrace more worthy of the Soviet Union than the U.S.




NOW its time for the B.S. flag. Which right in particular do you think you have lost? Because I havent lost a single one.



For starters, the absolute right to own and decide what to do with real estate has been lost. As long as the government can collect more taxes from somebody else, they can take your land, your house, your buidlings, and your business and turn it over to their cronies.

Second, the right to privacy has been lost. The government can review all wire transfers that go through the Swift Banking system (which would be practically all wire transfers on the planet), and the government can listen in on calls and review my phone records, all without a warrant. All they need to do is make up a story that they think you're dealing with somebody from the middle east and they can get away with this.

Third, we've lost the right to live free from a police state that thinks it's ok to inspect packages of anybody who decides to take a bus or subway ride in NY whenever they decide there is a threat from an invisible terrorist.

The rights to be free from government intrustion are being eroded, one by one.

Next, I predict that there will be some sort of mandatory vaccinations for bird flu around the corner. Oh, and did I mention we're losing our rights of soveriegnty, with the slow progression into the United States of North America? We have created an organization with Canada and Mexico that gives away U.S. rights to officials from Canada and Mexico. But of course nobody wants to talk about this on the nightly news.

The boogey man of the radical Islamic terrorist has been used as the reason for the executive branch of the government to step on individual rights, and all with ZERO evidence that Islamic terrorists caused 9/11.

And you're right, I don't belive what the government tells me just because they say it's true. Do you?

I would like to hear the tape from Flight 93 to decide for myself if the government story is b.s. or not. And what about the victims' families who would like the tape released to the public, or even to have a copy for themselves?

P.S. For being an avionics expert, you sure are short on factual information regarding the recording systems on Flight 93. It should be a simple explanation, not a bunch of "Maybe this... maybe that..."

The government claimed the voices of the passengers in the cabin were recorded by the cockpit voice recorder. You say they could have been recorded by the cabin intercom. Does the intercom signal record onto the cockpit voice recorder or not?



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   


For starters, the absolute right to own and decide what to do with real estate has been lost.


Eminent Domain is written into the Constitution, hardly new.




Second, the right to privacy has been lost


You never had it. Nothing in the Constitution guarantees absolute privacy.




The government can review all wire transfers that go through the Swift Banking system (which would be practically all wire transfers on the planet), and the government can listen in on calls and review my phone records, all without a warrant.


And this is prohibited in what part of the Constitution?




Third, we've lost the right to live free from a police state that thinks it's ok to inspect packages of anybody who decides to take a bus or subway ride in NY whenever they decide there is a threat from an invisible terrorist


Promote the general welfare mean anything to you?




The boogey man of the radical Islamic terrorist has been used as the reason for the executive branch of the government to step on individual rights, and all with ZERO evidence that Islamic terrorists caused 9/11.


So eyewitness testimony means nothing to you? Because we have that....it comes from the stewardesses who called in on their maintenance phones and gave the seat numbers of the hijackers, not to mention brief descriptions which were matched up with the terrorists....unless of course, you are one of the lunatics that think the big, bad US government found a way to fake those calls.




And you're right, I don't belive what the government tells me just because they say it's true


In other words, you wouldnt believe George Bush if he told you the sky was blue.




P.S. For being an avionics expert, you sure are short on factual information regarding the recording systems on Flight 93. It should be a simple explanation


Reread the post, because once again you have gotten confused. To give you an exact answer on the setup of Flight 93, I would have to see the actual maintenance records of the jet to see exactly how the system was wired.



You say they could have been recorded by the cabin intercom.


No, I didn't, this is what I said...



Depends on the particular model. Some are wired in, some are not. However, depending on the volume of said intercom, it can be picked up by a crewmember's mic.


The intercom doesnt record squat, the recorder does. Now, if you want to go further back in the post, I did post that if the intercom was open (IF this particular model wasnt directly wired to the recorder) the intercom could be picked up by the mics in the cockpit.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999


Eminent Domain is written into the Constitution, hardly new.


This is more b.s. Eminent Domain is not written into the U.S. Constitution.

The closest it gets is "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Note what it says. Private land can't be taken for public use without just compensation. It says nothing about private land being confiscated from one private citizen to be sold to another private citizen. This is new.




Second, the right to privacy has been lost

You never had it. Nothing in the Constitution guarantees absolute privacy.


You're wrong again. Here's what the 4th Amendment says:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I never claimed there was a guarantee of absolute privacy. There isn't. However, there is a system of due process written into the Constitution that sets a specific standard, probable cause, and a specific procedure, a warrant. The Bush administration has taken the position that this is no longer necessary so long as somebody in the executive branch says somebody is suspicious.



The government can review all wire transfers that go through the Swift Banking system (which would be practically all wire transfers on the planet), and the government can listen in on calls and review my phone records, all without a warrant.

And this is prohibited in what part of the Constitution?


4th Amendment.




Third, we've lost the right to live free from a police state that thinks it's ok to inspect packages of anybody who decides to take a bus or subway ride in NY whenever they decide there is a threat from an invisible terrorist

Promote the general welfare mean anything to you?


The 4th Amendment mean anything to you?




So eyewitness testimony means nothing to you? Because we have that....it comes from the stewardesses who called in on their maintenance phones and gave the seat numbers of the hijackers, not to mention brief descriptions which were matched up with the terrorists....unless of course, you are one of the lunatics that think the big, bad US government found a way to fake those calls.


This is more B.S. There is no eye-witness testimony that you describe above. If there is, cite a source. And hearsay doesn't count.


And you're right, I don't belive what the government tells me just because they say it's true

In other words, you wouldnt believe George Bush if he told you the sky was blue.


You don't need to change my words. If Bush said the sky was blue, I'd look outside and see if he was right. The goverment has made many averments about 9/11 without producing any corroborating evidence.

They are able to get away with this exactly because of people like you who have pre-disposed biases and who don't understand the difference between fact and propaganda.

Here's a simple question for you:

Did the U.S. government ever plan to fake terrorist attacks and hijackings, complete with real and/or staged victims, for the purpose of gaining public support for a planned military action?

And you wonder why people question when the government makes claims that are not supported or corroborated by actual evidence...



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   
everything about flight 93 was fake.....



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 01:30 PM
link   
[qute]Originally posted by whatukno

CVR & FDR

With the proper filters and a professional I am certan that the CVR would have picked up the sounds of the people trying to get into the cockpit.

Just what you stated is verified by the link you posted. It makes it very clear that the CVR is capable of hearing both flight crew and attendants as well as noises from the engines etc.



The CVR records the flight crew's voices, as well as other sounds inside the cockpit. The recorder's "cockpit area microphone" is usually located on the overhead instrument panel between the two pilots. Sounds of interest to an investigator could be engine noise, stall warnings, landing gear extension and retraction, and other clicks and pops. From these sounds, parameters such as engine rpm, system failures, speed, and the time at which certain events occur can often be determined. Communications with Air Traffic Control, automated radio weather briefings, and conversation between the pilots and ground or cabin crew are also recorded.


So as I read that if the cabin phone was off the hook hearing the cabin voices was possible.



new topics




 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join