It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash According to ATC Radar

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on May, 5 2009 @ 02:37 AM
reply to post by TrueAmerican

TA, at the time of the takeover by the hijackers (about 0933) the airplane was at FL350 (35,000 feet) and just a few miles West of the DJB VOR (Dryer). This NavAid is less than 20 miles West and slightly South of the CLE airport.

At 0933 the Flight Directors were turned off, and a minute later the Autopilot was disconnected briefly, then reengaged about a minute later. The hijackers knew how to operate the AutoFlight Systemvia the MCP (Mode Control Panel) Heading Select and Vertical Speed modes. The airplane turned after the takeover to the heading of 120 degrees which was pretty close to that needed to reach Washington, DC. It remained on that heading until about 0957.

Point is, at FL350 and 20 or so miles from the airport, it would not be a quick landing, if one occured at CLE (this has been disputed, already).

A usual descent profile has the airplane at about 10,000 feet at 30 miles out.

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 03:09 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

I hear ya, but as I just listened to that report again from project Camelot and "Nelson" there was a reference Bill Ryan made to the white plane, and how it was likely a radio repeater for remote commands from far away. Seems like there were more white planes flying around than usual on 911.

And as to the immediate retraction, and "disputed" Cleveland landing- I am still keeping my mind open to the possibilities that:

1) there were no hijackers, or the hijackers may have been hijacked themselves
2) this was all done by remote control takeover of the planes
3) 93 may have landed in Cleveland
4) that the perpetrators are profusely protecting and hiding any information that may lead to that discovery.
5) those passengers might still be alive.

I know, call me nuts, but I am still trying to stay open to these things. The paid shills won't sway me one bit, and nearly everybody is one in my book until proven otherwise. I trust no one but a very few, and Craig/Domenick/SPreston and few others I'll leave unnamed fall into that category. Just saying.

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:06 AM

Originally posted by turbofan
Any chance we can get a name from you Reheat?

Since you're experiencing difficulty reading, I'll increase the font and bold it so you can read it... my name is REHEAT. If you would prefer more formality you may address me as Mr. REHEAT.

Originally posted by turbofan
Tell me, does coast mode RADAR reflect changes in altitude?

I'll answer again, just as I did before with a question. It is irrelevant to this issue, so what does this have to do with the transcript and the topic under discussion?

You are not qualified to evaluate whether I answer this question correctly (technically) or not, so don't even try.

Originally posted by turbofan
What about those final co-ordinates for UA93, were they in error as well? Just like the witnesses?

What witnesses? Are you referring to the First Responders who went to the crash site? Or are you referring to the Falcon 20 who is on tape describing the scene and giving (probably) GPS coordinates to ATC? Those witnesses?

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Reheat
Since you're experiencing difficulty reading, I'll increase the font and bold it so you can read it... my name is REHEAT.
I'll answer again, just as I did before with a question. It is irrelevant to this issue, so what does this have to do with the transcript and the topic under discussion?
You are not qualified to evaluate whether I answer this question correctly (technically) or not, so don't even try.

So you admit to dodging, in lieu of actually answering questions then, Mr. REHEAT?

Well thank you very much for your input, "sir."

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:49 AM
I'm going to end my participation in this ridiculous thread by clearly stating that all of the RECORDED evidence combined with the crash scene evidence analyzed as a whole indicates that UA 93 indeed crashed at the site where all of the final reports indicate that it did. The Cleveland ARTCC tape recordings are supported by the RADES radar analysis. The ATC recordings and transcripts all agree and support the radar data.

It is very typical of the those who are part of the Truth Movement to take what they believe are anomalies and attempt to build them into mountains supporting their delusions that in one way or another the events of 9-11 were an inside jobby job.

If you accept the OP transcript as being evidence then it follows that you would accept all of the other transcripts and recordings, as well as they ALL come from the same source, the FAA.

The apparent time discrepancy and the apparent coordinate discrepancy are very easy to understand, IF YOU UNDERSTAND HOW THE ATC SYSTEM WORKED on 9/11. The Falcon 20 call sign N20VF piloted by Mr. Gladwell overflew the crash site a few minutes after the crash and reported GPS coordinates to Cleveland Center. Even those coordinates are off by about 1 mile because the Falcon 20 was at 5,000', not at tree top level where the position would have been more accurate. Mr. Gladwell's verbal description of the crash site correlates perfectly with the position where everyone who thinks rationally understands as the crash site of UA 93.

This latest "smoking gun" issue will be addressed in more detail, but not at this site.....

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:44 PM

Originally posted by rhunter

As with so many of the "anti-conspiracy" types that frequent this conspiracy discussion board, you might want to check the "facts" on your "missing black box."

Around 4:50 p.m. on September 13, investigators discover the flight data recorder from Flight 93, one of the plane’s two “black boxes.” It is buried about 15 feet down in the main crater at the crash site, near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Around 8:25 p.m. the following evening, the other ‘black box’—the plane’s cockpit voice recorder—is found about 25 feet below ground in roughly the same spot.

If you or anyone believes the lie that UA93 and its blackbox somehow was able to bury itself 25 feet underground, then its a great time for the shanksville challenge.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by Orion7911]

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 04:20 PM
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 05:22 PM
reply to post by Orion7911

Orion, I tried to watch the utube link, my connection is extra slow right now, I'll look later.

I believe I can guess as to the gist, though. But, I'm assuming for now.

It should be noted, firstly, that the area of impact just happened to be a 'reclaimed' strip mine. This means, the area consisted of very loose soil.

You and I or a deer could walk across it, of course. But, an extremely high energy impact force entails a LOT of kinetic energy!! The Flight Recorders are mounted near the tail of the airplane. They had mass, and energy, because of the speed the airplane was travelling at impact. They, along with everything else on the airplane, were along for the ride. It is a chaotoic event, everything is not possible to calculate without a Super-Computer, and just programming one, if you even had access, would be a daunting task.

Ya know, we prolly wouldn't even be debating this if the impact point terrain had been composed of different material. Say, a large asphalt parking lot! But, it is what it is.

Consider the crash of that ValuJet into the Florida Everglades some years ago. OF course the Everglades are soft, everyone knows that. AND the airplane was swallowed up...even at less than half the speed of the UAL93

Consider an horrific low-speed crash, such as NorthWest Airlines in Detroit. (I think flight 252...canlook it up). Airplane never exceeded about 160-180kts, yet due to its uncontrollability it dragged a wing, and broke up, spreading debris along a trajectory swath. YET, one, and only ONE person survived...a four-year-old girl. She was seriously injured, but recovered. THIS is a prime example of how chaotic these impact forces can be.

Consider USAir flight 427, outside Pittsburgh, PA, in 1994. Straight in from about 3,000 above the ground. Starting airspeed was around 160kts, accelerated to just under 290-300 at impact (still well less than UAL93) and photos of the crash site show large pieces, but a substantial amount of wreckage buried itself....again, harder graound than Shanksville, and slower impact velocity.

(The exact numbers above, such as airspeeds, are from memory. I can, and will check-- plus invite anyone to research and further refine the data. My point is, laws of motion, per Sir Isaac Newton, are irrefutable. At least we can agree on THAT. hmmmm?)

My attempted point is that every accident/crash sequence scenario will be different...there are many, many variables that affect the results.

One final example: Swiss Air 111, high speed (unknown) impact into the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of New Foundland. The pieces were shredded, and we know this because they were recovered from the sea floor, at a depth of about 120 feet. Folks, this poor airplane hit WATER! And most pieces were the size of a dinner placemat!

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 06:42 PM

Saw a Lear 35 reduced to "metal confetti" about 20 years ago - hit nose
down estimated angle of 80 deg, est speed was 350 kts. Ground was hard
with solid rock just under soil (it top of mountain)

Only recognizable piece was 2 x 3 section of tail fin (rudder) which broke free on impact. Only other piece was landing gear light - it hit a parked
car 75 yards away. Walked the crash scene marking out (am member of FD) out body parts for coroner to recover.

For some reason conspiracy types think plane crash will look like something out ROADRUNNER cartoon aka Wiley Coyote siting in battered and bent Acme airplane....

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 08:42 PM
reply to post by thedman

thedman...great 'first person' evidence, thank you!!!

Since I am an operator of airplanes, I endeavour to not crash into things.

But, as an interested Aviation Professional, I also can use my experience and skills, and 30+ years of knowledge to interpret, hopefully, what less experienced ATS Members may feel are 'obvious'...and, not to demean anyone, it's just sometimes, what may "seem obvious" is not always based on a thorough knowledge of all aspects of Aviation.

NOR, as I see some 'theories' espoused...I find that the people who promote these various 'theories' do so without a full understanding or comprehension of what they are talking about, most of the time.

I have posted, not only here, but in other threads. I stand by my posts.

Anyone who wishes to challenge certainly may. You should bring a very good argument, though.

edit - because I am typing in the dark....oh, he's FINALLY asleep! I can turn on a light!!

[edit on 5/5/0909 by weedwhacker]

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 01:04 PM
As I promised here is a link to my discussion of the Article posted in the OP.

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 04:55 PM
reply to post by Reheat

Umm, excuse me, but why are you posting just the link to a site that continually calls ATSers morons, forcing us to sign up over there to continue your discussion? And furthermore, why are you here at all when clearly you must be a moron too for visiting here?

You can't have it both ways ya know. Either be an ATS moron or a jref snubnose.

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 05:22 PM
Do you have something substantial to add to the thread or is this just an opportunity for you to attempt to insult me?

It doesn't take a genius to go read the discussion and then post here. I will reply if you post anything of substance, but after you read the analysis of this crap, I don't think you'll have much to say. Surprise me!

If you continue in the same vein as this last post, I won't reply....

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 06:08 PM
I do say, Reheat has the info correct although the ATCSCC (Herndon Facility) now has radar feeds from a various number of sources, there was no radar feed for traffic during the 2001 time frame.

The TMS's (traffic management specialist) primarily deal with the TSD's (Traffic Situation Displays) which lags in real time info by up to several minutes.

The entire facility is exactly what Reheat has said, it is managing the traffic within the NAS (National Airspace System). There is no juridiction for seperation, no need for radar back then. It relies on information provided by FAA facilities as well as airline AOC's.

All the info is collected from FAA ARTCC's, TRACONs and Towers and desiminated appropriately. All done through the phone system although there is many new automation processes now.

That being said, John the NTMO-E (which is actually incorrect also as he was the facility deputy not an NTMO) could not have had any up to date info unless in came across the phones.

I'm not weighing in on what transpired on 9/11 facts, just stating that Reheat has the info correct about real time info and delayed info.


posted on May, 6 2009 @ 06:17 PM
reply to post by pale5218

pale42, I starred your post because you have brought a breath of knowledge to this discussion!!!

As a pilot, I only know one aspect of the 'system'. I can listen to a recording, and hear what non-aviation people cannot.

Since I am NOT a Contoller, I have no clue as to the various inside idioms trhey use with each other. As they do not have a full understanding of 'pilot speak', except where the two disciplines intersect. THAT is the radio-phraseology that is standardized communication betwwen ATC and pilots.

As a pilot-user of the 'system' I, and others, understand but do not have the ability to tap into the procedural communications that occur between the ATC folks as they manage the Nation's (or World's) air traffic.

Just as in any profession, there are always short-cuts and acronyms that mean something to those involved, but are like a foreign language to others.

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 06:20 PM
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 06:25 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on May, 6 2009 @ 06:39 PM
reply to post by turbofan

turbo...nice try, but wrong.

The ATC tapes have instances of "Hey! Get outta here...", and so forth...

I don't know about you, but after I was above 18,000 I took off my headset, and used the hand mic.

Now, imagine, as you are sittiing at your computer, someone barges in and takes you by under two seconds?

How difficult is this to imagine??

You DO realize that the cockpit is fairly small, right??

EVEN when I clicked off the Shoulder Harness and the crotch belt, I still had the lap belt attached (as all pilots do).

These Saudi Hijackers knew how to operate the A/P, and the MCP. They had spent time in simulators. They were not 'professional' pilots, by any stretch....but knew enough. I could teach you, or just about anyone, the basics in just a few hours. Heck!! There is a MicroSoft Program out there right now that helps wannabe Airline Pilots feel as if they can fly!!!

Here, look at a real cockpit view, from the jumpseat, of a B767. Notice, please, the Captain taking his hands off of the thrust levers to engage the AutoThrottles. THIS IS not the SOP of my Airline!!! (We use the TOGA button, on the Thrust Levers). The hands must remain on the Thrust Levers in case of a rejected take-off!!! IF you need something inputted on the MCP you 'call' for it, until you engage the AutoPilot. THEN you manage the AutoFlight System for yourself, and communbicate to your partner.

Still, my little aside notwithstanding....see the vulnerability of those two guys, backs to the door. Confined area, seatbelts on....

Getting it yet???

edit = the vid linky...

[edit on 5/6/0909 by weedwhacker]

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 06:59 PM

I could teach you, or just about anyone, the basics in just a few hours. Heck!! There is a MicroSoft Program out there right now that helps wannabe Airline Pilots feel as if they can fly!!!

Let's start with a simple lesson then:

Tell me how the autopilot can remain engaged if the yoke is moved abrubtly.

[Mod edit to remove personal attack. Please see courtesy is mandatory.]

[edit on 5/6/2009 by yeahright]

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 07:09 PM
reply to post by turbofan are correct. IF you move the control column counter to what the AP is doing, it WILL disconnect.

On the B757/767 this action WILL cause a 'Master Warning'...this means, the two red lights on the Glare Shield, and the very loud siren (electronic) that accompanies the Master Warning... (not to be confused with the Yellow 'Master Caution' lights, accompanied by a 'ding'....)

To cancel the A/P disconnect Master Warning lights and sound, there is a button on each control wheel, and there is the big ole' button on the MCP just under the A/P engage is the A/P disengage bar.

ALSO, one simply needs to press the red Master Warning light, either Pilot can do this, to silence the Warning, and reset for any subsequent Warnings. BECAUSE, this is what you SHOULD do!!!!!

Any more questions?????

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in