United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash According to ATC Radar

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   

turbo...you are correct. IF you move the control column counter to what the AP is doing, it WILL disconnect.


video.google.com...

Just wondering if you can explain why this is not reflected in the NTSB data
shown at the 10:00 - 14:00 min point of the video link.




posted on May, 6 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

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.

P.S. Thanks for reporting me and avoiding questions again Repeat. It's very
odd that you don't want to engage in a debate with me...since you're
so 'good' at what you do and all.


Don't delude yourself. I have been doing this for awhile and I am familiar with the tactic of the ever changing subject matter. I will not take the bait.

I'm not at all surprised that you don't want to discuss the subject of the thread.

Note to weedhacker: He's playing the game of the ever changing subject matter until he finds one that you either can't answer or one that he will argue about until the end of time. I'm sure you know it's a common tactic....



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   


Note to weedhacker: He's playing the game of the ever changing subject matter until he finds one that you either can't answer or one that he will argue about until the end of time. I'm sure you know it's a common tactic....


I'm ready and willing to debate you any time, any place "Mr. Reheat".

My questions are valid and do not stray from the topic matter. Why don't
you step up and explain why the autopilot is still engaged while the yoke
is moved about.

Try explaining the time markers from 10:00 - 14:00, and another at
15:30.

What's your excu...I mean theory about this?



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


turbofan, here is MY interpretation, based on the link to the DFDR from the NTSB site. (www.ntsb.gov/Info/autopilot_AA77_UA93_study.pdf)

Looking at page 10 of this document, it shows the acual A/S bleeding off, to the min, at altitude, of about 200 KIAS @ 0940 (EDT).

This is followed almost immediately by an increase in A/S, to about 350 KIAS (340 is the VMO).

edit = these idiots had some Simulator experience...but, they didn't understand the complex interactions with the AutoFlight System...yes, they nearly stalled....could be why the A/P was disengaged, then re-connected. They knew how to operate the Autopilot, via the MCP. Heck, I could explain the MCP, in its basic operation, in about one-half an hour!!!
I have personally seen my airspeed pass the 'VMO/MMO' bar by a few knots, momentarily...(as in, turbulence or 'wave action'...) without the 'Master Warning' and the associated 'Overspeed Warn' being annunciated. The excedence has to be for a certain length of time in order to trigger those warnings. (A few seconds....) A transient excedence will NOT trigger a prolonged 'Warning' response.

Back to UAL93. Airspeed increases very quickly, after the time of 0940 (EDT). This ties in well with the Altimeter showing a descent. As any pilot knows, airspeed will increase during a descent. Depends on, of course, the thrust and the rate of descent....

I am sorry for bursting a few bubbles here. I realize that there are pilots, with opinions. BUT, just being a pilot, with an opinion, doesn't mean you have all of the answers. UNLESS you, like me, actually not only have a type-rating in the B757/767 and some thousands of hours IN the airplanes.

IF you have these credentials, then please feel free to debate me.







[edit on 5/6/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   


I am sorry for bursting a few bubbles here. I realize that there are pilots, with opinions. BUT, just being a pilot, with an opinion, doesn't mean you have all of the answers. UNLESS you, like me, actually not only have a type-rating in the B757/767 and some thousands of hours IN the airplanes.

IF you have these credentials, then please feel free to debate me.


How does any of this explain that the auto-pilot did not disengage
during severe yoke movements? Did you see the animation at about
15:35?

As for the sim training; it's amazing how these rookies were able to
control this large aircraft in a bank at altitude with such low speed.
I gotta get me this MS Flight Sim so I too can guide a 757/767 like
an expert!



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
My questions are valid and do not stray from the topic matter. Why don't
you step up and explain why the autopilot is still engaged while the yoke
is moved about.


Thought I would stop by for a visit just to add something to the OP. No Turbofluff, you are not on the OP topic which is UAL93 Airborne ...

Here is a 205 accident package with transcripts and statements from ZOB (Cleveland) which might help with the discussion. Go read this, understand what you are reading, and then reconcile it with the lone transcript you are using for this OP. Have fun.

UAL93 Accident Package



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by turbofan
My questions are valid and do not stray from the topic matter. Why don't
you step up and explain why the autopilot is still engaged while the yoke
is moved about.


Thought I would stop by for a visit just to add something to the OP. No Turbofluff, you are not on the OP topic which is UAL93 Airborne ...



Discussing anomalies of the flight data for UA93 is not discussing the OP
according to you?

I haven't even approached the witnesses, or lack of damage at the
alleged crash site. I'd rather take it in stride and get the easy stuff out
of the way, but none of your faceless experts know how to answer.


Maybe Mr. Farmer can answer my question about the auto-pilot remaining
active while the 'terrorists' wiggle the yoke to extremes. What's your
best guess John?

P.S. How's that law suit coming along against CIT?


EDITED to comply with forum rules. Warn flags noted.


[edit on 7-5-2009 by turbofan]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by turbofan
My questions are valid and do not stray from the topic matter. Why don't
you step up and explain why the autopilot is still engaged while the yoke
is moved about.


Thought I would stop by for a visit just to add something to the OP. No Turbofluff, you are not on the OP topic which is UAL93 Airborne ...

To be clear- the autopilot issue was originally brought up by "weedwhacker" on this thread, (without any sources, of course).

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also, the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet A2NM (for Boeing 757-200 series, like we were told UA93 was) tells us:


Airspeed Limits: VMO = 350 KCAS/.86 M
VLE = 270 KCAS/.82 M
VLO = 270 KCAS/.82 M
For other airspeed limits, see the appropriate FAA-Approved Airplane Flight Manual listed in Note 2.


rgl.faa.gov...

Weedwhacker was a little low with this part above:


This is followed almost immediately by an increase in A/S, to about 350 KIAS (340 is the VMO).


www.abovetopsecret.com...

The FAA actually has a newer Revision 26 of that DataSheet, but it didn't appear to affect V_MO in my brief review.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 05:49 AM
link   
No, I am addressing the OP gents. I see you cannot, so you guys are changing the subject and pretending no one notices.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
No, I am addressing the OP gents. I see you cannot, so you guys are changing the subject and pretending no one notices.


It's apparent that no one wants to discuss the issues surrounding the subject matter of the OP. The OP stated that that UA 93 was still airborne after it crashed as verified by ATC/Radar. It's not about supposed FDR anomalies, it's not about witnesses, it's not about aircraft limitations, it's about an ATC transcript that supposedly shows UA 93 still airborne after it crashed.

I have shown the contention of the OP to be FALSE. No one has countered any of the information I've presented related to the OP, in fact it has been supported.

The normal reaction would be an apology from the individual who posted/propagated this false information and a retraction by the individual who originally authored the article.

Are any of these individuals willing to show that they are a mature adult and take the actions necessary to demonstrate that?



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


WOW!!! Both Reheat and John Farmer pulled out of retirement.

The collapse of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY must be much more severe than we thought, if the 9-11 perps are willing to run with these guys again.

Since the autopilot did not disengage when the yoke was moved, then this alleged Flt 93 FDR must be another piece of fakery just like the alleged Flight 77 FDR. Maybe they were bargain basement items and they got two for the price of one.



Since what was allegedly Flight 93 flew miles past the official crash site in the teensey hole in the ground with all the pristine weeds growing around it, and over Indian Lake; it makes sense that the FDR had to be faked to hide that fact. Even Larry, Moe, Curly, and the FBI should be able to figure that out on their own.




posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Preston, please describe how a DFDR can be 'faked'.

It is 'digital'...so, show an example. SHOW how all of the parameters of a DFDR can be 'faked'.

What you likely don't know is, because it is 'digital' it records a lot more data than simple 'Heading', 'Altitude' and 'Airspeed'!!!!

Just look at ANY NTSB report. Not just the 9/11, LOOK at other accident reports. There are a whole host of data recorded....flap/slat, landing gear positions. The actual flight control positions, in digital form.

Fuel flow, hydraulic pressure and quantity. Fuel quantity....the list goes on and on and on....

Look at all of the data from just ONE known non-9/11 accident.... SwissAir 111. (Hint: a fire in the 'attic' caused a total loss of control)...the CVR and DFDR stopped prior to impact, BECAUSE the electrical system was compromised, from the fire. (CVR and DFVR are powered from Main Bus No. 1)

So....now, knowing how the data is collected, PLEASE explain how someone who knows binary can 'fake' the data!! I mean, simple, isn't it?? Just a bunch of 1's and 0's....OK, fake away!!!!



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   

posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SPreston
 


Preston, please describe how a DFDR can be 'faked'.



Perhaps you prepare a script weeks ahead of time, hand it to a CIA pilot, and he flies the scripted course to be used during the big event. Alter a few key readouts. Should be simple for a few highly trained spook computer programmers.

I seriously doubt if there is any digital device which is foolproof and incapable of alteration or faking.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


OK....so the CIA 'spook' flies all the way to impact??? Wow, hope his family was well taken care of after he commited 'suicide' for the cause!!!!

Oh, this just keeps getting better and better!!!!

So, we are getting this desparate??

Let's crash a B757....and wait!!!! We need Arabic speakers (and there are so few of them, after many have been drummed out of the Military...)

Anyway, we need Arabic speakers to make sure to fake the CVR, so the time codes all match with the DFDR....OH!!! AND, we have to have a co-incedental accomplishment, to broadcast for the ATC tapes...ALL in real-time.

OK....yeah, that's very likely....in BIZZARO WORLD!!!



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SPreston
 


Let's crash a B757....and wait!!!! We need Arabic speakers (and there are so few of them, after many have been drummed out of the Military...)



Oh WOW!!! You must really be an expert.

I did not realize that the FDR readouts changed to Arabic to reflect the guys allegedly hanging out in the cockpit.


Google Video Link







[edit on 5/7/09 by SPreston]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Oh Dear, Oh Dear!!!!

The UAL93 CVR transcript has the Arabic on the tape!!!!

Nice try, not very clever though.

AS TO the DFDR, here is a link:

www.ntsb.gov...

This is only a small sample of the large amount of data that is recovered from a DFDR after a crash.


Try, also, www.ntsb.gov...

(this may not be entirely correct, as a link...but a google search should find what you want, if you care to look....)

edit = I have a priint-out called "Flight Path Study - United Airlines Flight 93"

the NTSB # is: DCA01MA065

Based on my OTHER print-out, it is the same NTSB# as the "AutoPilot, Navigation Equipment, and Fuel Consumption Activity..." report, NTSB# DCA01MA064 and, ibid, NTSB# DCA01MA065

the 'Flight Path Study' seems to be an addendum....so, I don't have the exact web-link, sorry.

[edit on 5/7/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Bump.

As an opportunity for the person who posted the OP and the False article to apologize the members of this Forum for perpetuating FALSE INFORMATION.

I have clearly shown that the conclusions in the article were based on gross ERRORS and FALSE ASSUMPTIONS. NO ONE has even attempted to contest what I've shown. Instead there have been several attempts to derail the thread in false hopes that it would just go away. That didn't work and it won't work in the future.

Thanks

[edit on 7-5-2009 by Reheat]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Watching that 'Pandora's Box' video....hmmm, seems some of the ATC tapes have been edited out.

09:24:20 UAL93 morning Cleveland it's United ninety-three with you at at three five oh ah there's some light chop here at thirty five any ride reports?

09:25:06 UAL93 United ninety three checking in three five oh.

09:25:08 LOR-R United ninety three three five zero roger.

09:27:25 LOR-R United ninety three that traffic for you is one o'clock twelve miles east bound three seven zero.

09:27:30 UAL93 negative contact we're looking United ninety three.

----missing from the video put forward by 'pilotsfor911truth'----

09:28:16 UAL93 ***(mayday)***(hey get out of here)***

09:28:48 UAL93 ***(get out of here)***(get out of here)***

09:29:14 LOR-R United ninety three verify three five zero.

09:29:20 LOR-R United ninety three verify you're at three five zero.

09:29:40 LOR-R United ninety three Cleveland

09:29:56 LOR-R United ninety three Cleveland

09:30:03 LOR-R United ninety three if you hear Cleveland ident please.

09:30:58 LOR-R United ninety three if your center ident.

09:31:55 UAL93 ***please sit down, keep remaining seating. we have a bomb on board. so***

09:32:05 LOR-R er uh calling Cleveland center you're unreadable say again slowly.

09:35:36 LOR-R ah United ninety three if able * ah squawk trip please.


OK, there you have it, the time of take-over. THIS transcript is from the ATC tapes, NOT the CVR.

At 09:35:36 is a cryptic comment that pilots and controllers understand. It is a 'code' phrase. It was part of the 'Common Strategy' used prior to 9/11 for hijacking events when unable to speak in the clear, i.e., when under duress.

But, my point is, the video excised certain parts. THIS is a problem, and shows a lack of full disclosure on the part of the pilotsfor911 group.

At 09:31:55 it is apparent that the Saudi Hijacker thought he was using the PA when he said "we have a bomb on board" when actually he was transmitting on the ATC frequency. There are two ways to make a PA from the cockpit of a B757: Via the microphone (either hand-held or boom mic) when the proper button is pushed on the Audio Selector Panel...or, via the handset mounted on the center pedestal. (It looks like a telephone, similar to what you see the F/As use in the cabin). We call this the 'interphone'.

The Saudi idiot saw a hand-mic and thought it was the PA. This happened on other hijacked flights as well, as recorded on the ATC tapes.

Finally, there IS a transcript of the CVR up to the moment of impact at 10:03:00 (?) not sure of the exact second. ON THAT transcript are the translated, to English, comments by the hijackers as they spoke Arabic. ESPECIALLY as they realized that passengers were attempting to breach the cockpit and fight them.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Weedwhacker, Thanks for your mostly on topic post.

It has been quite some time since I listened to the full tape to know if that omitted part was in the original. I don't recall anything missing. If that missing segment is in the original it needs to be highlighted in another thread.

Go take a look at the pffft home page sometime and list all of the false stuff posted there. This latest exposure just scratches the surface.

You've pointed out one of the idiotic contradictions of the entire truth movement, not just pffft. They accept items as being valid if it supports their delusions, but don't accept them when it destroys those fantasies. Case in point, the OP of this very thread must accept that transcript of the John White/Doug Davis conversation as being a valid document. It was developed from an FAA tape of the conversation. Yet, most of them either don't accept or ignore this tape of the hijacking which shows that Arabic speaking individuals obtained control of the cockpit of UA 93. Pffft thinks they are quite clever by stating that they have NO CONCLUSIONS, it's just that "the Government supplied information does not support the Government story". Some of their CRAP is implied and other parts are specifically stated as in the case of this OP, which was the result of a GROSS misinterpretation/misrepresentation of FACTS.

Why others are fooled by this charade is beyond my comprehension. It simply proves that P.T. Barnum was absolutely correct.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 7-5-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 7-5-2009 by Reheat]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
This is funny stuff! Love that photo SPreston!

These guys believe the aircraft drove itself 165 feet deep into the earth
with wings and tail section intact no less


We've all seen video of airplanes hitting the water at much slower speeds
and lesser angles ... all of which breaking apart upon contact with the
surface.

These hijackers were smart enough to find planes with super-duper airframes
on 9/11. Airframes strong enough to penetrate the earth and leave no
visible debris!

Hey, I saw four purple elephants walking on a hydro line yesterday at
9:11 PM!

Why do we bother posting independent research and video witness accounts?
Nobody cares about that stuff.





top topics
 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join