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.

 

United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash According to ATC Radar

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmericanI just want reliable answers like most honest truthers.


Well, you're getting honest reliable answers from me, so what's the problem?

I see your hero at pffft could only reply with his typical "attack the messenger" response.

The only item of substance and related to the OP in his reply here is the error with the lat/long position of the crash site. I addressed that issue in my original article and I've explained it again here at ATS. Anytime Balsamo doesn't like an answer, he calls it an excuse. Then he wonders why he has no respect among those of us who have years of experience in aviation.

What I have posted regarding the erroneous lat/long coordinates is fact. He doesn't know how those coordinates were derived, nor does he know who derived them. Were they derived from the radar scope after the primary return had disappeared and the controller used the "Coast Mode" return or were they derived from a TSD in the Cleveland TMU or at NTMO-E from a TSD. It really doesn't matter as they would have likely been inaccurate using any of those methods. I've already explained why.

Why do you or he think the Cleveland Controller asked N20 VF if he had a GPS on board? If the controller thought he had accurate coordinates why would he inquire about a GPS and then request that aircraft to overfly the crash site and report the coordinates? Even those coordinates were off by about 1 mile for reasons I explained earlier. I'm not going to explain it again. This request to N20 VF occurred just a few minutes after the crash and it's all on tape.

Why would anyone contend that UA 93 was airborne AFTER the reported crash time, quote inaccurate coordinates while IGNORING the better coordinates from N20 VF? I know why, but you haven't figured it out yet.

Well, I thought I answered your question about part serial numbers, but apparently you're still not satisfied. I didn't mention the FAA as they wouldn't have a clue about aircraft part serial numbers other than the tail number of the aircraft, which was very likely destroyed in all 4 deliberate crashes. The FAA plays no part in on site investigations, so they are irrelevant to your question. Show me where the FBI is responsible for providing serial numbers of aircraft parts in a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. Prove to me that they need to do this and make that public information.

You call what I wrote about the NTSB a tirade? What words in my response indicate a tirade? Do you not like it that I bold key points? Did you not understand it when I told you that the NTSB DID NOT conduct an ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION because the 4 aircraft crashes on 9/11 were NOT ACCIDENTS, they were DELIBERATE CRIMINAL ACTS? I even went on to explain to you WHY the NTSB generally records serial numbers during an ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION. If you don't buy it, well, that's your problem, I guess. Just keep on harping about it if you want.

I'll ask you three more questions about these serial numbers just to show you how silly this is. Do you believe that United Airlines or American Airlines respective Insurance Companies who were insuring these aircraft would pay $$ if those aircraft didn't crash? I guess those who keep harping about part serial numbers have more to lose than those Insurance Companies or, for that matter, the Airlines themselves who almost went bankrupt after 9/11.

Do you know what ACARS is and does? If you don't you should be able to google that acronym and learn about it. If there is something you don't understand about ACARS come back and I'll try to explain what you don't understand about that system.

Why won't you or others accept the FDR as a valid identifier of the aircraft's identity? Do you think it was faked? If so, I'm waiting for a cogent explanation of how that was done. Good Luck with that.

[edit on 8-5-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 8-5-2009 by Reheat]




posted on May, 8 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
the missing black box is a bit of concern however.


What missing black box? Both the FDR and the CVR (transcript only) are available with a simple search.

The only missing "black boxes" from the day are from the two aircraft that hit the WTC.


Why won't you or others accept the FDR as a valid identifier of the aircraft's identity? Do you think it was faked? If so, I'm waiting for a cogent explanation of how that was done. Good Luck with that.

That they are FDRs is nothing special. THe data is digital. Nothing special there, either. It is easy to manipulate. Nothing special.

Remember the Habsheim A320 crash? There were indications of tampering of FDR data in that incident. Nothing stopping it occurring now on other aircraft types, either.

[edit on 8-5-2009 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

reply to post by Reheat
 




You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, but those beliefs need to be based on FACT, when they are available. Your beliefs, on the other hand, are based upon hearsay, misinterpretations, or simply delusions that have no basis in anything other than wild speculation.



Originally posted by impressme
Wrong! You did not read my thread as usual. I just “proved” to YOU there was no tangible proof that a plane crashed in Shanksville, PA.
I gave you my opinion of my beliefs and I showed you why I believed in my theory. As far as your comment of : (Your beliefs, on the other hand, are based upon hearsay, misinterpretations, or simply delusions that have no basis in anything other than wild speculation.) You just described the OS, which I do not support.


Oh, I read your post alright. My definition of proof is obviously quite different from yours. Yeap, try to reverse definition. That's clever. And you wonder why people sometimes use derogatory names for this type of behavior.




I fully realize you will then start a rant about "Chain of Custody", so I won't waste my time with any more FACTS.



Originally posted by impressme
Thank you.


You're quite welcome.


You obviously wouldn't recognize FACTS even if they bit you in.... stared you in the face, which they actually do.



Originally posted by impressme
Your comments are appalling to say the lease, your ridiculing and insults have no place on this forum and you are being disrespectful to me and everyone in here who is trying to have a civil conversation.


The lease on my comments say no such thing. Anyway, they are not leased, I own them outright. I treat you like you act. Conversations are shorter that way.


Psssst. Clue Bird - It's not necessarily to prove the identification of the aircraft, that is generally already known by other means.



Originally posted by impressme
It is obviously clear you do not know what crash scene investigators protocol calls are and how they go about collecting evidences to prove the plane in question is the real plane. Besides the OS, which lacks any evidences to supports its self, one, must wonder why anyone would support such a ridiculous fallacy.


Well, in spite of the fact that I don't know what protocol calls are, I don't think you know either. If you're speaking of protocol, I do have some familiarity with Accident Investigation as during my over 20 year Air Force Career and participation in 2 Wars there were a few accidents. In fact, I've helped pick up people I knew that were nothing but little bittie pieces of what was once a human being. However, I've never heard of an Accident Investigation having to prove an aircraft's identification just to prove it was a real aircraft. Say, can you direct me to the exact site, chapter and page # for that protocol? I don't believe it exists. Prove me wrong.

[edit on 8-5-2009 by Reheat]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Remember the Habsheim A320 crash? There were indications of tampering of FDR data in that incident. Nothing stopping it occurring now on other aircraft types, either.


Yes, that's correct and there was plenty of evidence that it had been tampered with as well. That's precisely how it was discovered.

The FDR records numerous parameters and they do all need to fit. Do you know of any that don't fit with UA 93? Well, there would need to be enough that would prove something other than what the reports say actually happened.

Supposed eye or ear witnesses won't work. As most everyone knows witnesses are notoriously unreliable for aircraft crashes. If their statements don't match the physical evidence to include the radar data from multiple sites they are unreliable witnesses. One would think that would be common knowledge for someone with a reasonable amount of aviation experience, but I guess not.

Please don't get into the animation as that is not necessarily the parameters recorded by the FDR. The animation is produced from software and may or may not be accurate. If you think the animation is wrong, then show us the CSV file parameters that agree.

What about the 24+ hours of previous flights? Do you suspect that was faked, as well?

[edit on 8-5-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 8-5-2009 by Reheat]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


The FDR on that AF Flight 296 was what I call 'quasi-digital'. There ARE the DFAUs...Digital Flight data Acquisition Units, they are purely electronic. In 1988, the year of the airshow demonstration flight crash, the flight recorder used a magnetic tape to record all of the various data sets.

Again, not to drag OT (hopefully) but there were BIG BUCKS riding on that airplane, as the first completely civilian FBW passenger jet was either going to make or break the Airbus consortium, as a manufacturing business hoping to compete with the 800-pound Gorilla that was Boeing.

Chain of Command on the recorders was lost for about 10 days. Magnetic tape was missing...4 to 8 seconds, and the time-synch between the FDR and CVR was not consistent. ALL of that to frame the pilots and deflect a design problem in the Flight Control software. I won't get into details, but essentially the software thought the airplane was intending to land, and the throttles would not advance to TOGA power.

But, as to UAL93, UNLESS the chain of command can be proven to have been interrupted after the boxes were recovered then we're going to have a hard time believing A) that the boxes were "switched" and B) that even IF, how in the heck do all of the various recorded parameters (minimum required fer FAR is 88) all match so perfectly?? CVR/DFDR and ATC time codes all match up.

BTW, reheat has already pointed out the other 3-minute 'discrepancy' at ATC. Not sure if he mentioned it, but when you consider that the ATC computers are still terribly antiquated --- the main frames, as I understand it, are pretty old tech, with a few 'upgrades' of digital enhancements that were implemented in the 1990s...but, these were more like band-aids. Improved display resolution, things like that. I mean, to compare to a home computer, you can have an old Intel 386 CPU running the latest LCD monitor, but at its heart it's still an old and slow 386!!



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker....
Not sure if he mentioned it, but when you consider that the ATC computers are still terribly antiquated --- the main frames, as I understand it, are pretty old tech, with a few 'upgrades' of digital enhancements that were implemented in the 1990s...but, these were more like band-aids. Improved display resolution, things like that. ....


I do not know what kind of recording equipment was in use, but I suspect it was pretty antiquated, as well. Of course, the Centers would have better recording equipment than the NTMO simply because what the Centers' do is much more important and critical to record than what occurs at the NTMO.

I say this because there is an annoying buzz on some of the tapes. The conversation is still audible, but I would imagine someone trying to determine a time line with that buzzing noise irritating them might be quite anxious to finish in a hurry.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


"the annoying buzz..."

Ever heard the 400 Hz 'hum' from older Airliner transmissions (circa late 1970s-1980s)?

If you listened to ATC frequencies you'd hear it. It was from the Engine-Driven Generators on older jets, since they produced AC115-120V @ 400Hz. (Compare to typical household AC at 115-120V @ 60Hz).

Later improved tech found ways to 'filter' the humming. Digital filtering, bridge-rectifiers....I don't know, not an electronics whiz. But, solid-state improvements cleared up the sound.

As I said, older ATC facilities, depending upon whether they had been upgraded, and where. I'm sure there were idiosycracies that the personnel learned to deal with...and cope. Hoping that their 'transfer', if they wished one, to an Upgrade might eventually be approved. Not only would it mean a pay bump, IF they got a GS pay-grade change, but facilities with more 'operations per hour' also pay better, for a given position. IN other words, if you are a "local controller" at O'Hare, and a GS-13, you will make more than a GS-13 "local controller" at, say....Omaha. (just an example, for comparison. Not representative of specifics).

How is this OT?? Well, it shows a direct co-relation to the ongoing efforts, since the 1990s, of the ATC system to upgrade, in a piece-meal fashion because of budget constraints that were imposed with each Congress.

September 11, 2001 was a sort of 'wake-up' call. Problem is, the advances and improvements SINCE then should be noted...and NOT used in an effort to impugn the events OF 9/11, or to imply that BECAUSE of last few years' improvements, THEREFORE there is a 'cover-up'...from 9/11/01.

There is likely a little CYA that went on, in the immediate aftermath. I saw that in every signed report by the personnel involved, mostly from the Cleveland ARTCC Sectors...Loraine, IndianHead, etc. You can see their written addendums on every report. THIS DOES NOT a conspiracy make, it is simply a way to protect oneself from the incredible WRATH of the Gov't unless you know the 'speak'.

I once had an F/O who would joke, just for the CVR, before every take-off, "Captain, I don't feel comfortable with this procedure."

We thought it funny, since we never expect the CVR to be heard. Call it a bit of 'gallows humour', if you will. BUT, in all seriousness, after the fact....a simple statement by EVERY controller as to a minor technicality that is known to them, as a potential "gotcha" is just, again, a case of being careful, lest some Government Attorney try to ensnare them at a later date.

Sorry, not good at explaining something that most people should instinctively undertand.

I've included a lot of extraneous (some might say) info, but without a full understanding of nuance (difficult to convey) then people who fly Learjets or KingAires are going to spout off, and attempt to pass themselves off as 'Experienced'.

Oh, and a few pilots with about 800 hours TT, as well.

I know, I know....Kip Wittenburg, Rob Balsam, (not sure of his credentials) and a few others....not to leave out the great John Lear....I just see a rash of opinions, with disconnected "facts"....sometimes contradictory.

As to their abilities? Not diminishing...but, consider what each has seen, and the ability to intepret.

I take everything with a grain of salt, and realize that each has a different perspective.

All I have is MY experience, and opinion. (AND, what I find doing research...)



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 

Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True
by George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (ret.)
In July, 1965 I had just been commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the U. S. Air Force after taking a solemn oath that I would protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I would bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I took that oath very seriously, and it was my constant companion throughout a thirty-year military career in the field of aircraft maintenance.
As an additional duty, aircraft maintenance officers are occasionally tasked as members of aircraft accident investigation boards and my personal experience was no exception. In 1989 I graduated from the Aircraft Mishap Investigation Course at the Institute of Safety and Systems Management at the University of Southern California . In addition to my direct participation as an aircraft accident investigator, I reviewed countless aircraft accident investigation reports for thoroughness and comprehensive conclusions for the Inspector General, HQ Pacific Air Forces during the height of the Vietnam conflict.
In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even learned of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft --- and in most cases, even determining the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.
Following a certain number of flying hours or, in the case of landing gears, a certain number of takeoff-and-landing cycles, these critical parts are required to be replaced, overhauled or inspected by specialist mechanics. The plans and scheduling section will notify maintenance specialists with a work order when the parts must be replaced. When the parts are installed, the completed work order will have serial numbers of the parts married to the aircraft registration number and it will be returned to the records section for updating in the aircraft records. If the parts are not replaced within specified time or cycle limits the airplane will normally be grounded until the maintenance action is completed. Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators, pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible.
Considering the catastrophic incidents of September 11 2001 , certain troubling but irrefutable conclusions must be drawn from the known facts, and I get no personal pleasure or satisfaction from reporting my assessment of these facts.
United Airlines Flight 93
This flight was reported by the federal government to be a Boeing 757 aircraft, registration number N591UA, carrying 45 persons, including four Arab hijackers who had taken control of the aircraft, crashing the plane in a Pennsylvania farm field.
Aerial photos of the alleged crash site were made available to the general public. They show a shallow, smoking hole in the ground, but private investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the alleged crash site. If an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have literally hundreds of serially controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proven beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft. However, the government has not produced any physical evidence that would prove beyond doubt, the specific identity of the aircraft that allegedly crashed at that site. On the contrary, it was reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, was still in operation for several weeks after September 11, 2001 .
Conclusion
The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001 , resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.
With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased, rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. Regarding the planes that allegedly flew into the two WTC towers, it appears that heavy aircraft were involved in each case, but no evidence has been produced that would support the government's version of what actually caused the total destruction of the buildings, let alone proving the identity of the aircraft. That is the central problem with the government's 911 story.
As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to have been involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Footnote: It has now been more than five years since the tragic events of 9/11/01 , and still the general public has seen no physical evidence that should have been collected at each of the four crash sites, (a routine requirement during mandatory investigations of each and every major aircraft crash.) The National Transportation Safety Board has announced on its website that responsibility for the investigations and reports have been assigned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but the FBI has refused to publicly release any copies of their mandatory investigations. The FBI response to a request for copies of their reports under the Freedom of Information Act was a refusal. The agency claimed that their investigation reports were "in a file", and that the FBI was exempt from FOIA release, "due to the sensibilities of surviving families of the crash victims".

If you cannot see that there is a cover-up, then YOU are playing a game. You have not provided one shred of evidence supporting the OS. You have not sited even the most elementary protocol followed at aircraft collisions, nor have you provided us with one single legitimate credential showing you are even remotely familiar with the real world of modern aviation investigations.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 




little bittie pieces


My “lease” was at LEAST only a result of typing to fast. Your “bittie” is not even a typo; it is evidence of your level of maturity in this discussion.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


I am sorry, I make typos as well.

'lease' versus 'least' "to" versus "too"....

I've made the mistake of arguing to the POSTER, as opposed to arguing to the OP. I've taken my lumps. I believe many of have, and deservedly.

Now, I have stuck my neck out, again, just to re-iterate this fact.

So, shake hands, impressme and Reheat....bury that last hatchet, and carry on!!!! 'Never to be spoken of again'...(hopefully).

Back to OP....

Please, no matter WHICH side you happen to be on, PLEASE look at why, and how, this ONE question has been formed into an ATS thread.

The OP, in an attempt to...well, I'm not sure EXACTLY anymore what the intent is, anymore....I 'thought' the intent was to prove that, MAYBE, UAL93 was shot down. AT LEAST, that was seemingly the original intent.

THEN, we get all sorts of alternate ideas, hate to call them 'theories', becuase a "THEORY" is NOT A GUESS!! A 'theory' is a well-documented verifiable compilation of observable and repeatable data sets that confirm an 'hypothesis'...and, the 'hypothesis' is again, MORE than just a 'guess'....it is an eduacted estimation based on OTHER observable facts....backing up, an 'hypothesis' will, through continued observation and verifiable scientific discovery, eventually become a 'theory'. A 'THEORY" is NOT A GUESS!!!!!

The OP on this thread qualifies as an 'hypothesis', really. Upon further examination, and other evcidence that has been brought into the discussion, we see that the 'hypothesis' does not qualify to become 'theory' status.

Evidence to contrary are well documented, upon review of the thread. Summary: The assertion of the OP of the "3-minute" discrepancy, showing that the Flight UAL93 crashed 3 minutes after originally reported, has shown to be in question. Sources are in conflict, and the reasons for the discrepancies are well-noted.

DFDR and CVR and pertinient LOCAL ATC tapes all are time-synched.

'red-herrings' that are brought in to support an alternate opinion have been shown to be simply that....without full comprehension of ALL of the facts, these sorts of contributions will, of course, sow doubts. A FULL comprensive understanding of ALL of the inputs from that hectic time are needed in order to see the full picture.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 

If you're speaking of protocol, I do have some familiarity with Accident Investigation as during my over 20 year Air Force Career and participation in 2 Wars there were a few accidents.


Glad you brought up the Air Force. I don’t know if you are just unable to be honest about your background or what. The system in place for investigating Air Force/ Military aviation crashes is entirely, and I mean entirely different from civil/commercial investigations.


However, I've never heard of an Accident Investigation having to prove an aircraft's identification just to prove it was a real aircraft.


And I have never encountered four magical, totally unidentifiable hijacked commercial airliners vanish right before our eyes leaving not one usable piece of their true identity. This allows endless opportunities for any scenario, no matter how untrue; to be reportedly recovered from “the” black boxes supposedly belonging to said aircraft.


Say, can you direct me to the exact site, chapter and page # for that protocol? I don't believe it exists. Prove me wrong.


If you care to spend the time, requisitioning all of the manuals required to educate yourself about Air Force crash investigation protocol, have at it. BTW, when you find the subsection, page and paragraph explaining where the FBI, NTSB and the FAA investigate the Air Force air crashes, please let ME know.



AIR FORCE SAFETY AND ACCIDENT BOARD INVESTIGATIONS


www.acc.af.mil...

FURTHER:


1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash

The USAF immediately convened a safety investigation under the direction of the USAF's Chief of Safety, Brigadier General Orin L. Godsey. The safety investigation board released the report of its investigation into the crash on August 10, 1994. A final evaluation of the safety investigation was released on January 31, 1995. The USAF safety report was distributed only to U.S. Department of Defense personnel and not to the general public. An accident investigation board, called an "AFR 110-14 Investigation," released a separate report in 1995. Unlike the USAF safety investigation, the AFR 110-14 report was released to the general public.[7]


en.wikipedia.org...

For NTSB related info:

www.ntsb.gov...









[edit on 9-5-2009 by impressme]

[edit on 9-5-2009 by impressme]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


impressme, I implored you to 'bury the hatchet'....

AND, perhaps, find your way back to the topic.

INSTEAD, you come up with another diversion, such as the USAF iinvestigation techniques of Military air accidents.

Or, did I mis-read??!!??

NTSB accident investigations are....ACCIDENT investigations, when the desired outcome is to find out WHAT happened, in order to learn and hopefully PREVENT future accidents.

I would daresay the the Military will utililze similar investigation techniques. Of course, WHEN it is a Military aircraft (airplane or helicopter or any other aircraft) then the MILITARY has jusrisdiction!!! Naturally, because there may be sensitive information and debris/components.

So, again....YOUR assertion of Military accident investigations, while accurate, have NO BEARING on this thread's OP!

FBI had jurisdiction at Shanksville. Crime scene, and all of that. It's going to be the same anytime there is even a hint of a crime, such as Air Piracy, combined with an airplane accident.

TWA 827, [EDIT = HERE....wrong Flt Number. TWA 847, in 1985.] while not an accident, was a CRIME! The crime of Air Piracy!!! It involved a murder. BUT, that is so far OT, we shlould devote to another thread. I only mention it as an example.

BTW, per NTSB standards, an aviation event that involves a fatality, even IF there is no 'substantial damage' to the airframe, is still classified as an "accident". Still, when there is an overlying 'criminal' aspect, guess who has instant jurisdiction???? (Hint: NOT the NTSB)



[edit on 5/9/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
Why won't you or others accept the FDR as a valid identifier of the aircraft's identity?


I don't accept it period. And the answer why is simple. Craig Ranke conclusively proved to me and many others with the PentaCon, and the interviews of especially those Pentagon police, that the NoC flight path is what really happened. I will say the same thing to you I've said to others: I want to see you go to the Pentagon, track down those two officers, and tell them to their face they are lying. Go on. Do it. But don't blame me when you come home with a bloody nose or worse.

And the NoC flight path staunchly contradicts the FDR recorder data. It's just that simple man. And so what does that have to do with Flight 93? Everything. If they falsified 77's, they will falsify everything else too. It all fits like glove into the grand scheme. Once the NWO plans became evident, there is no more trust.

Just in case, I went and looked at your little link there in your signature. I find it curious of all the things one could put in one's signature, trying to debunk the NoC (i.e., the PentaCon) flight path seems to rank pretty high on your list there. Well yeah, because it is the one thing you and other OS koolaid drinkers just can't stand. It is impossible to refute. And you all hate that. Anyone trying to debunk the PentaCon is going to be in for a real rough time.

Well, imo, yes just my humble little opinion, you failed miserably. I believe they have a new buzzword for that- Epic Fail.

And as posted above (thanks imp), none of this is necessary if the FBI would simply conclusively identify the plane with part numbers. No, I do not believe they were all destroyed to the point where they cannot. Some plane parts must have been recovered that contain the numbers matchable to those records. In fact, the very fact that they won't, even after FOIA requests, a billion internet posts, and everything else is extremely suspect to me and many others. Since when is a plane identified from nothing other than a FDR or CVR, especially in a criminal investigation? Have they even shown that the FDR or CVR serial numbers are indeed the ones from flight 93? Conclusively?

To me, if the rest of the plane was destroyed to the point where none of the critical part serial numbers are readable, then likely the FDR and CVR would be destroyed as well. And as you well know, that is extremely rare and virtually impossible. They are hiding the evidence, reheat. They know it and you know it. It doesn't take you or Rob Balsamo or anyone else for that matter to make me realize that this is a massive, coordinated coverup.

[edit on Sat May 9th 2009 by TrueAmerican]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


TA, are you intentionally attempting to de-rail your own thread?

jeez!!!

Look....IF you wish to keep harping on the 'S/N', or "part numbers" (since you keep jumping around" it shows quite clearly that you don't understand the concept).

EVEN on parts that had S/N data plates, they were small. Maybe one-half to three-quarters inches high by two or three inches long. (IF THAT!!) (I am giving you all the benefit of the doubt!!!).

Get an airline friend to let you down to do a walk-around of a real airliner. Stick your head up into the wheel wells, and look for yourselves.

The 'plates' on time-critical parts are black and silver. Black background, silver (or white) lettering. They are riveted, or sometimes they are just stickied on....thin metal veneer with self-adhesive to stick to the component!!! Do you honestly expect these fragile items to survive ALL of the impacts of 9/11???

The original intent of these S/N and Part No. labels was NOT to survive a crash!!!!! In fact, it is hoped that an airplane will NEVER see a crash!!!!

BTW, lest you get the wrong impressions....ONLY certain components that required time-sensitive monitoring and changing required the 'plates'!!! Hydraulic valves, fuel pumps, hydraulic pumps, just to name a few. Still, UNLESS there was a question as to WHY an airplane crashed, not much need to re-create the entire structure, putting every little piece back in place in order to re-construct the series of events when the REASON was already known!!!

IN AN ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION, every piece is important. The VAST majority of information, though, may well be derived from the DFDR and CVR. IF the reason for the accident is still unable to be determined simply form Data Recorders, THEN the minutae of the debris comes into play even more. EVEN WHEN the DVDR and CVR hold strong clues as to the cause, the other details, when available, are used to corroborate.

I'm sorry, the levels of diversion and misrepresentations that infect these 9/11 threads just cannot be ignored, without some sort of refutation.


I'll try another tactic --- WHY has there NOT been a concerted effort to investigate ALL OTHER AVIATION ACCIDENTS as well???

How about Pan Am 106? Surely the CIA did that!!! Discuss!!

TWA 800! Oh, that's a golden oldie!!!

USAIR 427? United 585? Comeon....this thread started with a simple assertion. Long shown to be incorrect, for various reasons. It has taken me, now, 11 more paragraphs to tempt fate by veering OT in order to explain how OTHERS have already gone OT, and how THEIR OT comments were in such error.

*warning* very OT....this reminds me a great deal of the 'Moon Hoax' threads. LOTs of opinions, few facts to back them up....

I will accept my punishment, from the Staff. I just hope that the next poster will focus back, and not respond to what I see as obvious pablum and misdirection.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Ok, well since you're such an expert on part numbers, and you claim all these critical part serials are just veneered on, and hence would have just vaporized from the impact, then would you please explain this. This looks pretty stamped into metal to me!

thewebfairy.com...

Webfairy claims that is an inserted still done in post production, but I am not so sure. But in any case if that part came from a real boeing then what you have just said is categorically wrong. There ARE heavily stamped pieces on the aircraft that would be identifiable. But you guys are the experts, so what do I know.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

What about the 24+ hours of previous flights? Do you suspect that was faked, as well?



Why would previous flights need to be faked? Just remove the FDRs from the real Flight 93 (Tail # N591UA) before destroying it, splice the new fake data on the end of the real 24 hour data, and presto a bonafide fake FDR flight path for the F93 replacement aircraft to NeoCON the American people with.

Right down your alley Reheat.

Manipulating the digital data should be simple for highly trained military or CIA computer machine language programmers. Might be too tough for the FBI incompetents though.

Oddly two aircraft (Flights 0078 and 0507) had tail # N591UA the day before.
Prepping for 9-11?

"Twin tails" of pre-Flight 93 and other "phantom flights"






[edit on 5/9/09 by SPreston]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
.........

If you cannot see that there is a cover-up, then YOU are playing a game. You have not provided one shred of evidence supporting the OS. You have not sited even the most elementary protocol followed at aircraft collisions, nor have you provided us with one single legitimate credential showing you are even remotely familiar with the real world of modern aviation investigations.


ANOTHER Off Topic issue continues......

Oh, I've seen Nelson's stuff before. He is correct until he gets into his "truther" motivated crap regarding aircraft identification.

I didn't ask you for someone's opinion about this. I requested that you link to the NTSB or the FBI's requirement to identify the aircraft by part serial numbers.

I can produce statements by other USAF Qualified Aircraft Investigators who don't agree with Col. Nelson.

I haven't bothered yet as it only results in "my daddy can whip your daddy" type of issue.

Either produce the requirement in Regulations or Directives or admit that you only have the opinion of someone who perhaps might have a "biased agenda" behind what he says.

You may as well stop your allegations about ME right now! It is NOT my job nor inclination to PROVE a damn thing to you regarding my qualifications or credibility. YOU on the other hand have proven NOTHING.

You make the claim that the part serial numbers need to be determined as the ONLY method to demonstrate the identity of an aircraft that has crashed. I don't believe the there is a requirement to do that either in a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION or even in an ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION (which did not occur anyway) for the purpose of aircraft identification.

The NTSB regulations and requirements are available on the Internet. Provide a link to what you contend or your or anyone else's opinion is simply "blowing smoke".


[edit on 9-5-2009 by Reheat]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Weedwhacker, you're doing a good job of dealing with the repeated attempts to derail this thread, but I don't intend to deal with that and I have no inclination to deal with the "irreducible delusion" so obvious here.

I do have other things to do and I'll check back in from time to time to see if anyone has anything worthwhile to say about the OP.

Otherwise, the OP has been proven to be a false conclusion, so my participation in this thread has been productive.

Good Day!



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   

posted by Reheat

Oh, I've seen Nelson's stuff before. He is correct until he gets into his "truther" motivated crap regarding aircraft identification.

I can produce statements by other USAF Qualified Aircraft Investigators who don't agree with Col. Nelson.



But you did not and you never have, have you? Same old bluffing Reheat?

Are you back on hiatus now for some well-deserved rest and recuperation Reheat?

Photoshopping by Reheat Esquire




posted on May, 9 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   


I can see the purple elephant. Can you?

Notihng else needs to be said; the photos says it all. UA93 did not crash
in this tiny pile of dirt. It's certainly not 165 feet below the Earth either.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join