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 Did Not Crash In Shanksville or Shot Down.

page: 14
30
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


The FDR data was authenticated by the Chief of the Vehicle Recorder Division of the National Transportation Safety Board. The document is available on line. Look it up.




posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
The FDR data was authenticated by the Chief of the Vehicle Recorder Division of the National Transportation Safety Board. The document is available on line. Look it up.


Sorry but there are no serial numbers matching the FDR to the plane.

You should really read what you link to.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


And I assume you are going to show me where the Cheif of the Vehicle Recorder Divsion of the NTSB has rejected the data?

No, you are not, because he didn't. Its been authenticated. You lose.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
No, you are not, because he didn't. Its been authenticated. You lose.


Without serial numbers it cannot be authenticated.

Please wake up and accept the facts of life.

www.ntsb.gov...
Recorder information shall be sent/emailed to the Chief of the Vehicle Recorder
Division and the FDR specialist, as soon as possible. This information can be obtained
from the airline and/or the airframe manufacturer. Specifically, the following
information is required to facilitate data readout:

! FDR manufacturer/model (Fairchild, Sundstrand, Allied Signal, L3, etc)
! FDR Part number and Serial Number
! FDAU (flight data acquisition unit) manufacturer/model and part number
! Parameters recorded
! Word(s) and bit location(s) of each parameter
! Conversion algorithm for each parameter
! Parameter range
! Original owner/upgraded retrofit history
! Airline, recorder maintenance/readout facility contact phone number.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 



Without serial numbers it cannot be authenticated.


And yet it was authenticated by the Chief of the Vehicle Recorder Divsion of the NTSB which means either he is "in on it" or was otherwise satisfied that the instrument in question was the FDR from Flight 93.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 



Without serial numbers it cannot be authenticated.


Wrong.

There are other ways.

Found at the scene, that's the biggest one.

BUT, if you care about due diligence, then 'investigate' further.

The FDR recoeds a minimum of 25 hours of data.

Why not 'investigate' to learn about the REST of the FDR readout?

IF you can find ANY instance where the recorded data doesn't correlate with the known activity of the airframe that was United Airlines flight 93 on 11 September, 2001, in days prior THEN you will make history!! In 'breaking through' on this 'case'.

Have fun!



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Why do the alleged UA93 recorders have different maker logos on them?

Their owned by the same company, but one had an Allied-Signal logo and the other had a Honeywell logo.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


To whom are you addressing this question?

If it's to me, I will look it up for you, if you wish (though I daresay anyone can do it just as easily as I can).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Adding: Links would be helpful to flesh out your query.

[edit on 17 February 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


What do you mean they were owned by the same company - do you mean the airline or the same hardware manufacturer?



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

The flight recorders are owned by the same company, Allied Signal -- then acquired by Honeywell, but one recorder has an Allied logo and the other one has a Honeywell logo, but Honeywell didn't acquire Allied until years after UA93 went into service.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Has it occurred to you that a Recorder could have malfunctioned, at some point, since the airplane was originally built, and been replaced??? Over the lifetime of the airframe, I mean.

ALSO, and I have no direct knowledge of whether the Recorders have a maintenance schedule to be complied with, since I am NOT a mechanic....

But it stands to reason, based on my airline experience, that during heavy maintenance intervals (IE, 'D' checks for instance) when the airplane is stripped WAY down to bare bones, then put back together, variopus components are replaced/swapped or whatever.

To ensure reliability, I'd also assume that Recorders undergo periodic maintainance, mandated by FAA.

Does THAT explain how the 'logos' could be different????

Need more explanation?



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Well I'd prefer a definite than a "could be."

But let's say that is the case, of the recorder that was photographed down in the hole,



why did they photograph it still down in the hole?

Wouldn't the photographer been stepping on passenger remains just to get that shot when they easily (and more safely) could have waited to photograph it when it was removed from the hole like the other one?




posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Not really sure what you're getting at, both Allied and Honeywell were making separate product lines including SSFDR's and CVR's as late as 1999.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Well, I really don't know that they weren't both photographed down in the crater, but really what difference does it make? That's a level of detail that is completely irrelevant.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911
 


Not really sure what you're getting at, both Allied and Honeywell were making separate product lines including SSFDR's and CVR's as late as 1999.

UA93 went into service in 1996.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Well, then that kind of explains it, doesn't it. Whoever manufacturered the airframe probably got one from Allied and one from Honeywell. I don't know what the question is here. Are you wondering why they used devices made by two different companies?



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



why did they photograph it still down in the hole?

Wouldn't the photographer been stepping on passenger remains just to get that shot when they easily (and more safely) could have waited to photograph it when it was removed from the hole like the other one?


Irrelevant speculation.

And if this were a court of law, I suppose some hotshot attorney would object too...since it assumes much, and is therefore circumstantial. BUT, I am not an attorney.

"Denny Crane"!!!


Anyway, back to seriousness....and the topic.

Although I (and I suppose you either) were not there, to see the recovery efforts, then this is pure speculation based on my understanding of not only human dignity, but investigational techniques....by the time they had dug up the recorders, they had, one would hope, been respectfully aware of any human remains that may be encountered in the process.

EVERY airplane accident investigation I have ever studied includes photographic evidence of major components of interest, in situ, and documented with drawings and measurements of location, crash debris distribution, etc.

BUT that is usually the case WHEN the cause of the accident is not determined, and ALL clues are important. It is a form of 'forensics'.

In the case of 9/11....perhaps some of those meticulous standards were skipped, in favor of GETTING the data?

I mean, the reason for the crash was obvious.

The EXACT specifics, all of the energies, the vectors of every piece, etc....nobody thought that those details would be necessary, in the full investigation!!!

How could they have predicted this nonsense from the Internet???

PS...think and chew your brain on this:

Yesterday, 16 February, was the FIFTH anniversary of YouTube!!!!

See it yet???

BEFORE February, 2005, YouTube did NOT exist!

In 2001, what were most of us using the Internet for???

A little time perspective can be useful, upon reflection.......



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Irrelevant speculation.

And if this were a court of law, I suppose some hotshot attorney would object too...since it assumes much, and is therefore circumstantial. BUT, I am not an attorney.

It's absolutely relevant. I'm claiming the plane crash was staged, that would include that both flight recorders were staged too.

If they were staged, there very well could be oddities about them if the perps didn't stage them well enough, or made it too obvious that they were staged.

I've never seen/heard of crash investigators jumping down in a hole to photograph a flight recorder where it was supposedly found as if it was an unsolved murder investigation and the cops had to photograph all the key evidence exactly where they found it.

So why did the Shanksville investigators feel the need to do the most unordinary and unnecessary thing by jumping down in a hole and trampling on passenger remains just to photograph a black box when they simply could have done the ordinary thing of waiting until it was brought up out of the hole, like the other black box?



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


First you are assuming that the photos were taken "down in the hole", you don't know that - you are making the assumption based on the background in the photo.

The photos were taken on-site probably on or near the impact point.

As for going down in the hole to photograph them and disturbing human remains - as stated above - they were probably very careful about, as you can imagine.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



I'm claiming the plane crash was staged, that would include that both flight recorders were staged too.


Well, then you have a long row to hoe, Sir!!!

I fare thee well, on your journey!

You should, however, keep in mind that the DVR records at a minimum 25 hours of data.

(The CVR is limited to the last 30 minutes...and that is because of efforts on behalf of pilot's advocates, mainly ALPA).

SO....given that the CVR is limited in its scope, you should now focus on the FDR....AND the flights it recorded BEFORE United Airlines flight 93 on 11 September, 2001.

There will be a LOT of data there, that when you compare with the Airline's records, and FAA records (and Arinc records) you have your work cut out for you!

Have fun!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join