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.

 

Whistleblower Reveals

page: 5
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


Ummm....huh???

"triple seven"

THAT is a phrase I can be familiar with....the "T7" is a shorthand that is NOT USED, in 'pilot speak' in normal channels in the United States.

Sorry if you cannot realize this simple fact.....that there are MANY nationalities that also operate MANY types of airplanes....

So, so desperate....the "truthers" are. Sad, really.




posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by 767doctor
 


POINT is....the entire notion of "remote control" as perpetuated/proposed by this thread's OP is nonsense.

It is a non-starter.

Done.


Indeed.

/Thread.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Aha. The usual "nothing to see here, move along."

Does it ever occur to any of you trusting individuals, that we are not talking about a safely-returning system secretly brought aboard, but a "surely going down" system, to have a last minute interference-system in place in case any "hijackers" got cold feet?

Did you ever read the "Venice Flying Circus" threads in the first months after 911 on this and many other boards, where a picture arises from a few drunken, sex driven, gambling Mid Eastern individuals, who's names were on lists from US Air Force Bases training courses, in the years before 911 already.

That same picture gives more reason to believe in a deceptive mission, where "agents provocateurs" were lured to believe they would participate in big scale multiple exercises on US soil to see how the US military would react on multiple hijackings.

In such a scenario, these "pilots" were instructed to fly past or over their intended targets, but in those last seconds the hidden remote control system took over and plunged all three planes in the two Towers and the Pentagon.
No time to react in any sophisticated manner on such last seconds interferences.

The hijackers were eventually told that the Towers would have artificial smoke spitting out after they would nearly missed them, to enhance the real time feeling of the whole exercise.

But that smoke did not convince the second "hijacker", who came in too high and probably saw the imprint of a plane in the smoke, and started a half circle downwards to take a better look, or that maneuver was already a sign of the last minute take-over. Just as that had occurred with the first plane, and also happened to the Pentagon plane.

After the planes hit all targets, the same people who planned all this, would have no problem with falsifying all necessary flight data, it would be quite ridiculous for them not to have planned those details also in advance.

So, what do you have to say to all my evidence on page three of this thread? Wasn't that a damn big indication of tampering with official flight data?

Flight 93 its official height from 767doctor's PDF link to the OFFICIALLY released flight data does not at all fit the eyewitness reports I offered.
On top of that, two flight controllers report Flight 93 still airborne THREE MINUTES later than the official crash time, 10:03 AM, based on their own eyes seeing the RADAR height returns of its transponder..! Which means that the plane was still considerably high when they lost radar contact at 10:06 AM.
Source : www.abovetopsecret.com...

And seismic signals from the crash also recorded, placed the real crash time also around 10:06 AM.

A few officials are lying trough their teeth.
Just as several high members of the 911 Commission lately are trying to tell the world. Which is of course neglected by the main stream news sources.


Multiple eyewitnesses totally debunk all the data offered by the official sources.

No wonder all Trusters react with the usual professional tit for tat twitter for two pages, meanwhile neglecting all my posts on page 3 in this thread.


And weedwhacker has to fall back on a "call for authority" to avoid my posts on page 3.
Did you miss this post on page 3..?
www.abovetopsecret.com...


LaBTop :
Thus, it seems not so far fetched to suppose a remote control system to have been implemented, to stay on the safe side.


Then he comes with this :

weedwhacker:
This claim is demonstrably wrong, and it is shown to be wrong in the NTSB history of the DFDR recorders' information. The controls IN THE COCKPIT were physically manipulated, after the take-overs. (We have only the AAL 77 and UAL 93 data that survived, but the inference can be applied to the other two).


And I answered him with all my posts at the bottom of page 2 and at page 3, where I showed him that his beloved DFDR recorders and all the other baloney official data must be false, when you listen to all my eyewitnesses.

And what does he come up with then, as his only answer..?


I'll respond to your query, and will forgo any more irrelevant discussions about UAL 93 anymore, in THIS thread...since nothing brought forward, of late, has to do with "remote control"...in fact, if anything, the posts merely refute it, and reinforce the fact of the hijackers' being at the controls.


A call on authority, totally unfunded, because I just proved to him in multiple long substantial posts, that the thought of REMOTE CONTROLLED PLANES is not UNFUNDED AT ALL.

His only damn soft response to all that was, that he did not believe those eyewitnesses were recalling their experiences in a righteous manner.
Well, go and interview those people in and around Shanksville and look them in the eye when they tell you what they saw.
Especially Viola, she will be a hard nut to crack, I am sure of that.
You won't be able to refute her, and her sister's witness reports.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


You are ALL OVER THE PLACE, and just keep shooting darts at the target, but missing and they're sticking in the wall panelling, instead...

NONE of your "assertions", whether from Page #3 of this thread, or ANY thread where you've made them, have been "ignored"...You seem to have IGNORED the responses...or, merely hand-waved them away. Because they conflicted with your pre-conceived biases.

EXAMPLE:

The time discrepancy regarding UAL 93 has been THOROUGHLY explained, and here on ATS threads. Several times.

I invite you to research.

However, without seeming to be critical of your abilities...I have to remain critical of your abilities, in the "research" department. Your lack of comprehension of the various fields, and aspects that you are "looking into" is apparent.

AND, these glaring mistakes have also been pointed out, repeatedly.

Appealing, as you do, and using the "few eyewitness" reports. only BECAUSE they are contradictory, is another example of a bias, in this "investigation" of yours. Sorry, but it's painfully obvious. It is a trait seen in others, as well...others who profess to be so-called "truthers"

...it is compounded by the casual dismissal, as you did right here, in the post above, of the DFDR information. ANOTHER trait, demonstrating the bias, and one-sidedness of these "investigations".

Bias. Illogical, and incorrect bias, because the "investigation" comes at the situation with a PRE-CONCEIVED mindset, and will use ANY twists and turns, and disregard anything that refutes the original biased view.

I cannot emphasize enough how cavalier it is to just WAVE AWAY the DFDR, and the CVR....when that information is pivotal.

What's more, the statement, presented as "fact", about what or what was NOT heard on the CVR, when it was ALSO acknowledged, by the poster, that ONLY family and selected officials actually heard the real recording....to suggest and imply the "other" things, amounts to hearsay...and comes from dubious sources....WHICH is, agai, a symptom of the BIAS involved, in many, many of these "truther" 'investigations'...

It is 'cherry-picking' of selective data, in order to fit a pre-conceived and desired outcome.

I think most intelligent people reading all of these missives are aware, and can see this pattern for themselves.







[edit on 16 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   
I posted on page 1 + 2 of this thread many more eyewitnesses who saw the plane fly much, much LOWER than the NTSB reported in 2002....!

Shanksville Eyewitness Viola Saylor :
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by Domenick DiMaggio
9/11 : The Shanksville Files Vol III : Viola Saylor


Google Video Link


Viola actually lives in Lambertsville very near the junction of two roads, one going down south to Shanksville. The crash site was in between somewhere.
Petersen lived on the other side of the junction.
Both saw the plane very, very low.
It's about 1.8 mile to the official crash site from that roads junction.


This is 767doctor's PDF link to UAL 93 Flight Path Study from Feb 19, 2002 :
www.ntsb.gov...

As you can see, NTSB reports the plane flew at 10,000 feet high when crossing over Viola and her sister's house...!

NOT SO, says Viola. And MANY more.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   

EXAMPLE:

The time discrepancy regarding UAL 93 has been THOROUGHLY explained, and here on ATS threads. Several times.

I invite you to research.


Give me one link. I gave you a hundred.

And while you are at it, explain to us the discrepancy between 10:03 by NTSB and 10:06 by the LDEO seismic station reports.
That's THREE MINUTES..!
Seismic stations report their time of origin of seismic events with great precision (down to the millisecond), necessary in order to calculate the propagation speed of the different waves. Their diagrams are coupled to atomic clocks, in the USA to the famous NIST clocks.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


I searched and searched....based on Viola's statement, in the beginning, when she states her address.

As she is "led" by Dominick....but, she says "Lambertsville" at one point (so that is in Pennsylvania, one has to assume?)....but, when pressed, says "1318 Poppy Hill Road".

Google Maps has NO LISTING for a "Poppy Hill Road" in either Shanksville, nor Lambertsville.

NOR, any place in the State of Pennsylvania.

Has anyone else tried to vet her? Or, do we have to take the word of this "Dominick"?? (AND, has anyone vetted HIM, as well???)



[edit on 16 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 



Give me one link. I gave you a hundred.


Well, we are prone to exagerration, hmmm?

"LINKS" would be the due diligence and research into the design and flight instrumentation of the Boeing 757...something that is well known by ME, but will require a layperson quite a bit of 'ramping up' in order to get fully qualified and conversant with. Problem is, MUCH of today's "links" address the CURRENT equipment installations, and there is little ONLINE to address the past situation. NOT EVERYTHING in research can be done by simply 'googling', you know....

HERE is something that is recent, and applicable...as I've said, when GPS is installed, the clock(s) can be automaticallyupdated to current UTC...depending on the Pegasus software update, in the specific airplane (B-757/767) the FMC will have appropriate messages/alerts to display:



FMC alerting messages:

Display in the CDU scratchpad.
Illuminate the amber FMC light on the instrument panel.
Cause the EICAS advisory message FMC MESSAGE to display.
Illuminate the CDU message light (MSG).


SET CLOCK TO UTC TIME..... the UTC time from the GPS disagrees with the captains clock by more than 12 seconds.


biggles-software.com...

HERE is a particular airline's training page, to describe the clock:

www.biggles-software.com...


I have extensively addressed this, already...will try to keep it short, and let you research here on ATS ( I have deleted the "myATS" list of my recent threads, accidentally...
)

The time reference cited by the NTSB comes from their review of the DFDR and CVR information.

The DFDR and CVR get their time info from the ADC. This is the arrangement in 2001, on that airplane, and before the installation of any GPS equipment.

The ADC gets its time reference from the Captain's clock.

The onboard clock has NO connection, of any kind (pre-GPS) outside the airplane. This is easily researched and verifiable.

The simple fact is, the Captain's clock was NOT SET EXACTLY to coincide with the very accurate UTC time reference of the NIST, in Ft. Collins, CO, nor any other agency that kept accurate time reference, based on available sources on that date.

The Captain's clock, just like the clock in your automobile, for example was INDEPENDENT and relied soley on the setting of a person, a pilot or mechanic, and the accuracy of whatever time reference THEY might have used whilst setting it.

THERE are the 'three minutes' discrepancy, and IF someone had researched properly, that information would have been available, and well understood...and therefore, a NON-STARTER in thi sdebate!

Once again...in TODAY'S airplanes, many of them, GPS is virtually the norm...in 2001, it was rare on commercial passenger airplanes, especially those not equipped for long over-water navigation requirements...as the airplane that was United AIrlines flight 93.

EVEN then, GPS wasn't a requirement for extended over-water navigation, either...NOW it is becoming the norm, because it's more accurate, and cost-effective. BUT, not all airplnes have been retro-fitted.



[edit on 16 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
So are you saying that the collision and the resulting fires from the plane impacts actually DID bring the towers down, it's just that the planes were flown into the buildings by remote control rather than by a suicide attack?



What ? How did you reach this convoluted conclusion from the OPs statements ?



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Just did a search on Google for "Boeing 777 T7" and came up with over 18,000 results. Obviously, the T7 nickname isn't that big of a secret. I just thought someone who was a an expert on the Boeings 757 and 767 would take enough of an interest in the 777 to know its nickname. Guess I was wrong.

In fact, the term is common enough for this 777 related website to use it in its title on the home page (The T7-Family)

www.triple7-world.info...

If I asked an automotive expert which auto's nickname is the Caddy, I would be kind of surprised if he did not know the answer.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Your address is wrong.
www.flashearth.com...
Click Microsoft VE (labels) and you will see the junction of Pompey Hill Road and Cemetery Road with Lambertsville Road, which leads south to the official crash site at the west side of Skyline Road.
If you zoom out, you will find the Flight 93 Memorial Park sign on that map.
Actual site is left of that, near the wooded triangular area.

Viola's house can be found clearer in Google Maps or Earth, by adding her house address, 1318 .
There you can even see the Oak or Maple tree in the back of her garden where the plane flew over so low, that the top leaves were blown around. That tree is about 30 meter high.
All my links to my drawings are lost because the ALSX.info site went down.
So you have to do the address search yourself. She's only 80 meters to the west (left) of the junction, on the northern side of Pompey Hill Road.
I think its the sixth house to the left of the junction.
That's only 1.72 miles from 1318 Pompey Hill Road, which is the 6th house to the west of the junction in Lambertsville, to the flight 93 crash site.

Domenick DiMaggio has done extensive research on THE SPOT in LIVE interviews with hundreds of Lambertsville, Shanksville and other surrounding villages inhabitants for the past 5 years.
You can find him and his Flight 93 eyewitness interview videos on YouTube, Google Videos and lots of places more. I think he is also at the CIT forum and the Pilots for Truth forums to be found. And sparsely on ATS.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 01:35 AM
link   
The Crash of Flight 93, Evidence Indicates Flight 93 Was Shot Down :
911research.wtc7.net...


Fudging the Timeline

There are several independent lines of evidence that establish that Flight 93 crashed at 10:06 in Shanksville, PA. These include the following:

* Seismic signals recorded by seismic observatories at Soldier's Delight, MD, and Millersville, PA, which pegged the impact time at 10:06:05, with an error margin of 5 seconds.
* A report from Cleveland Air Traffic Control that they had lost radar contact with Flight 93 at 10:06. (4)
* Reports by witnesses on the ground of the plane flying low and erratically around 10:05. (5)
* Various press reports that put the time at 10:06. (6;7;8)
* Radar records released by the FAA. The Post-Gazette noted, two days after the attack:
The Federal Aviation Administration said yesterday it turned over to the FBI a radar record of United Airlines Flight 93's route.

The data traced the Boeing 757-200 from its takeoff from Newark, N.J., to its violent end at 10:06 a.m., just outside Shanksville, about 80 miles southeast of Pittsburgh. 9

Despite these extensive bodies of credible evidence establishing Flight 93's impact time at 10:06 AM, NORAD and the 9/11 Commission asserted that impact was at 10:03. NORAD provides no evidence to back up its claim, but the Commission provides a long footnote to justify its use of 10:03.


Now let's compare the 2002 NTSB study (not retracted) to the above :
www.ntsb.gov...


United flight 93 departed Newark, NJ at 8:42 AM.
It flew 1 hour and 21 minutes.
The NTSB flight Profile times were based on the FDR, FAA radar data and radar data from the USAF RADES.
The Cockpit Voice Recorder CVR began providing sounds from the cockpit at approximately 9:32 Am.
The time of impact was 10:03:11 AM.


Firstly, radar data, based on atomic clocks, are outside of the plane instruments data. Two sets of such radar data were used by the NTSB.
So how could a faulty Captain's Clock inside the plane have any possible influence on the determination of timely events by the NTSB, based in part also on radar data..?

Weedwhacker, you know that that CVR normally recorded 30 minutes of cockpit sound, then started recording again for another 30 minutes on that same tape, and so on. Thus it ended at impact.

What you are saying is that Flight 93 departed 3 minutes later than the NTSB concluded from the data they had available, which was totally based according to you on the faulty set-up Captain's Clock. Thus, all times provided by the NTSB in the above NTSB link are in fact 3 minutes off=later.
In other words, the real time the VCR started recording on that recovered tape was 9:35:11 AM, you think.
Thus, according to you, Flight 93 crashed at 10:06:11 AM.
Correct?

Now have a good look at what I provided to you until now in this post.
Then look at the excerpt from this site :
en.wikipedia.org...


With the attacks unfolding, air traffic officials began issuing warnings through the Aircraft Communication Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS). Ed Ballinger, the United flight dispatcher, began sending text cockpit warnings to United Airlines flights at 09:19, after he became aware of the second World Trade Center impact by Flight 175.[19] As Ballinger was responsible for multiple flights, he did not send the message to Flight 93 until 09:23. Ballinger received a routine ACARS message from Flight 93 at 09:21.[19] At 09:22, after learning of the events at the World Trade Center, LeRoy Homer's wife, Melody Homer, had an ACARS message sent to her husband in the cockpit asking if he was okay.[27] At 09:24, Flight 93 received Ballinger's ACARS warning: "Beware any cockpit intrusion—two a/c [aircraft] hit World Trade Center".[28] At 09:26, the pilot sent an ACARS message back: "Ed, confirm latest mssg plz -- Jason".[28] At 09:27:25, the flight crew responded to routine radio traffic from air traffic controllers. This was the last communication made by the flight crew before the hijacking.[29]


It's not difficult to find that in the NTSB study, the 09:23 ACARS warning from Ed Ballinger, the United flight dispatcher (thus NOT a Cleveland air controller, but a United Airlines dispatcher).

Now I do think, that mr Ballinger did file his ACARS messages with the right time, and not also set HIS clock 3 minutes later.... And still his times do clock perfectly with the NTSB time-line.

Legislative research 9-11: Staff report Sept-2005 PDF :
www.archives.gov...


(178: UAL report, Flight 175 ACARS; and FBI report of investigation, Interview of Edward D. Ballinger, January 29, 2002.
189: Ed Ballinger interview (Apr. 14, 2004).
327: UAL record, Ed Ballinger's ACARS log, Sept 11, 2001; Ed Ballinger interview (April 14, 2004).
328: FAA recording, Cleveland ATC Center certified transcript, 9:27:25, Sept. 11,2001.
329: The United 93 timeline in FAA report, 'Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events September 11,2001,' Sept. 17, 2001, states that at 9:28:54 a 'second radio transmission, mostly unintelligible, again with sounds of possible screaming or a struggle and a statement, 'get out of here, get out of here' from an unknown origin was heard over the ZOB [Cleveland Center radio..)


This all fits quite well with the NTSB times from their PDF. No 3 minutes differences at all.
And there are also the clocked Cleveland Center 911 Air Traffic audio tapes.

References :
911research.wtc7.net...
(Radar timed crash at 10:06 AM.)

en.wikipedia.org...
(Wikipedia Flight 93)

en.wikisource.org...
(United Airlines Flight #93 cockpit voice recorder transcript, the United States government, Government exhibit P200056T 01-455-A (ID)
The cockpit and flight recorders were entered as evidence in the trial against Zacarias Moussaoui.)

en.wikisource.org...:Flight_93_Cockpit_Transcript
( Flight 93 Cockpit Transcript was the featured text for September 2009. It is considered among the most complete works available on Wikisource.)

100777.com...
(Cleveland Center Air Traffic Control Tape, 11 September 2001)

i.a.cnn.net...
( Official flight 93 transcript.pdf obtained by CNN )


Weedwhacker, here are several agencies reporting an identical time-line for flight 93, based on ACARS messages send, several Radar reports, FAA reports, FAA witness reports and FBI reports.
Were they all wrong, and you are right?
If so, please convince me. With reliable evidence.
I do understand that if the Captain's clock is off for 3 minutes, that all plane-clocked equipment like FDR can be off for 3 minutes.

But not external clocks at the UA offices, the FAA offices, the USAF RADES stations, Cleveland Center radio system and the FAA Radar stations.
And that's what was also taken in consideration by the FBI.
The NTSB seemingly did not retract that report till now.
Then I find it of utmost importance to prove that there's a gap of 3 minutes in real seismically proved Flight 93 crash time and NTSB time, since that would strongly indicate foul play in constructing FDR's and CVR's.

[edit on 17/6/10 by LaBTop]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Weedwhacker, I'll ad a bit to the confusion you must feel after reading all of the above.

You stated with a lot of technical aviation jargon that it is your conviction, based on your idea of a faulty and thus sloppy calibrated Captain's clock aboard flight 93, that flight 93 its NTSB times in the official time-line as expressed by your professional and experienced colleague and ATS member 767doctor, as posted by him in his NTSB link, is off the clock for an additional 3 minutes.
Which you said, means that the official crash time should be now 10:06:11 AM.
You stated also that you have posted this newly discovered "fact" all over this board in the near past.
Sorry for that, but I missed it all. Otherwise I would have reacted earlier.

What I did not miss in the past was this link :
Won-Young Kim, Notable Retractions


911 Commission Footnote : ---- the impact time established by the very accurate combination of FDR, CVR, ATC, radar, and impact site data sets. These data sets constrain United 93's impact time to within 1 second, are airplane- and crash-site specific, and are based on time codes automatically recorded in the ATC audiotapes for the FAA centers and correlated with each data set in a process internationally accepted within the aviation accident investigation community.


Another fact which is disturbing me to no end, is that the authors of the LDEO Seismic reports so quickly released after 911, already in the next week after 911; are nearly all redacted and retracted by the said authors after considerable pressure from the White House, the 911 Commission and god knows how many more agencies and superiors.

It is especially disturbing when you realize that seismic reports are precise to the millisecond in all cases, when sufficiently based on all known factors.
And these researchers did base their early assessments on all known factors, especially the propagation speed of the seismic waves in the earth crust towards LDEO's Palisades station, very well known from many earlier seismic events.
They established that speed in the past by comparing known seismic times to the time clocked by their own atomic clock calibrated equipment.
They had hundreds of New York seismic events, recorded over many years to base their calculations on.
New York and Manhattan Island is in fact a busy seismic spot, luckily not known for huge events.

I'll offer you another excerpt from the above 911Research Net's link :


All of the sources that the Report cites to support its claim of a crash time of 10:03 are apparently unavailable for public inspection, including Kim's 2004 paper, for which one will search in vain on the web. The " FDR, CVR, ATC, radar, and impact site data sets" cited by the Report all remain unavailable to the public. This contrasts with Kim and Baum's 2002 paper, which documents its case for the 10:06 crash time.

Early press reports consistently pegged the crash time at 10:06 or later. Only NORAD asserted that Flight 93 had crashed at 10:03. (Ref. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.)


I really would like to see dr Kim from LDEO confronted by some of his peers on a video recording.
Because he has also suddenly added 5 seconds to his first research, after he was hired by NIST to write a solid seismic report for them, to be included in their Final Reports.
All those 2004 papers by dr Kim have vanished from all NIST 911 sites...!

Dr. Kim's 2006 latest 9/11 seismic report written under contract with NIST has not been published by NIST..!
The fact that they omitted the latest 2006 seismic 9/11 report from LDEO's dr. Kim, contracted by NIST them selfs to write it, from their own final report, list of sub-reports, is really worrying and needs a thorough explanation by NIST.

After I published my seismic research it so happened that dr Kim's new research in 2006 suddenly disappeared from all NIST sites.

That research,regarding the comparison and thus inconsistency between NIST's own time stamped (not retracted up to now) Cianca's photo of the roof dent on top of the WTC7 building, 8.3 seconds before the global building collapse, and the 2001/2002 LDEO (dr Kim) seismic reports, showed to you all that the biggest seismic event happened BEFORE anything moved around and in WTC7, so when the roof was still straight.
Which you can all check yourself in the existing online WTC 7 video's of the last seconds before the roof dented and then 8.3 seconds later the building started its total, global collapse.

What that all has to do with the Opening Post?
Because you can quite easily prove that many important events on 911 were redacted later, or retracted, because people like me and many others were cutting through all the official BS.
And it ads to the overall feeling that we were lied to by known liars, our "Trusted" politicians, as usual.

In all 911 discussions, we quickly arrive at the most obvious holes in the official stories, stories from governmental agencies, approved to do OUR investigations, because We the People are getting very curious.
And then they time and time again, betray us majestically, under pressure of course from all these professional LIARS who have their secret masters to obey, because these are the real power brokers, who have all the dirt on those liars, locked away until needed.

Thus, I do not belief in your 3 minutes addition caused by a faulty Captain's clock.
There were too many other reliable time stamping systems at work on 911, and all of these together were the basis that the NTSB worked from.

Damn, again such a lengthy post. The truth is an alphabet sucker.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Star for that reply...



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


I get this....How can I say this as simply as possible???


Weedwhacker, here are several agencies reporting an identical time-line for flight 93, based on ACARS messages send, several Radar reports, FAA reports, FAA witness reports and FBI reports.


The ACARS, ATC radar, all FAA sources that come from GROUND time references, they will be all in sycnh. The narrative, form Wiki, regarding the ACARS times, and messages? Re-analyize, carefully, exactly which times are being used, in the narrative. Are the ACARS messages times connected to the times at United's Dispatch, or do they come from the CVR/DFDR references, or a combination of both? See?


Now, you've added some ATC transcripts, but the ones you found are LACKING times of transmission. THOSE times would co-incide with the overall 'global' standard time references.

I find discrepancies, depending on source, sometimes...matter of from two to as many as 30 seconds. Between certain ground-based time codes,a nd the CVR times.

You also included takeoff times, and such....BUT the CVR didn't record that far back...see if there are DFDR info from the entire flight, from push-back at the gate, to impact...THAT would be a sound basis for comparison. IF you find it, I suspect the time discrepancy, by comparing to ATC time reference, will be obvious.


When I said the CAPT's clock was off by three minutes, it did NOT mean exactly three...you see, I noticed you put words in my mouth, when you said it was my contention that the impact with the ground, and termination of power to the recorders, occured at exactly 10:06:11. (Based on your using exactly three minutes, combined with the CVR/DFDR time data...)

I am saying that, YES, the impact occured at 10:06 (and whatever number of seconds, doesn't matter).


On reflection, that was the first idea to explain the ~three minutes...I wonder if there is also some transposing of time references?? Like, they listend to the CVR, but then assigned ATC time codes to it, so it'd match...

Just a guess, there. No idea.


I'll try a more prosaic example, scenario:

A car crashes in an intersection, and the entire event is caught on camera, with accurate time. The driver is killed, and the impact causes his wristwatch to stop. The Coroner can use the stopped watch as his reference for moment of death, or the camera time that recorded the event.

Do you see? WHICH is likely to be most accurate, to the second?



NOW....the big question....one that mikelee is firmly convinced, states often, but only hints at how could be so certain --- is the shoot-down. Or not...


Clearly, the hijackers felt threatened, as in imminent cockpit breach by passengers. They are also, clearly, talking about "finishing" it...which implies strongly the intentional crash into the ground.

ALL of my reading so far indicates that UAL 93 WAS being actively sought, for interception. No doubt. (So was AAL 77, but they, NEADS, realized too late and had no time to react, and get asseets in place, once AAL 77 was located).

The interceptors, too....had other issues, one was low fuel, the other was distance, the third was a scarcity of airplanes available on alert.

I have read that at least ONE F-16 was launched, armed. OTHER fighters, other parts of the country, later in the day? Yes, they too were up, armed, and escorting as the various flights in the air were brought to landings.

The major question is whether that ONE F-16 was able to be vectored to intercept UAL 93, or not. This is where the trail gets fuzzy...

From the fighter pilot's viewpoint, he was relying on FAA ATC, and they didn't always "speak the same language", compared to how a Military controller would have referenced his target, for him. FAA gave him location info in reference to ground sites, and Military use location in reference TO THE FIGHTER, bearing and range, etc.


Now....let's consider the F-16 pilot...the "order stands" (recall that oft-touted exchange witnessed by Norman Minetta?? In the Sit Room?? I maintain that Cheney's "orders" were to protect the "House" -- the WH -- by any method necessary. THAT was Cheney's 'order'....)

This did give authority, by this point in the attack timeline, for Military response, deadly force, even on a commercial airliner.

BUT, look at where UAL 93 was, at the time...still some 20-25 minutes away from D.C.

Proper interception protocols are not "Shoot, without assessing first". The fighter would take a look, since he had time. He would have looked int he cockpit, at least.

SO, either the F-16 was there, or nearly there. Either it fired, and that's been "covered up" (for some reason), or the airplane's apparent (possible) loss of some structural integrity prior to impact was due to the G-loads, as the hijackers racked it around, at too high an airspeed.

One more thing....the ATC communications. Military use UHF, and yes, even the FAA has UHF capability too. ALL of the ATC tran.recordings are only the VHF records. Have the UHF recordings been found/released???






[edit on 20 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 





In fact, the term is common enough for this 777 related website to use it in its title on the home page (The T7-Family)


You try so, so hard to "shoot me down"?

I looked at the link...and it says "TRIPLE 7" all over it, INCLUDING "Boeing-777" sometimes....

I was merely telling you what the most commonly used term within MY airline was, used by pilots (I was not counting any OTHER employees, for I know not what "pet' term shorthands they used).

If "T-7" is 'common', then it, as I said, can come from many different places, from within many, many different airline cultures, and will be different, sometimes, between employee groups.

I NEVER heard "T-7" used at my airline...shortest was "Trip-7"...but there's was a reason (which I will not reveal) why that wasn't a good term to use, in the aviation world.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Weedwhacker, since I do think you are a decent person, I did some more research on your remark about your Captain's clock posts.
I did find 3 of your posts which did address your Captain's clock error subject.

Use these ATS Search terms : "Captain's clock" in the nr1 subject line, and "weedwhacker" in the Author line. In all of them, it's "your view" that suspects a 3 minutes mis-setting of the Captain's clock. No links were given to any other source for your suspicion.
The one link you gave was just an instruction for setting the Captain's clock or the First Officer's clock.
And it was from 2003, see the page source. ( meta name="copyright" content="2003 Geoff Middleton")

You used your authority as a former airline pilot (which I do understand, in your circles it will be very disturbing to find out what ice cold crooks your highest leaders/bosses and political representatives in reality and in most cases are) to convince the readers that it was a common practice to mis-set that clock. If so, I would strongly suggest the readers to reconsider flying.
When so many pilots couldn't even remember to set the clock correctly, where the FDR and CVR was based on, what more did and do they forget as a common practice? Luckily GPS sets that clock nowadays automatically.

If I remember correctly, Flight 77's clock was also set in error, we have read here at links to the Pilots for Truth forum, that if we must believe that plane's FDR, the plane set off from a field beside the runway.
Another "common practice" coincidence of 911?
Your three posts and my comments :


1. weedwhacker posted on 13/1/10 @ 23:09 This post :


WHAT "missing three minutes"??

The CVR and FDR stopped at exactly the same time, as I've pointed out, they both receive onboard time info from the Captain's clock, which is set by the pilots, and we can't assume it was EXACT. This ties in with the false assertion, mentioned in other threads, about the airborne time per ATC tapes, and their more accurate timelines.


I did offer you in my above post the proof that the 911 Commission Report based their 10:03:11 AM crash time on not only the CVR and FDR, but also on the airborne times per NIST atomic clock based ATC tapes, and their more accurate time-lines.
And on NORAD with all their main radar capabilities which are also secured to atomic clocks, they also held to their final outcome of a crash time of 10:03:11 AM at 9/11/2001 for Flight 93.
Which seems insane, since we have that ATC conference report linked to by me above, where they had the plane back on their ATC radar screens with a working transponder again, and lost contact again at a position miles away from the official crash site, still airborne. At 10:06 AM.


2. weedwhacker posted on 25/3/10 @ 18:36 This post :


reply to post by glitchinthematrix.

Interesting link to the timeline by Paul Thompson. As usual, eyewitness accounts conflict, and should be taken with a grain of salt....
However, I can clear this part up rather easily:
The 911 Timeline meticulously put together by Paul Thompson states that the official NORAD time of the Flight 93 crash in Shanksville, PA was at 10:03 AM.

There IS a three-minute discrepancy, and here is why.
From the seismic records, and also the FAA ATC radar, the actual time when radar contact was lost was ~10:06 EDT.
The Recorders (both CVR- Cockpit Voice Recorder - and FDR - Flight Data Recorder) stopped at time index 10:03 EDT (or, more correctly, 14:03 UTC).

Absent the equipment for GPS updating, which was not installed on UAL 93, the Recorders both get their time reference from the ADC (Air Data Computer) which, in turn, receives its time from the Captain's clock. The clock is set manually, by the crew. It can be somewhat laborious, at times (and frustrating, much like setting a VCR clock can be). Also, it may have been set by the maintenance personnel (mechanics) when they first prepped the airplane that morning. Either way, it was a few minutes off. Sometimes, that happens.

If we're going to fly an extended over-water route, then accurate times are more important (and just about all have GPS nowadays, anyway, so it is accurate automatically). The Captain's clock does not report outside the airplane; for that there is what's called the ACARS. It automatically reports the Out, Off, On and In times (among other things) for Flight Following requirements, per FAA regulations.


Now comes the FACT which destroys your view on the Flight 93 its 3 minutes inconsistencies :

The FAA Air Traffic Controllers transcribed reports I linked to above, were perfectly in line with all the other data from other data streams. Like the transcribed VCR time stamps.

The timestamps of the OFFICIALLY transcribed VCR ( locked to the Captains clock! ) as given by the 911 Commission fit perfectly with the ACARS and ATC reports time stamps, which are based on atomic clocks by NIST and are definitely not linked to the Captains clock.

So, we have a damn suspicious THREE MINUTES discrepancy between those OFFICIALLY ENDORSED reports from NORAD plus the 911 Commission who hold to the 10:03:11 AM crash time, and all the other official agencies who reported a 10:06 AM crash time!


Tell me, what do you think happened in those long, three minutes?

That FDR (Flight Data Recorder) and CVR (Cockpit Voice Recorder) were falsified, in total or partly, and that is a high probability, and not an insane thought, because I can show you they did it before.
When the stakes are high enough, governments do ANYTHING to hide the truth.

If you want, you can search in this forum for posts of mine and others from YEARS ago, where others and I gave the proof of falsified FDR's and VCR's by the airplane manufacturer, airline and air security agencies.
That was the (Concorde at an air show?) crash site near the French airport, where we could prove by comparing existing crash photos, that the guy who collected the "black boxes", did switch them for others. The ones later shown officially, were another set, easily identifiable since they were quite different looking from the ones photographed on the crash site. The crash site photos showed the original boxes standing beside his right leg.
Those disappeared, and new ones, with altered flight data were later shown to the trusting public and pilots...In that case, they did alter only a few data streams in the last minute or so, just as we suspect happened for ALL 4 planes on 911.
The British and French governments had great economic interest to falsify those data, since they spend a few Billions on their flagship, the Concorde. And at that time, they still hoped to sell more of them, a lot more.

They tried to frame the pilots for an intrinsic mechanical failure.
As a former pilot, that should hurt your feelings immensely, weedwhacker.
If it was you who's reputation was smeared by a few greedy politicians and their backers, your family would be enraged, I am sure.

There are several reports that the black boxes were also found for the two WTC planes, but "they" found it more conveniently to let them disappear, based on the presumption fed to the public, that they were thoroughly destructed by the impacts and the collapses.
We have however those first reports from solid witnesses, police and fire department guys with no political ties, that those boxes were found reasonably intact.


3. weedwhacker posted on 3/6/10 @ 14:36 This post :


Once again, as I have repeatedly informed you....(and Skadi reminded you) the entire 'discrepancy' amounted to a total of THREE minutes!!! AND, it is easily explained by the fact that the time reference ONBOARD the airplane (which was the only time reference that the CVR and DVR had to go by) was totally dependent on the setting of the Captain's clock. At that time, the onboard clocks (for that equipment at United Airlines) did NOT receive any updates from ground-based sources.

The ATC time reference was, of course, the actual time --- based on NIST standards from Ft. Collins, Colorado. THERE is the three minutes' difference!!! You have been told this, countless times. I will let others, here, judge you accordingly for continuing to attempt to USE this already busted "information".

"Pilots for Truth" don't bother to investigate any deeper, they merely JUMP at any chance that they think looks like some sort of 'flaw'...hence their total lack of credibility. IF THEY HAD stopped, for a moment, to consider this other explanation, then they wouldn't have such fools of themselves. BUT...their 'mission' really is all about the $$$....not the "truth" of 9/11.....

And people who fall for their baloney, garbage, crapola? They should take a moment to seriously re-examine the source.....


Now, ain't it time for you to seriously examine all the sources?
The time stamps of the transcribed VCR (which are locked to the Captain's clock) do NOT differ 3 minutes from the ACARS (airline to airplane messaging system) and ATC (air Traffic Controllers) logbooks time stamps, which both are not connected to the Captain's clock at all.
You know what that means, I hope. It means your theory is WRONG.
The CAPTAINS CLOCK WAS SET RIGHT.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
3a.(Same page) weedwhacker posted on 3/6/10 @ 21:50 This post :


Nowadays, more and more airplanes have GPS installed, and THAT does automatically update the Captain's clock...but, pre-GPS? It was set manually. The other unit onboard (ACARS) is automated, and uplinks the exact time, in sync with the 'standards' form Ft. Collins. It sends the flight-following stats ('OFF' and 'ON' times) and the 'OUT' and 'IN' for airline on-time reporting (and crew pay!!).

But, the ACARS doesn't tie in to the Captain's clock, nor the FDR and CVR.

Captain's clock actually serves the Air Data Computer (talking the B-757/767 here), which then supplies time reference for other items. (Except, again...the ACARS).


The same story, same wrong. The Captains clock locked to plane items, did report the same time stamps as the non-clock locked items, when read from their transcripts. That proves that Captain's clock was set to the right time, and not 3 minutes off as you thought.

And is it not a tat-bit strange, that the real CVR audio is not released, only the transcripts?
Indicating there's something very disturbing on the original tape? The tape played to the relatives at the Moussasoui trial was of course already tampered with. Just like the Concorde tapes.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Just saw you posted while I was forming my last posts.

Compare time stamped data from the CVR and the ATC transcripts :

CVR = coupled to the Captain's clock.
I gave you the official Moussasoui trial transcribed UAL flight #93 Cockpit Voice Recorder CVR transcript, Government exhibit P200056T 01-455-A (ID) with time stamps :
i.a.cnn.net...

and the same CVR transcript from WikiSource :
en.wikisource.org...
which have perfect to copy, time stamps attached.

ATC = not coupled to the Captain's clock.
This is the long Staff-Report of September 2005 : a 121 pages long PDF from the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. The 911 Commission in other words :
www.archives.gov...

which has lots of ATC timestamps inserted or attached.
Start for example at page 98 from the 121 pages, that's where the flight 93 remarks begin.

And compare it also to this NTSB Flight Path Study of UA93 with its long list of ATC remarks with time stamps :
www.ntsb.gov...

That NTSB file is based on the FDR flight data recorder and Radar data. They say themselves.
Never seen radar talk. So its only the controllers doing the talking to the pilots. And only one ACARS message (airline to pilots).
All the rest (a lot) is clearly FAA ATC personnel talking to the pilots and passing them on to the next ATC guy or girl.

Then find identical, time stamped conversations in the CVR lists and in the ATC lists.
Compare the time stamps. No 3 minutes difference. Case closed.


weedwhacker : Now, you've added some ATC transcripts, but the ones you found are LACKING times of transmission. THOSE times would co-incide with the overall 'global' standard time references.
-snipped some text-
You also included takeoff times, and such....BUT the CVR didn't record that far back...see if there are DFDR info from the entire flight, from push-back at the gate, to impact...THAT would be a sound basis for comparison. IF you find it, I suspect the time discrepancy, by comparing to ATC time reference, will be obvious.


Are you referring to this additional reference I gave as an interesting line of thought, but not as an exact timeline? There are no time stamps in that link.
But the ones I DID give have loads of them.

Did you miss the fact that the linked to, NTSB report mentioned that they based all their transcripts on the FDR? It's in its first PDF-page, C.Summary text.
And it describes the plane's communications with the ATC controllers from push-back at the gate to supposed crash.
So there you have on a plate what you asked for.

Are you still convinced that those pilots at Pilots for Truth forums are idiots?
Because we still have those missing 3 minutes in the CVR.....(cockpit voice recording).



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   

I'll try a more prosaic example, scenario:

A car crashes in an intersection, and the entire event is caught on camera, with accurate time. The driver is killed, and the impact causes his wristwatch to stop. The Coroner can use the stopped watch as his reference for moment of death, or the camera time that recorded the event.

Do you see? WHICH is likely to be most accurate, to the second?


Are you serious?
Or try to kidding me?


Now insert a third data stream for your driver: he was talking all the time to his colleague at NIST, and that conversation was recorded with NIST times attached.
NOW you can tell if his wristwatch was indeed off time for an amount of 3 minutes.
Not in your example, someone (his wife, brother etc) could have set the wristwatch quickly 3 minutes back, to collect the insurance money.......

Do you see now at last, where the crux of the matter lays?



Edit: you also seem to dodge this very important fact :


LaBTop : What I did not miss in the past was this link :
Won-Young Kim, Notable Retractions


911 Commission Footnote : ---- the impact time established by the very accurate combination of FDR, CVR, ATC, radar, and impact site data sets. These data sets constrain United 93's impact time to within 1 second, are airplane- and crash-site specific, and are based on time codes automatically recorded in the ATC audiotapes for the FAA centers and correlated with each data set in a process internationally accepted within the aviation accident investigation community.


[edit on 20/6/10 by LaBTop]



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join