United Flight 93, What actually happened ? [somewhat edited by JT]

[eastern wiseguy]

Seems to me that this thread is no longer about "aviation" but more about the physics of falling objects. Good time for me to stop reading it.

[SUPERMNNN]

Back to aviation:

Let's look at the Somerset County Airport again, look at this map:
http://local.live.com/default.aspx?w...nculture=en-US

Please zoom out to see New Baltimore and look at this runway drawing:

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/05992L24.PDF

I need some help with two questions:

1. Was the U-turn of Flight 93 from flying towards Washington DC to towards Indian Lake, roughly above New Baltimore, an intelligent action, or it was simply an accident? Is the airport simply an coincidence?

2. Did the two transponder signals make any intelligent sense, when were overlayed on to the Cockpit Voice Recording Transcript, with everything considered?

Thank you.
Tong Li

[Mercenary Pilot]

As they say on "Dragons Den"

You've lost me, so im out!

[rhovsquared]

SUPERMNNN I'm also very 'trained in science' and aviation (I'm not an airline pilot), most people here are more trained in aviation than I am, now many others on here ARE ALSO SCIENTISTS or ENGINEERS AND AIRLINE PILOTS, or Simply Scientist and Engineers [in the subjects relevant to aviation technical matters/ analysis], so with out adding my own analysis about KE and TAS and Vdf, strenght of materials heat energy/gram of jet AI etc. I would like to say; that for you to argue a subject like this on THIS FORUM without a STRONG BACKGROUND is drinking from a firehose while spitting into a 200knot wind so as one scientist who sees another well intentioned scientist making a potential fool of himself please accept the final analysis of the seasoned Ppruners... the US government has plenty of real conspiracies i.e 'Tuskeegee experiemnts'

PILOTS ARE SMART TOO !!!
rhov

edited to add: shooting down the hijacked aircraft would have actually been a more 'favorable situation', so that fact that they weren't intercepted and shot down (using primary surveillance radar) of F-16s with military radar is a more valid question?
that's not really science that's pure logic... so tell the folks who don't believe in whatever this topic represents now to you that that is PERHAPS THE STUPIDEST CONSPIRACY EVER CRAFTED BY A CIVILIZATION ANYWHERE AND ANY TIME IN HISTORY!!!

[SUPERMNNN]

rhov, thanks. I hate cold and like the heat, lol.

I would make more fool of myself to believe everything anyone tells me without thinking; I would make more fool of myself to do some kind of aviation related research without consulting aviation professionals for valid relavant opinions. Although the principles and methodologies may be correct, each field has its own "technical details". I was hoping that I would had some calm, objective, educational, maybe even humorous, interactive discussions here, as I experienced in other professional places. People are surely sensitive over here.

I had an arguement with one office girl who believes "Loose Change". I watched it and tried to explain to her that FBI did a bad job on the investigations. First, there were too many disasters to handle at one time during 911, second, they might not have enough resources and scientists as FAA(?) has for a regular airline disaster. Thirdly, they just didn't care of technical details. As the result, the reports were full of holes. With some basic data analysis, they could cover most of the qustions. It seemed that they didn't do anything.

"Where were the engines?" that's her strong hold question. Yes, where were the enignes? I started to look into the counter arguements against the "Loose Change". I can't stand them all. They are all pretty loose, not objective and scientific enough. I started to tight up everything by the facts, solid facts. This is what I end up with.

I still like this board, although trying to handle a totally different kind of oppositions than what I used to. I learned a great deal in a very short period of time. The greatest thing is that there are some scientists here, experts in the field, who are reading. Someone may start from here and have everything polished and go to the next level. I know there must be people out there pondering the facts and the analysis in a more critical and analytical fashion.

In a few days, this thread has almost 6000 page views. Someone will come out with a better research. I know for sure. Cheers.

Tong Li

[SUPERMNNN]

However, it is very puzzling. The first time I post this question (see #48), there was a dead silence on this board for whole day (while in two days, the thread accumulated 90 replays, 40 something replies was removed. And 4000 page views. All the replies regarding the two transponder signals were removed). No answers.

Then after the analysis, I post the question again, still, there is no answers.

Please someone tell me, looking at this map,
http://local.live.com/default.aspx?wip=2&v=2&style=r&rtp=~&&cp=40.039111 ~-79.014556&lvl=13&sp=aN.40.039111_-79.014556_2G9&msnurl=map.aspx?L%3dUSA%26C%3d40.039 111%2c-79.014556%26A%3d25%26P%3d%7c40.039111%2c-79.014556%7c1%7c2G9%7cL1%7c%26redirect%3dfalse&msn culture=en-US

The red pin is the Somerset County Airport. Please zoom out to see New Baltimore (4 o’clock, about 10 miles from the airport) and look at this runway drawing:

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/05992L24.PDF

Please tell me that New Baltimore – Indian Lake was not on the landing route. Two altitude signal, 6400 ft, 5800 ft did not indicate a landing decent. The last two minutes of flight path of Flight 93 did not signiture an emergency landing.

Again I am very ignorant in aviation, some simple answers will help me a lot. I would highly appreciate your help. I apologize if I offended anyone.

Please, please read all my posts regarding the analysis of Flight 93, the last two minutes, without pre conceived ideas, look at the facts and with search engine to double check if the facts are correct.

[JenCluse]

Oh dear . . .

This entire thread reminds me of why, when I was actively flying, if at a party a peson asked me 'what I did' (as Australians are wont) I leant to say I'm a bus driver. This usually involved the almost immediate departure of the questioner.

That was until, on days off, on the way to the Kingaroy gliding club (up country from Brisbane Oz) I risked picking up a hitch-hiker with a single bike wheel under his arm.

After the usual pleasantries the usual question (in Oz) produced my usual answer (bus driver) and immediate intense interest from my pax - 'what depot?'.

I revealed all, we had a laugh, and in the resulting discussion established that bus drivers talk about buses on an overnight, and plane drivers talk about planes.

Please Mr SUPERMNN, accept that you are intensly ignorant of almost of every technical aspect of avaiation, and that it is a good thing that these are anonymous posts.

Your best information source would be for you to join your local flying school/aero club, and learn how an aviation device *really works. (It ain't anything like your TV fantasies. TG.) Eliminate the fantasies. Learn some realities.

"He is a fool who has forgotten what became of his ancestry seven generations before him and who does not care what will become of his progeny seven generations after him."
--Kazakh Proverb

[wingnut-will]

Having read all the posts here with utmost attention, I regret wasting my time. I have done mechanics at University level and I can tell you that your approach regarding projectiles is fundamentaly flawed. As one attentive poster observed, there are far too many unknowns in the equation, and significant errors.

If you wish to persist with your reasearch, please do so, but my advice (and the advice of many professionals) here is: give in! You are chasing shadows.

[SUPERMNNN]

Things are getting more and more interesting.

I requested for a couple of simple airport related questions, getting a lot of professional warnings, instead of straight answers.

Just bought a AIM/FAR 2005 AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION MANUAL/FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS.

Chapter 6, Emergency Procedures

Section 6-2-2 TRANSPONDER EMERGENCY OPERATION
a. When a distress or urgency condition is encountered, the pilot of an aircraft with a coded radar beacon transponder who desires to alert a ground radar facility, should suqawk MODE 3/A, Code 7700/Emergency and MODE C altitude reporting and them immediately establish communications with the ATC facility.

(Comment: so a pilot should squawk code 7700 and Mode C ALTITUDE reporting, before establish communications iwth ATC, this is not what I got from this forum, is it?)

b. Rada facilities are equipped so that Code 7700 normally triggers an alarm or special indicator at all control positions. Pilots should understand that they might not be within a radar coverage area. Therefore, they should continue squawking Code 7700 and establish radio communication as soon as possible.

(Comment: so a pilot should squwk 7700, reporting MODEC ALTITUDE more than once. He should continue squawking Code 7700... INTERESTING.)

Am I reading a wrong book as well as chasing a shadow?

No body can give me a straight answer to question post #48 and #106. No matter how ignorant the questions are, a simple yes or no answer is so hard to get from a professional pilot forum, but all kinds of "professiona advices", remotely related to the questions?

I am afraid that there are a lot of public readers here, watching and learning aviation. At least all my friends, and their friends who are also curious, can be the judge.

Tong Li
SuperNova International, Inc.
1709 Thompson St.
Lansing, MI 48906
email: [email protected]

[wingnut-will]

Do you imply that we dont know our jobs or we're all in on the big conspiracy??!!

Sir, I think you already reached a conclusion as what you think happened to U93 before you came here. I've always believed some people are inclined to believe a beautiful lie rather than the plain hard truth.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

Originally Posted by SUPERMNNN

If you look at this
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/05992L24.PDF

and this map:
http://local.live.com/default.aspx?w...nculture=en-US

If you can zoom out on the map, find New Baltimore (on I-76), if you start from here at 7000 ft, where do you go for landing and what's your path? Do you need to go 10nm N.E. of Stoystown and decending to 4500ft then start landing?

OK, I'll bite.

Assuming that the aircraft location data is accurate, which is as previousl;y stated not a given, there is no way to state that a particular set of locations at such a distance from the airfield are or are not consistent with an emergency landing.

If the aircraft is assumed to be in a state of dire distress - fire, structural damage, etc. - then the chances that the pilots will be worrying about the niceties of the approach plate and the transponder is zero. Priority #1 is to fly the plane. The flightpath may not be fully under control, etc. Look at some of the reconstructed flightpaths for accidents where aircraft have sustained major structural damage and tried to make a landing - the 747 in Japan that had a rear pressure bulkhead failure followed a 'drunken' path around the sky as the crew tried to keep it under control. If all you had was a few spot points of that path to work from I guarantee you'd have NO IDEA what the crew were doing.

if the aircraft is assumed NOT to be in such a state of distress then it's highly unlikely the pilots would elect to conduct an immediate emergency landing at an airfield such as the one shown. You stay airborne and assess the situation and make an appropriate decision as to when and where to land. And Im 99.9% sure they'd have tried to get to a decent sized airport.

In other words, the only circumstances under which a notional pilot would try to get an airliner down on such a runway are such that you can't conclude anything by comparing a reconstructed flightpath against the nominal approach plate.

You've set yourself up for an impossible task. Neither you nor the "loose changers" have anything like all the data. But you're approaching this from the position that you need to prove what happened was not consistent with their theory, which with the limited data you have is next-to-impossible. Instead the onus should be on the conspiracyists to prove THEIR ideas - and any missing data is THEIR problem, not yours.

Anyway, even supposing you did manage to somehow disprove (part of) the theory, they'd just say you were using planted data or something. You can't win.

And, getting back to the track reconstruction, I'll say it again. I've been involved in attempts to reconstruct the final flightpath of an aircraft where we had actual FDR data from the accident aircraft, and we STILL couldn't absolutely determine the flightpath to an accuracy close enough to conclude what had happened. To attempt to make an even further step and try to deduce from the data you have what the crew were thinking is futile. "Why did they do X?" is a question we have difficulty answering even if the crew are sat in front of us.

[Wizofoz]

Straight answer to post #48 and #106- The flight crew would not have had that approach chart on board as it was not an airport the aircraft was able to use, nor would that approach have been in the FMC.

Even if it had been, there is no way the pilots would have had a chance to referencce it in the time available.

[SUPERMNNN]

Thanks Mad and Wizofoz. These are the kind of answers I have been waiting for.

Also, the Cleveland control center didn't report code 7700 (which supposed to light up all the warning for all controlers?) Does the range of code 7700 goes as far as the altitude singals? If it does, so we can safly assume that because the Cleveland center only received two transponder signals for altitude without the code 7700, it was more likely the transponder turned on by accident?

[rhovsquared]

Well also all Xpndr squawks may have done nothing but allow atc to do some DR calculations to find RELATIVE POSITIONS.

I,m gonna give a very unrelated example in aviation to illustrate the point in a simple manner [ for aviation/aerospace engineering as most folks here know is an inexact sciece based on flight test/accident data etc. and is relatively scant, yet thoughly immense]

the IRS of an airliner measure every accerlation about all mutually orthogonal flight axes, it does so using 'very simple' calculus: integrate acceleration to give velocity, doing like with velocity gives total distance traveled.
now sit in an aircraft moving at high speed exposed to a tremendous number of accelerations and perform [using simple Newtonian physics based on a initial position data] and in one hour have the pilot ask; Where are we now?

And

You'll say

Now, try the same manner of calculation with a terrorist hell bent on exceeding an airliner's flight envelope i.e a no man's land even for the manufacturers themselves (who produce these data from the extrema of the flight envelope) and cross check your accuracy based on your calculations with the actual circumstances you will be wrong!!! and say

Aviation is one of many fields wherein, although heavily grounded in science and technique...it is really to ALL involved more of an art.

The AIM/FARS impress NO ONE here because you don't even know how to interpret them neither APD's or approach plates you are presenting
EXPERTS with useless facts. the AIM IS ADVISORY the FARS AREN"T and ATC doesn't/can't command the aircraft.. you have really no more to say neither does anyone else here I' presume

G'day

rhov

Edited too add: even if pax were able to overtake those psychos on the flight deck placing the airgraft into a steep roll, a person like you [pax on UAL 93] had no ability to recover from an upset and land that plane... One pilot here, when you asked how hard is it to fly as 757...he said EASY...well go to sim and try it, and you'll say, yeah easy for you!!!... but no one here is argueing with you about the mathematical equivalence of the five string theories

[SUPERMNNN]

Originally Posted by wingnut-will

Do you imply that we dont know our jobs or we're all in on the big conspiracy??!!

Sir, I think you already reached a conclusion as what you think happened to U93 before you came here. I've always believed some people are inclined to believe a beautiful lie rather than the plain hard truth.

Yes, sir, I did have some initial conclusions, but it doesn't mean I seriously believe them without professionals' opinions. However the "emergency landing" IS A QUESTION not a conclusion, I am not educated enough to make that conclusion.

Why do I need to ask pilots, if it is so easy to make up some conspiracy theories? It takes a lot of work to sort through the hard facts to see what's behind, than make up some star war stories (do you know that a star war story writter makes more money than a mad scientist?)

And also it is so easy to make up some lame reports ignoring many known facts than conduct a comprehensive study to formulate sound explanations to cover all the ground.

If someone asks professionals' opinions and searching specific and technical answers, most likely he wants to reach an honest, objective conclusion, not nessesarily his own.

[evilroy]

The problem, as I see it, is that people are giving you answers but you are not listening to them; if the answer doesn't support your pre-conceived conclusion, you reject it and go in search of someone / something else.

That is not the way it works.

[18-Wheeler]

Hey I said this was a load of bollocks in this thread ages ago, but all my valid comments got deleted.

[Wizofoz]

Also, the Cleveland control center didn't report code 7700 (which supposed to light up all the warning for all controlers?) Does the range of code 7700 goes as far as the altitude singals?

You were told in no uncertain terms that it is unlikely that a pilot in an out of control aircraft would take the time to squak 7700, but as evilroy has said, you choose to ignore information that doesn't fit your pre-concieved notions.

[Groucho]

'18-W' - you and me and a few others!

You can only assume that the mods are enjoying this nonsense

[SUPERMNNN]

Originally Posted by Wizofoz

You were told in no uncertain terms that it is unlikely that a pilot in an out of control aircraft would take the time to squak 7700, but as evilroy has said, you choose to ignore information that doesn't fit your pre-concieved notions.

I was trying to use the fact to suport what evilroy had said. If Cleveland didn't receive 7700, then the signals must be accidents.