United Flight 93, What actually happened ? [somewhat edited by JT]
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
Even if it had been, there is no way the pilots would have had a chance to referencce it in the time available.
Again I am very ignorant in aviation, please be patient with me. This might seem like a kindergarden question.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Therefore, it is impossible:
That somehow the Flight 93 lost one engine (explains the missing engine) above New Baltimore (maybe due to violent manuvor, up and down, vertical acceleration.... Just assume it did disintegrate).
Engine pieces scratched the bottom of the plane (observed debris: half burned webbing pieces), penetrated US Postal mail cargo (debris: stock statement, canceled check), penetrated cockpit (Debris: half burned pilot mannual, assuming the hijacker was reading it?)
Hijacker pilot might be injured or died. Other hijackers were trying to pull down the fire (CVR has fire extinguisher's noise. "shut off oxygen" was heard many times. A passenger in the bathroom told ground by a 911 call, that there were loud noise and smoke), co pilot took over and made a u-turn, decending. Two transponder signals were sent by accident (when they tried to fight the fire, accidently turned the tranponder on?).
The plane was decending, when reached Indian Lake, the highjacker fight for the control of the plane ("give it to me, give it to me" was heard). The violent movement spill more debris from the first event (if the debris found in Indian Lake were the same type as New Baltimore). The plane decended sharply, flying sideways, then the last engine detached. The plane turned belly up, made a spiral, dive to the crash site (Matching all eye witness accounts).
This scenerio can explain all the debris, eyewitness accounts, cover most of the questions.
All I need is to have professional pilots to read the VCR transcript, put the 5 events on it. If it makes some sense from the VCR transcript, if it can not only explain the ground observation, but also the VCR voices and noises, then my calculation might have some value, if not, then it is a total nonesense, as everyone said it is, the end of this thread.
That somehow the Flight 93 lost one engine (explains the missing engine) above New Baltimore (maybe due to violent manuvor, up and down, vertical acceleration.... Just assume it did disintegrate).
Engine pieces scratched the bottom of the plane (observed debris: half burned webbing pieces), penetrated US Postal mail cargo (debris: stock statement, canceled check), penetrated cockpit (Debris: half burned pilot mannual, assuming the hijacker was reading it?)
Hijacker pilot might be injured or died. Other hijackers were trying to pull down the fire (CVR has fire extinguisher's noise. "shut off oxygen" was heard many times. A passenger in the bathroom told ground by a 911 call, that there were loud noise and smoke), co pilot took over and made a u-turn, decending. Two transponder signals were sent by accident (when they tried to fight the fire, accidently turned the tranponder on?).
The plane was decending, when reached Indian Lake, the highjacker fight for the control of the plane ("give it to me, give it to me" was heard). The violent movement spill more debris from the first event (if the debris found in Indian Lake were the same type as New Baltimore). The plane decended sharply, flying sideways, then the last engine detached. The plane turned belly up, made a spiral, dive to the crash site (Matching all eye witness accounts).
This scenerio can explain all the debris, eyewitness accounts, cover most of the questions.
All I need is to have professional pilots to read the VCR transcript, put the 5 events on it. If it makes some sense from the VCR transcript, if it can not only explain the ground observation, but also the VCR voices and noises, then my calculation might have some value, if not, then it is a total nonesense, as everyone said it is, the end of this thread.
Last edited by SUPERMNNN; 13th Aug 2006 at 12:27.
Can you see an airport from 7000 ft altitude, which is 4728 ft from ground?
Again I am very ignorant in aviation,
I'm not sure if this has been said, but just in case.....
The transponder system, simplisticly, is a radio transmitter. It sends data, not voice.
It's called Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR), and the military have a function within it called Interogation Friend or Foe (IFF).
What happens is a ground based 'radar' sends out a radio pulse. This pulse is received by the transponder, which sends back a pulse in return.
The ground based radar knows the direction the 'dish' is pointing at the time of the pulses, so it knows the direction from which the return pulse came from; this gives the bearing of the aircraft from the station. The pulses are are also timed, so the difference of when the pulse was sent out to when it was received by the ground station allows the ground station to 'know' the distance of the transmitter. The received pulse (which was transmitted from the aircraft) can contain data. This might be a 2-digit code or a 4-digit code. The code sent depends on what code is dialled in to the transponder control panel in the aircraft, and what 'mode' is selected. The aircraft can also send information about altitude (again, depending on mode), based upon the altitude information within the aircraft (normally pressure altitude).
When a pilot is asked by the contoller to 'SQUAWK IDENT', the signal from the aircraft puts an additional little bit into the transmission which causes the radar display to put rings around the individual aircraft displayed on the radar (or flash, or other things, depending on the system). This allows the controller to identify which return on their display is performing that action.
The whole system is designed to allow you to identify an aircraft on your radar. It plays no part in the real operation of the aircraft. If the transponder is switched off or in standby mode, no signal is sent back when the ground radar interrogates the airborne transponder. That's all - nothing is sent.
This means the controller cannot "see" the aircraft, unless they also have primary radar in operation (that's where a pulse 'bounces off' the aircraft itself, and so the crew have no say in whether the radar 'sees' the aircraft or not).
The only reason ATC want the transponder on is so they can 'see' the aircraft, 'see' the code (which also helps identify the aircraft), and if equipped 'see' the altitude of the aircraft (which helps them with traffic flow & they don't need to ask the aircraft for that information).
The control unit in the cockpit is simply an electric control panel. You can switch it off. Another way to disable the unit, and thus prevent a return signal being transmitted, is to pull the electrical circuit breaker (C/B) associated with that piece of equipment.
The easiest way is to simply turn it off at the control panel. Somebody wishing to disable the system, though, may choose to pull the C/B and make sure that no-one secretly switches the unit back on. It is quite possible that someone simply pulls the C/B to disable the unit, and during a struggle in the cockpit, the C/B is accidently knocked and pushed in - enough for a few seconds of data to be transmitted when interrogated.
As has been said, the system depends on 'line of sight', so at low altitudes the 'interrogating' pulse may not be received or the transmitted pulse from the aircraft may not be received by the ground radar. In situations where the pulse may be blocked, it is also conceivable that the return pulse may be corrupted and give incorrect code / altitude data (though I would think it has some type of checksum built in to indicate bad data).
Finally, as mentioned, the system relies on pressure altitude from the aircraft. During very high rates of climb or descent, it is possible to get a 'lag' from the altimiter as the "pressure" catches up with the movement of the aircraft. This could mean that some error might be expected with the altitude reported by the aircraft (via SSR) versus the actual pressure altitude at the time.
The transponder system, simplisticly, is a radio transmitter. It sends data, not voice.
It's called Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR), and the military have a function within it called Interogation Friend or Foe (IFF).
What happens is a ground based 'radar' sends out a radio pulse. This pulse is received by the transponder, which sends back a pulse in return.
The ground based radar knows the direction the 'dish' is pointing at the time of the pulses, so it knows the direction from which the return pulse came from; this gives the bearing of the aircraft from the station. The pulses are are also timed, so the difference of when the pulse was sent out to when it was received by the ground station allows the ground station to 'know' the distance of the transmitter. The received pulse (which was transmitted from the aircraft) can contain data. This might be a 2-digit code or a 4-digit code. The code sent depends on what code is dialled in to the transponder control panel in the aircraft, and what 'mode' is selected. The aircraft can also send information about altitude (again, depending on mode), based upon the altitude information within the aircraft (normally pressure altitude).
When a pilot is asked by the contoller to 'SQUAWK IDENT', the signal from the aircraft puts an additional little bit into the transmission which causes the radar display to put rings around the individual aircraft displayed on the radar (or flash, or other things, depending on the system). This allows the controller to identify which return on their display is performing that action.
The whole system is designed to allow you to identify an aircraft on your radar. It plays no part in the real operation of the aircraft. If the transponder is switched off or in standby mode, no signal is sent back when the ground radar interrogates the airborne transponder. That's all - nothing is sent.
This means the controller cannot "see" the aircraft, unless they also have primary radar in operation (that's where a pulse 'bounces off' the aircraft itself, and so the crew have no say in whether the radar 'sees' the aircraft or not).
The only reason ATC want the transponder on is so they can 'see' the aircraft, 'see' the code (which also helps identify the aircraft), and if equipped 'see' the altitude of the aircraft (which helps them with traffic flow & they don't need to ask the aircraft for that information).
The control unit in the cockpit is simply an electric control panel. You can switch it off. Another way to disable the unit, and thus prevent a return signal being transmitted, is to pull the electrical circuit breaker (C/B) associated with that piece of equipment.
The easiest way is to simply turn it off at the control panel. Somebody wishing to disable the system, though, may choose to pull the C/B and make sure that no-one secretly switches the unit back on. It is quite possible that someone simply pulls the C/B to disable the unit, and during a struggle in the cockpit, the C/B is accidently knocked and pushed in - enough for a few seconds of data to be transmitted when interrogated.
As has been said, the system depends on 'line of sight', so at low altitudes the 'interrogating' pulse may not be received or the transmitted pulse from the aircraft may not be received by the ground radar. In situations where the pulse may be blocked, it is also conceivable that the return pulse may be corrupted and give incorrect code / altitude data (though I would think it has some type of checksum built in to indicate bad data).
Finally, as mentioned, the system relies on pressure altitude from the aircraft. During very high rates of climb or descent, it is possible to get a 'lag' from the altimiter as the "pressure" catches up with the movement of the aircraft. This could mean that some error might be expected with the altitude reported by the aircraft (via SSR) versus the actual pressure altitude at the time.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wizofoz
From what range? 3 miles- yes, 300 miles-no
Obviously, as you could have answered this question if you had ever looked out the window as a passenger!!!
Obviously, as you could have answered this question if you had ever looked out the window as a passenger!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks evilroy, your post about transponder is better than all the book I found.
Note for the proposed scenerio:
1. It is not based on any pure imagination stimulated by any news article "facts". It is based on one principle: an isolated debris field was caused by one event in the air on the airplane, if there were enough time seperation between the events (in flight) as well as ground distance seperation between the debris field.s To make it simple, if you see donuts scattered around a large centered area, if the donuts are from the plane, then it is from one dump. (if the donuts are scattered in a wild line, then it is dumped one at a time). Therefore, the three isolated debris fields: 300 yard from crater, 2.5 miles from the crater, 8 miles from the crater, were caused by three seperate event happened in the sky.
(Please note, we didn't do any trajectory calculation, we didn't care the exact position. Within 1/4 mile acuracy, we are fine, we just tried to figure out the event sequence and ball park relative time stamp. I totally understand the uncertainty of real life trajectory calculation).
2. Two transponder signals were received by Cleveland Control center showed altitude of 6400, 5800 ft, no time stamp. (may not be acurate, if the plane has fast vertical movement)
3. Based on the above FIVE EVENTS, if we assume an initial condition of the plane (140knots, 7000ft), we can arrange the FIVE EVENTS in sequence, with a rough time stamp on each event. To normalized the time to the total time it took from Event 1 to Event 5, we obtain the percentage time stamp.
4. From the CVR transcript, we located time when first engine seemed having problem.(10:01:12, ..... engine... ). From here we assume that the engine was disintegrated at 10:01:10, we obtain the estimated total time for all five events were 119 seconds. Using the percentage time stamp, we obtained the time for each events:
5. Over lay the 5 events on CVR. We have our initial assumed scenerio, which can explain all the available observations, eye witness accounts and tranponder signals.
If the scenerio is correct, then the investigation should be conducted to primary event, how the first engine disintegrated?
Note for the proposed scenerio:
1. It is not based on any pure imagination stimulated by any news article "facts". It is based on one principle: an isolated debris field was caused by one event in the air on the airplane, if there were enough time seperation between the events (in flight) as well as ground distance seperation between the debris field.s To make it simple, if you see donuts scattered around a large centered area, if the donuts are from the plane, then it is from one dump. (if the donuts are scattered in a wild line, then it is dumped one at a time). Therefore, the three isolated debris fields: 300 yard from crater, 2.5 miles from the crater, 8 miles from the crater, were caused by three seperate event happened in the sky.
(Please note, we didn't do any trajectory calculation, we didn't care the exact position. Within 1/4 mile acuracy, we are fine, we just tried to figure out the event sequence and ball park relative time stamp. I totally understand the uncertainty of real life trajectory calculation).
2. Two transponder signals were received by Cleveland Control center showed altitude of 6400, 5800 ft, no time stamp. (may not be acurate, if the plane has fast vertical movement)
3. Based on the above FIVE EVENTS, if we assume an initial condition of the plane (140knots, 7000ft), we can arrange the FIVE EVENTS in sequence, with a rough time stamp on each event. To normalized the time to the total time it took from Event 1 to Event 5, we obtain the percentage time stamp.
4. From the CVR transcript, we located time when first engine seemed having problem.(10:01:12, ..... engine... ). From here we assume that the engine was disintegrated at 10:01:10, we obtain the estimated total time for all five events were 119 seconds. Using the percentage time stamp, we obtained the time for each events:
5. Over lay the 5 events on CVR. We have our initial assumed scenerio, which can explain all the available observations, eye witness accounts and tranponder signals.
If the scenerio is correct, then the investigation should be conducted to primary event, how the first engine disintegrated?
Last edited by SUPERMNNN; 13th Aug 2006 at 11:56.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do we assume the first event was one engine explosion?
Three signature debris were found in New Baltimore:
Half burned webbings, inflight magazine (half burned), pilot mannual (half burned), canceled check, stockstatement (burned markes).
If they were falling from one event, i.e. fell at the same time, it was impossible that theywere caused by any weapon penetration. If we look at a picture of boeing 757 -222, the only way for these three type of debris fell at the same time, as far as I can think of, was caused by the engine. (most debris found has burn marks).
And it might be the left engine, which could cause the pilot mannual to fall and might injured (or killed) the pilot.
Three signature debris were found in New Baltimore:
Half burned webbings, inflight magazine (half burned), pilot mannual (half burned), canceled check, stockstatement (burned markes).
If they were falling from one event, i.e. fell at the same time, it was impossible that theywere caused by any weapon penetration. If we look at a picture of boeing 757 -222, the only way for these three type of debris fell at the same time, as far as I can think of, was caused by the engine. (most debris found has burn marks).
And it might be the left engine, which could cause the pilot mannual to fall and might injured (or killed) the pilot.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wizofoz
From what range? 3 miles- yes, 300 miles-no
Obviously, as you could have answered this question if you had ever looked out the window as a passenger!!!
Obviously, as you could have answered this question if you had ever looked out the window as a passenger!!!
Since it was on the right hand side of the plane when Flight 93 passed by it, only co-pilot can see it.
Is this correct?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What was the weather (as observed from the airport ) on that morning?.Was there cloud cover? If the "crew" had been involved in a struggle for their lives ,would they have had any idea that there was an airfield in the vicinity?.If the legal crew were dead I would suggest that the passengers would have little or no idea where they were and consequently would not have been able to identify the airfield.
However under NORMAL circumstances in order to best see the airfield the right hand side of the aircraft would be the side of choice.(I rather think that in the chaos of that morning there might be NO-ONE looking out the window rather whoever was in "control" was struggling to keep the aircraft flying first and foremost).
I am not a pilot.I am an Air Traffic Controller.I would say that the last thing I would expect on that morning would be the crew to do ANYTHING other than to keep the aircraft flying as long as possible.I would expect them to
AVIATE
NAVIGATE
COMMUNICATE
in that order.I think the transponder is a red herring.
However under NORMAL circumstances in order to best see the airfield the right hand side of the aircraft would be the side of choice.(I rather think that in the chaos of that morning there might be NO-ONE looking out the window rather whoever was in "control" was struggling to keep the aircraft flying first and foremost).
I am not a pilot.I am an Air Traffic Controller.I would say that the last thing I would expect on that morning would be the crew to do ANYTHING other than to keep the aircraft flying as long as possible.I would expect them to
AVIATE
NAVIGATE
COMMUNICATE
in that order.I think the transponder is a red herring.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Summer
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is a loss of time. From my point of view there are few things worth to note however.
1) Had it been moved to JB, and not edited, part of the polemics wouldn't got a reason to exist.
2) Had the US gov.nt released full information on the attacks, at least in form of simple facts like FDRs etc, people would not have basis to formulate idle speculations.
3) This may be a very personal opinion, but I disagree with the following:
How futile is to say that? The "technicalities" are perfectly public. For a person of average intelect, with access to the Internet, it would take probably less than one day to acquire a good knowledge about ATC procedures in general.
You must never think that something is implicitely safe because is complicated, require training or not much discussed in public.
As long is not classified people can and will get to know how it works and can be exploited.
If you want a safer system, design for it, do not rely on the fact that the current one is not discussed, because even if you don't, someone else will.
1) Had it been moved to JB, and not edited, part of the polemics wouldn't got a reason to exist.
2) Had the US gov.nt released full information on the attacks, at least in form of simple facts like FDRs etc, people would not have basis to formulate idle speculations.
3) This may be a very personal opinion, but I disagree with the following:
Originally Posted by John Farley
SUPERMMM
Some of the technicalities of how aircraft are controlled by ATC and in particular how they are identified and monitored is information that could valuable to someone who wanted to disrupt the system. But perhaps that had not occurred to you?
Some of the technicalities of how aircraft are controlled by ATC and in particular how they are identified and monitored is information that could valuable to someone who wanted to disrupt the system. But perhaps that had not occurred to you?
You must never think that something is implicitely safe because is complicated, require training or not much discussed in public.
As long is not classified people can and will get to know how it works and can be exploited.
If you want a safer system, design for it, do not rely on the fact that the current one is not discussed, because even if you don't, someone else will.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SUPERMNNN
Can you see an airport from 7000 ft altitude, which is 4728 ft from ground?
Again I am very ignorant in aviation, please be patient with me. This might seem like a kindergarden question.
Again I am very ignorant in aviation, please be patient with me. This might seem like a kindergarden question.
The conventional way an investigator embarks on an investigation is to become very familiar with the field of study e.g. commercial aviation, and then take KNOWN facts from a specific incident and probe the relationship of that event's facts to the larger field. The approach you are taking is quite the opposite, and yields highly speculative "results".
If you will only gain a bit more aeronautical background, you'll be able to answer many more questions yourself.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by barit1
Tong Li:
Originally Posted by barit1
The conventional way an investigator embarks on an investigation is to become very familiar with the field of study e.g. commercial aviation, and then take KNOWN facts from a specific incident and probe the relationship of that event's facts to the larger field. The approach you are taking is quite the opposite, and yields highly speculative "results".
If you will only gain a bit more aeronautical background, you'll be able to answer many more questions yourself.
For example, if there were not engine debris found several miles south east of New Baltimore, then the assumption of the engine explosion is fault.
The known facts somehow eliminating a lot of 911 commission’s speculations.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: north
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me ask YOU some questions that IS within your field.
1. Explain how engine debris can end up in a cockpit IN FLIGHT at 500 mph
and cause a fire there?
2. You have any idea how much NOISE an OPEN FUSELAGE would make
on the VOICE RECORDER tape?
We are talking 500 mph low altitude here.
Especially a hole big enough to get humans and other stuff (chair?) through.
STILL people are "chatting" all the time in the cockpit until the very last secconds.
3. You say the aircraft stalled (lack of speed). How come the BIGGEST piece
of debris found was about 2 feet long?
4. If the plane stalled (started to FALL towards the ground). Isn't it
weird the guys in the cockpit are saying DOWN, PUSH etc? If
anything, DOWN is where they would be heading already...
M
1. Explain how engine debris can end up in a cockpit IN FLIGHT at 500 mph
and cause a fire there?
2. You have any idea how much NOISE an OPEN FUSELAGE would make
on the VOICE RECORDER tape?
We are talking 500 mph low altitude here.
Especially a hole big enough to get humans and other stuff (chair?) through.
STILL people are "chatting" all the time in the cockpit until the very last secconds.
3. You say the aircraft stalled (lack of speed). How come the BIGGEST piece
of debris found was about 2 feet long?
4. If the plane stalled (started to FALL towards the ground). Isn't it
weird the guys in the cockpit are saying DOWN, PUSH etc? If
anything, DOWN is where they would be heading already...
M
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Summer
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XP, what's your point ? Who are you talking to ?
We have a guy here (supermnnn) that made all kind of insinating questions but at the same time it appears he is not trying to confute any conspiracy theory. Now you don't want to be the one taking the conspiracy side that can very easily make a fool of oneself.
Instead I don't understand your questions, anyway,
1 and 2. What is the question again ?
3. stall or not when an airplane crashes from altitude it goes into many little pieces.
4. probably because the stall warning went off and they tried what the flight school teached them, in a stall or incipient to, push down to reaquire airspeed and lift.
We have a guy here (supermnnn) that made all kind of insinating questions but at the same time it appears he is not trying to confute any conspiracy theory. Now you don't want to be the one taking the conspiracy side that can very easily make a fool of oneself.
Instead I don't understand your questions, anyway,
1 and 2. What is the question again ?
3. stall or not when an airplane crashes from altitude it goes into many little pieces.
4. probably because the stall warning went off and they tried what the flight school teached them, in a stall or incipient to, push down to reaquire airspeed and lift.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: north
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instead I don't understand your questions, anyway,
question his theory's of chain of events which I as an engineer
find very weird.
3. stall or not when an airplane crashes from altitude it goes into many little pieces.
the impact speeds we are talking about here. Here is a pic of a plane
that DID fall from altitude. A bit bigger than 2 feet?
http://www.airlinesafety.com/images/...ionAPphoto.jpg
4. probably because the stall warning went off and they tried what the flight school teached them, in a stall or incipient to, push down to reaquire airspeed and lift.
this point.
M
Top Dog
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Close to FACT
Age: 55
Posts: 2,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have just taken the time (to Mrs annoyance) to read through the majority of this. I'm not going to comment on my opinions.
I'll give a similar disclaimer to G in that I don't moderate on this part of PPRuNe.
I'm just a little concerned about mentioning specific squawks. My opinion (right or wrong) is that if you don't know them, you don't need to know them.
I'll give a similar disclaimer to G in that I don't moderate on this part of PPRuNe.
I'm just a little concerned about mentioning specific squawks. My opinion (right or wrong) is that if you don't know them, you don't need to know them.
Moderator
I'm just a little concerned about mentioning specific squawks.
.. which is why I've removed several such references .. I think that the general emergency code is sufficiently in the public domain to leave it in place for continuity (p6 if I recall) ..
.. which is why I've removed several such references .. I think that the general emergency code is sufficiently in the public domain to leave it in place for continuity (p6 if I recall) ..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me ask YOU some questions that IS within your field.
1. Explain how engine debris can end up in a cockpit IN FLIGHT at 500 mph
and cause a fire there?
That's not the job of this study. This study doesn't ask how and why. Simply based on the ground debris try to trace back to what possibly happened in the sky. If you can locate the four things on 757: pilot mannual, inflight magazine, webbing, US Postal Mail Bags, from where can you see all those items on the plane? How can you make them drop from the plane at the same time and the plane can still fly? I don't think you can do it by any weapon. So it might be possible for an engine breakup.
The other clue is that we didn't find the engine at the crash site. We were looking for this missing engine. Most likely it was missing above the New Baltimore or Indian Lake. We were looking for the foot prints of this missing engine from the debris found at the two location. New Baltimore was the most likely place.
If it was, then what could happen and how the events developed accordingly?
2. You have any idea how much NOISE an OPEN FUSELAGE would make
on the VOICE RECORDER tape?
The tape played to the families and in the court wasn't original. Why not the original?
We are talking 500 mph low altitude here.
Especially a hole big enough to get humans and other stuff (chair?) through.
No human body was found near New Baltimore, only light debris such as webbings, pilot mannual. (seat cushion was found in Indian Lake area).
STILL people are "chatting" all the time in the cockpit until the very last secconds.
Possible "hole" might be at the time of above Indian Lake and after. There was wind sound heard in the CVR close to the end. Again this study does' speculate anything at that scale. We basically arrange events sequence from solid evidence such as debris, overlay them on CVR.
3. You say the aircraft stalled (lack of speed). How come the BIGGEST piece
of debris found was about 2 feet long?
Stalling was based on the eyewitness account (it might not be correct). Please notice that the plane was loaded with a lot of fuel. The nearby trees had server burning signs.
4. If the plane stalled (started to FALL towards the ground). Isn't it
weird the guys in the cockpit are saying DOWN, PUSH etc? If
anything, DOWN is where they would be heading already...
The plane flied smoothly from New Baltimore to Indian Lake. Fatal event was the one happened above the Indian Lake. If you read the transcript, please notice that:
10:02:40 Unintillegible, which lasted for 22 seconds. Then next lines are Arabic prayings. From our estimated timeline, flight 93 was above Indian Lake at this time. Please find the time stamp we obtained here (please notice that we did the calculation based on the initial speed provided by the board memeber. Find the "....engine...." line on the transcript. (no manipulation of any sort with the time stamp).
That's the reason I need commercial pilot to look through the transcript after overlay the events sequence.
Once those assumed events (based on ground debris) were lined up in sequence and given a reasonable estimated time stamp, they might enlight the CVR transcript. If it does'n't, the whole work is basically nonesense. We can simply trash it. If it does make a lot of sense and can help us understand what happened in the cockpit, then we are on the right track. Further, more professional studies are needed and we need hard data.
1. Explain how engine debris can end up in a cockpit IN FLIGHT at 500 mph
and cause a fire there?
That's not the job of this study. This study doesn't ask how and why. Simply based on the ground debris try to trace back to what possibly happened in the sky. If you can locate the four things on 757: pilot mannual, inflight magazine, webbing, US Postal Mail Bags, from where can you see all those items on the plane? How can you make them drop from the plane at the same time and the plane can still fly? I don't think you can do it by any weapon. So it might be possible for an engine breakup.
The other clue is that we didn't find the engine at the crash site. We were looking for this missing engine. Most likely it was missing above the New Baltimore or Indian Lake. We were looking for the foot prints of this missing engine from the debris found at the two location. New Baltimore was the most likely place.
If it was, then what could happen and how the events developed accordingly?
2. You have any idea how much NOISE an OPEN FUSELAGE would make
on the VOICE RECORDER tape?
The tape played to the families and in the court wasn't original. Why not the original?
We are talking 500 mph low altitude here.
Especially a hole big enough to get humans and other stuff (chair?) through.
No human body was found near New Baltimore, only light debris such as webbings, pilot mannual. (seat cushion was found in Indian Lake area).
STILL people are "chatting" all the time in the cockpit until the very last secconds.
Possible "hole" might be at the time of above Indian Lake and after. There was wind sound heard in the CVR close to the end. Again this study does' speculate anything at that scale. We basically arrange events sequence from solid evidence such as debris, overlay them on CVR.
3. You say the aircraft stalled (lack of speed). How come the BIGGEST piece
of debris found was about 2 feet long?
Stalling was based on the eyewitness account (it might not be correct). Please notice that the plane was loaded with a lot of fuel. The nearby trees had server burning signs.
4. If the plane stalled (started to FALL towards the ground). Isn't it
weird the guys in the cockpit are saying DOWN, PUSH etc? If
anything, DOWN is where they would be heading already...
The plane flied smoothly from New Baltimore to Indian Lake. Fatal event was the one happened above the Indian Lake. If you read the transcript, please notice that:
10:02:40 Unintillegible, which lasted for 22 seconds. Then next lines are Arabic prayings. From our estimated timeline, flight 93 was above Indian Lake at this time. Please find the time stamp we obtained here (please notice that we did the calculation based on the initial speed provided by the board memeber. Find the "....engine...." line on the transcript. (no manipulation of any sort with the time stamp).
That's the reason I need commercial pilot to look through the transcript after overlay the events sequence.
Once those assumed events (based on ground debris) were lined up in sequence and given a reasonable estimated time stamp, they might enlight the CVR transcript. If it does'n't, the whole work is basically nonesense. We can simply trash it. If it does make a lot of sense and can help us understand what happened in the cockpit, then we are on the right track. Further, more professional studies are needed and we need hard data.
Last edited by SUPERMNNN; 14th Aug 2006 at 10:30.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New England
Age: 83
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FDR recording
SUPERMNNN,
(And any still following this thread)
You may want to look here:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm
and read the recently released report on Flight 93's FDR. Many recorder traces. Looks like both engines were running (and on the wing) till the end.
"Specialist's Factual Report of Investigation-Digital Flight Data Recorder" for United Airlines Flight 93, Feb. 15, 2002 [Chapter 1, The 9/11 Commission Report, "We Have Some Planes." Footnotes 70, 71]
(And any still following this thread)
You may want to look here:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm
and read the recently released report on Flight 93's FDR. Many recorder traces. Looks like both engines were running (and on the wing) till the end.
"Specialist's Factual Report of Investigation-Digital Flight Data Recorder" for United Airlines Flight 93, Feb. 15, 2002 [Chapter 1, The 9/11 Commission Report, "We Have Some Planes." Footnotes 70, 71]
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Kubarque
SUPERMNNN,
(And any still following this thread)
You may want to look here:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm
and read the recently released report on Flight 93's FDR. Many recorder traces. Looks like both engines were running (and on the wing) till the end.
"Specialist's Factual Report of Investigation-Digital Flight Data Recorder" for United Airlines Flight 93, Feb. 15, 2002 [Chapter 1, The 9/11 Commission Report, "We Have Some Planes." Footnotes 70, 71]
(And any still following this thread)
You may want to look here:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm
and read the recently released report on Flight 93's FDR. Many recorder traces. Looks like both engines were running (and on the wing) till the end.
"Specialist's Factual Report of Investigation-Digital Flight Data Recorder" for United Airlines Flight 93, Feb. 15, 2002 [Chapter 1, The 9/11 Commission Report, "We Have Some Planes." Footnotes 70, 71]