AWACS crew member says Flight 93 shot down

reply to post by REMISNE


We have the facts.

WHY do people keep ignoring the FDRs??? AND, in case of UA 93, also the intact CVR!!

AND the readily available ATC tapes, not only voice transmissions, but radar recordings too!!

WHY is this evidence, and these facts, ignored in favor of increasingly outrageous "conspoiracy" theories??

Originally posted by weedwhacker
We have the facts.

WHY do people keep ignoring the FDRs??? AND, in case of UA 93, also the intact CVR!!

Because you have no FBI reports matching the FDRs to the plane by serial numbers.

AND the readily available ATC tapes, not only voice transmissions, but radar recordings too!!

Except for the tapes that were destroyed.

WHY is this evidence, and these facts, ignored in favor of increasingly outrageous "conspoiracy" theories??

\

Becasue they are not really facts and evidence they are the THEORIES.

reply to post by REMISNE

Because you have no FBI reports matching the FDRs to the plane by serial numbers.

Please provide proof of that assertion.

Let me ask a simple question: Since there WERE an FDR and CVR found at the crash site in Shanksville, then where do the various "TM" folks think they came from??? (This "serial number" nonsense is getting old...)

Because, the "TM" have to be able to hand-wave away that evidence...yet they FAIL, and have to resort to the tired refrain of "S/N"s.

The Recorders were found there --- they match perfectly (one thing off, was the time reference, BECAUSE it is derived from the Captain's clock, onboard...AND if he mis-set his clock by a mere few minutes, or if he didn't bother to RESET it because it was "close enough" then that explains any couple of minute's disccrepancy, between ATC tapes time hacks, and FDR time hacks.

We pilots ALL wear wristwatches...we do NOT need to rely on the onboard clocks. SO, if he looked down and saw his clock close within a couple of minutes, he might not have bothered to set it, because it is a bit time-consuming to do so (no pun).

AS TO the ATC tapes, you replied:

Except for the tapes that were destroyed.

Another incomplete, and distracting, tactic. An example of the MANY red herrings out there....

The ONLY tapes that were destroyed were those made, of the ATC personnel involved, in after-the-event interviews.

I think YOU know that, and are being intellectually dishonest, on purpose.

THOSE interview tapes were destroyed to PROTECT the ATC personnel involved...the recordings were thought to leave them open to liability in that they MAY have not followed EVERY perfect and proper ATC procedure, in the hectic confusion of events.

The recorded interviews were replaced with WRITTEN statements, again to protect the employees from possible FAA action AFTER THE FACT!!!

reply to post by weedwhacker

The Recorders were found there --- they match perfectly

Please provide proof or a link to a source where this has been verified.

reply to post by mikelee


One recorder found at the site of a single plane crash. That is a perfect match. One plane, One recorder.

reply to post by hooper


OK since you want to step up. Prove it matches the plane then.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Please provide proof of that assertion.

Even a pilot should know that FDRs have serial and other numbers that are recorded when they are installed in planes. If you tried to use the FDR data from the 9/11 planes in court it would be kicked out becaue you do not have the proper sources for the FDRs.

UNLESS YOU CAN SHOW THE SERIAL NUMBERS THAT MATCH THE FDRs TO THE PLANES YOU MUST STOP CLAIMING THEM AS PROOF.

reply to post by mikelee

Prove it matches the plane then.

"mike". since you're talking about United Airlines 93, we not only have the FDR (Flight Data Recorder) but also a CVR (Cockpit Voice Recorder) that were both able to be "read out"

Let's compare, for moment, to the other three ariplanes involved in the hijacking terrorist attacks of 9/11....

It is hardly surprising that the four recordes fromthe two airpalnes in NYC (AA 11 and UA 175) were not recoverable, given that they MAY have been readable, had not the Towers collapsed, and NO ONE EVER designed those machines to withstand that sort of event!!!!

So, let's toss those out of THIS discussion, as this is abut UA 93 anyways...

BUT, before we go to that, let's look at AA 77, the flight that impacted the Pentagon. Again, knowing about the technology involved helps....like UA 93, AA 77 was installed a CVR (Cockpit Voice Recorder) that used magnetic tape to record, in a continuous loop design (much like, for those old enough to remember, the way '8-Track" tape cartridges worked...)

More modern versions of the CVR, as installed, used solid-state digital tech...BUT, per FAA requirements, the older design (IE, the magnetic analog tapes) is OK, and need not be retrofitted. It is in NEW airplanes, when built, that the 'better' and more advanced tech is installed.

(Bet ya didn't know that!) Please look up the FAA regulations, involving such devices, it is eye-opening....check with the compliance requirements...

ANYWAY....just to compare, the crash of AA 77 at the Pentagon resulted in a greater fire than UA 93 in Shanksville. AA 77's FDR survided, as a solid-state device, to be readable....its CVR was severely damaged, in the intense fire.

UA 93, because of the sort of impact it sustained, did NOT subject the Recorders to intense sustained fire exposure. THEY merely worked as designed, to withstand extreme G-loads on impact, to protect the internal data.

(AA 77's FDR ALSO worked as designed, since it happened to end up, in the accident sequence, in an area that did NOT subject it to as much, or not as intense, a fire as the CVR was subjected to. Accident scenarios are always chaotic, and the distribution of every onboard component cannot be predicted before hand, at least not with the techonology we have in this century!!! THAT is why these silly "conspiracy" theories crop up...because the loaypeople out there think it should be so cut-and-dried...)

EVERY high-speed, high-energy impact is going to be different!!! Just sit down, stop, and think about it for a minute or two!!! It should start to make sense, then.


OK...if you have beared with me, so far, that was background to explain my point, in order to answer your question, about "proof"....of the FDR (and, as it turns out, the CVR) of United Airlines 93 matches that airplane....

"mike". I know those airplanes, since I have flown them. I have looked at the NTSB FDR readouts, available online, and I have linked them again and again.

NOTHING in them looks wrong, to me. I KNOW what went on, at least I can piece it together, as the investigators did, based onthe FACTS of the FDR and CVR!!!

I can see the difference, between, for instance, how the real pilots operated the autopilot system (let's call it the autoflight system...) and then how it was operated AFTER the hijacking!

I have said this in multiple threads, perhaps my knowledge and expertise is ignored, I don't know....

BUT, not ONLY do we have the FDR and CVR, we ALSO have the ATC recordings that match!!!

(Again, lest this red herring crop up once more....the onboard time as recorged by the FDR on UA 93 is based (back then, before GPS) on the setins of the Captain's clock. The Capt's clock sends its info to the ADC, the FDR (and CVR) get their time input from the ADC).

"ADC" - 'Air Data Computer'

Perhaps I should explain more....

In 2001 GPS-enhanced navigation was not yet common....it was expensive to implement, and slow for every airline to buy into. (GPS, of course, would have a univeral time coding, so the clocks, at least for the ADC, would be automatically set, based on the GPS signal...as is prety standard NOW...)

BUT, in 2001, EVERY airline had, in their fleet, even within certain types, those airplanes that stayed DOMESTIC, and those that were equipped and certifed for what we call 'Extended Over-Water' flights...and thusly, could be dispatched on International routes that required extended over-water ops...SO, the onboard navigation equipment (and other equipment) requirements were different, depending on the certification abilites. AND differnt airplanes were designated as "domestic only", and so forth...

Sorry to have to go into such detail, but it is necessary, apparently.

Here's a piece of info to chew on....Continental Airlines currently operates a fleet of about a dozen (or is it fifteen? I've lost count) Boeing 757-300s.

They complement the other fleet of about 30 B-757-200s, B-767-200 and B-767-400s. (Actually, more than 30, I have to check, it's been a while...)

Reason I bring this up, is....the B-757-300s were acquired, from Boeing, at a fairly 'discounted' price, because they were what is knonw as "white-tails"....in other words, some other airline (we were never told who) ordered them, and defaulted...BUT they were built, or in stages of production....and Boeing wished to sell them....

What is my point here??

Simple....Continental bought those B-757-300s, at bargain-basement prices, but they were MISSING certain features that normaly would have been orderd, by an airline that intended to operate them over-water....and modifying them after being built would be too expensive, SO they were designated for Doimestic only...(Hint: They lack the 'RAT' (Ram Air Turbine) and certain electrical system enhancements required for what we call "ETOPS" -- 'Extended Twin-Engine Overwater OPerations')

So, you see... I know a lot about these airplanes.

I have seen the NTSB FDR readouts, and have seen the CVR transcripts and have seen and heard some of the ATC recordings and transcripts that apply to UA 93....it ALL FITS TOGETHER!!!

The only people who are unable to see how it all fits together are those who cannot see the big picture....

reply to post by REMISNE


"REMISNE"

Why do [I] have to show those S/Ns????


Let me try another tack....

...because this is a refrain that is increasingly tiresome....


The "TM" is 'concerned' because the "FBI" (or whichever Gov't agency they wish to accuse) hasn't 'relaesed' the S/Ns, and ALL of the appropriate paperwork/computer records formthe Airline, the FAA, the FDR manufacturer, etc, etc....

YET...and stay with me here, please...the IMPICATION made by these same TM people is that the FDR data is somehow "faked" (gasp!!!)

Dontcha think, and please put your logic hats on......

IF this is entirely "faked"??? Dontcha think "they" could have come up with the silly "S/N"s that y'all clamour for????

"They" could have "faked" those as well, as much as the REST of it, as claimed by the 'conspiracy theory" proponents....


Sit down. Breathe deep. Stop, and think......


Of course, if, even IF, there were S/Ns, this madness would not end.....

Originally posted by mikelee
First Dom Rumsfeld said it and now this. I believe it is now clear (at least in my opinion) that this re-confirms what I have been saying all along that flight 93 was shot down.

No other on ATS will stand in my opinion, as to the fate of flight 93.


AWAC crew video w/ BBC



[edit on 28-1-2010 by mikelee]

Crazy I see this now but...... I remember leaving NYC on sep 10th , many hours later I remember seeing an AWACS flying in S.Jersey but what I found odd is that it has two white F16's behind it; I've always wondered about that and now I see this. ODD

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Why do [I] have to show those S/Ns????

Maybe becasue 9/11 is a criminal investigation.

Simple question,

Do you have the proper sources matching the FDR to the plane, YES or NO?

reply to post by mikelee


MY GOD!!!! mike!!!!!

I have offered this link dozens of times!!!!!

www.ntsb.gov...

THERE!!!!

Now, please, oh please keep asking for it!

Thanks in advance....

reply to post by REMISNE

Maybe becasue 9/11 is a criminal investigation.

Didn't you just answer your own question????

reply to post by skyknight

I remember leaving NYC on sep 10th , many hours later I remember seeing an AWACS flying in S.Jersey but what I found odd is that it has two white F16's behind it; I've always wondered about that and now I see this. ODD

I'm sorry...WHO ARE YOU????

Let's see what you wrote....you "remember" leaving "NYC" on September 10th (I assume, from context, you imply the year 2001???)

So....YOU left 'NYC' on Sept 10th (assumed 2001)....what, on a bus? A train???

Oh wait...YOU, some anonymous poster, also adds these nuggets: "Many hours later I saw an AWACS flying in S. Jersey but what I found odd is that it has two white F16's (sic) behind it;"

Oh, DO PLEASE GOI ON!!!!! We can't wait to hear more....!!!! (sarcasm)....

AND if the rest of you can't understand the sarcasm, then there is no way I can try to explain it to you, fo you are likely lostin the "conspiracy" baloney....woo, woo.....

AGAIN, before this gets lost in translation, the poster said, after leaving NYC...MANY HOURS LATER...he saw the AWACS and F-16's (sic)...ALL ON SEPTEMBER 10th!!!!!

OK??? With me so far????


Nice try at innunedo....no cigar, sorry..........

WHAT vehicle were yhou in, poster? WHY so 'many' hours out of NYC, in which direction, and HOW did you recognize an AWACS and TWO (count them) TWO 'white' f-16's (sic) in trail?????

Really, you need to tell us more....(chin on hand, in anticipation.....).....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by skyknight

 

I remember leaving NYC on sep 10th , many hours later I remember seeing an AWACS flying in S.Jersey but what I found odd is that it has two white F16's behind it; I've always wondered about that and now I see this. ODD

I'm sorry...WHO ARE YOU????

Let's see what you wrote....you "remember" leaving "NYC" on September 10th (I assume, from context, you imply the year 2001???)

So....YOU left 'NYC' on Sept 10th (assumed 2001)....what, on a bus? A train???

Oh wait...YOU, some anonymous poster, also adds these nuggets: "Many hours later I saw an AWACS flying in S. Jersey but what I found odd is that it has two white F16's (sic) behind it;"

Oh, DO PLEASE GOI ON!!!!! We can't wait to hear more....!!!! (sarcasm)....

AND if the rest of you can't understand the sarcasm, then there is no way I can try to explain it to you, fo you are likely lostin the "conspiracy" baloney....woo, woo.....

AGAIN, before this gets lost in translation, the poster said, after leaving NYC...MANY HOURS LATER...he saw the AWACS and F-16's (sic)...ALL ON SEPTEMBER 10th!!!!!

OK??? With me so far????


Nice try at innunedo....no cigar, sorry..........

WHAT vehicle were yhou in, poster? WHY so 'many' hours out of NYC, in which direction, and HOW did you recognize an AWACS and TWO (count them) TWO 'white' f-16's (sic) in trail?????

Really, you need to tell us more....(chin on hand, in anticipation.....).....

lol , yes I was leaving NYC driving down to FL ( in my car ) something which at he time I would do sometimes 3-5 times a month! I guess I should had also added that I know my way around usaf plans very well thus why I found it odd that I would see two white f16's! I do remember looking for the double seats which would make it a trainer and it was not.Yes I know of McGuire not too far from where I was but that combo of plans just looked out of place at the time for someone thats made that trip maybe 100 times ( thats an actual number , maybe less maybe more ) and I've also been on that base just a few years before ! This is just one of those things that you always have in the back of your mind but you never hear anything about it so I really haven't even thought much about it until seeing this thread . In person I do not speak about this and other things to anyone because of the negative views people have on this subject matter. I also own a small business so I always keep my views to myself. I'm not sure of what I saw means ( if anything ) but I've studied pans and flight as well as being around military plans so something like this stay with you.
I should also state that my childhood dream was to become a fighter pilot but have to ware corrective leans made me settle to study other aspects of planes and flight-I'm no expert on this field but I sure know my way around.


Also it took me I think like 5 hours to get to the lower part of jersey because of two accidents I stopped at one point at a service area for maybe an hour.




[edit on 9-2-2010 by skyknight]

reply to post by skyknight


So, for the rest of the audience, let me get this straight...

DRIVING down I-95???

Is that correct.??

ON September 10,2001? Is THAT correect??

Does the vehicle you were driving in have a sunroof???

I ask because just HOW did you see the AWACS and two "white F-16s 'following'???

Where were yoo when you "saw' this action, and WHY and HOW can you be sureeit was an AWACS, and two F-16s, IF YOU WERE ON THE GROUND????

Let me re-phrase,,,,,HOW FAST were all three airplanes traveling, in your estiimation, at the time you saw them, and HOW did you ascertain that it was an AWACS, and two F-16s....and just WHERE were you, on your trip down to Florida, anyway???

Do you understand???

Exact data is required, else your statements are just more bogus stuff to cloud the facts....

reply to post by skyknight

I should also state that my childhood dream was to become a fighter pilot but have to ware corrective leans made me settle to study other aspects of planes and flight-I'm no expert on this field but I sure know my way around.

I'm sorry, I did NOT mean to be harsh.

I had a long career as a pilot, even though I had to wear corretve lenses, so don't let thet get you down.

Depends on your uncorrected acuity....usually 20/70 is the limit, as long as it's correctable, by galsses or contacts, to 20/20 or better....but don't get discouraged....


'

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by skyknight

 

So, for the rest of the audience, let me get this straight...

DRIVING down I-95???

Is that correct.??

ON September 10,2001? Is THAT correect??

Does the vehicle you were driving in have a sunroof???

I ask because just HOW did you see the AWACS and two "white F-16s 'following'???

Where were yoo when you "saw' this action, and WHY and HOW can you be sureeit was an AWACS, and two F-16s, IF YOU WERE ON THE GROUND????

Let me re-phrase,,,,,HOW FAST were all three airplanes traveling, in your estiimation, at the time you saw them, and HOW did you ascertain that it was an AWACS, and two F-16s....and just WHERE were you, on your trip down to Florida, anyway???

Do you understand???

Exact data is required, else your statements are just more bogus stuff to cloud the facts....

Great questions thanks for asking

First let me say that this whole 911 thing is NOT MY thing just something which lately I've been looking into! My "thing" if you will is actually ufo's - keep in mind since a child I've had questions about the sky for my own good reasons . Now ,I've stood outside MANY communication and tracking type USAF planes many times so yes I do know how they look from the bottom VERY well as well as seeing them in flight many times . I also have a first hand eyes on and hands on with f16s as I've been around them and IN them ( actually I was taken up a few times in a trainer so I know well how those look) .
Remember when I said it was taking long because of traffic ? Well when I saw the plans I was not moving so yeah the only thing I do when I'm NOT moving is look to the sky. I would say that the planes may have been doing 200mph , to me it seemed more as-if they where doing some runs as-in training yet the f16 where NOT trainers as I know them. I say they where doing training only because they did not appear to be going towards the base . Now thinking about it it appears the had come from over the water and at the point I see them they're banking south/west almost as-if returning back to the Atlantic.

[edit on 9-2-2010 by skyknight]

[edit on 9-2-2010 by skyknight]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by skyknight

 

I should also state that my childhood dream was to become a fighter pilot but have to ware corrective leans made me settle to study other aspects of planes and flight-I'm no expert on this field but I sure know my way around.

I'm sorry, I did NOT mean to be harsh.

I had a long career as a pilot, even though I had to wear corretve lenses, so don't let thet get you down.

Depends on your uncorrected acuity....usually 20/70 is the limit, as long as it's correctable, by galsses or contacts, to 20/20 or better....but don't get discouraged....


'

Actually I was more of the crazy type and wanted the excitement , I ended up doing something a lot more hands on and grounded . I no longer have that want to fly , I also had lots of other issues due to my choice of fields back then.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Didn't you just answer your own question????

Let me make this as clear as i can.

If you do not have the proper numbers to match the FDR to the plane then it is not evidence, in fact it woul be thrown out of court for not being proper evidence.