Whistleblower Reveals

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

I'll explain that for you.
NTSB = ATC transcripts = no captain's clock connection.
CVR = Voice recordings from the cockpit = with captain's clock connection.

Open both links in your browser, one beside the other.
A list of identical messages from the NTSB and the VCR transcripts can so be easily found :

NTSB-(NO CLOCK) - - - - CVR-(CLOCK)

09:31:55 - - - - - - - - - - 09:31:57-----> +2 sec diff.
UAL-93 : Ladies and gentlemen: Here the captain, please sit down keep remaining seating. We have a bomb on board. So sit.

09:32:05 - - - - - - - - - - 09:32:09-----> +4 sec diff.
ATC : Er, uh…Calling Cleveland Center…You're unreadable. Say again slowly.

09:39:10 - - - - - - - - - - 09:39:11-----> +1 sec diff.
UAL-93 : Ah. Here's the captain; I would like to tell you all to remain seated. We have a bomb aboard, and we are going back to the airport, and we have our demands. So, please remain quiet.

09:39:19 - - - - - - - - - - 09:39:21-----> +2 sec diff.
ATC : Okay. That's Ninety-Three calling?

09:39:24 - - - - - - - - - - 09:39:34-----> +10sec diff.
ATC : United Ninety-Three. I understand you have a bomb on board. Go ahead.

09:41:01 - - - - - - - - - - 09:41:05-----> + 4 sec diff.
ATC : United Ninety-Three, do you hear the Cleveland Center?

09:41:36 Cleveland center announces loss of transponder signal from UAL93.

All NTSB texts are coming from one ATC source in the 9 minutes NTSB time frame comparable to the 31 minutes CVR recording time frame; that source was Cleveland Center [ZOB 1333-1344 Lorain-R].

There are a few more NY ATC centers mentioned in the online NTSB transcript, but they all communicate with the plane's original pilots, before the CVR transcript starts, at 09:31:57. The CVR lasts only for about 30 minutes, since it is an endless looped, half hour recording.
The NTSB thought that those minutes were the most interesting ones in every plane crash to investigate, thus the chosen CVR recording time frame.
Every 30 minutes during every flight the CVR-tape started all over again in 2001.

Are you convinced now, weedwhacker?
By far not the three minutes = 180 seconds difference between a "captains-clocked" CVR taped airplane-event, versus a "non-captains-clocked" FAA ATC-agency report.

Just very small differences, apparently caused by interpretation differences of the ones who typed while listening to the tapes.
Hope you did not become like one of those stubborn types from JREF.
Nothing wrong in admitting you sometimes can make a mistake.

Only the NTSB transcript's last nine minutes are comparable to the CVR transcript, which CVR covers much more time after those last NTSB taped nine minutes, 3 times more, 31 minutes 11 seconds in total.

CVR audio tape covers 09:31:57 until 10:03:09, which is 31 minutes and 11 seconds. That tape starts right after the take-over and supposedly ended at impact.

SO, where are the remaining three CVR-minutes which the plane was still in the air, according to all other sources, Radar, those two ATC guys reported by Pilots for Truth, and the LDEO seismic event record, which had the flight all ended at 10:06:05 +/- 5 seconds.?

The ORIGINAL cockpit voice recording CVR should have given only 3 minutes last recorded audio sounds, then crash sounds, then 27 minutes nothing, no audio at all. Because the CVR should have started all over again at or around the 10:03:11 mark.

The NTSB their FDR-based ATC audio tapes cover 08:41:49 until 09:48:39, which is 67 minutes and 29 seconds, i.o.w., 1 hour, 7 minutes and 29 seconds.
The coincidence is, that the CVR covers only all hijacked time. No original pilots voices to compare to the ATC tapes....
Another coincidence, so we can't hear any differences which showed tape-tampering?

reply to post by LaBTop


I don't want to get into more round-about on this subject (the clocks) in this thread.

So...I will preface with this: The sorts of "investigations" being undertaken in the area of 9/11 amount to, mostly, a number of armchair 'researchers' who delve into a field that they had no previous knowledge of, and certainly have no long-standing levels of experience in.

THIS thread, for example, began with the pretense that a so-called "whistleblower" had been uncovered, allegedly to announce that the 9/11 airplanes were remote-controlled. THAT notion has been thoroughly discredited, by now...to even entertain such an incredibly stupid idea is beyond me, and why some people (the so-called 'whistleblower' --- AND his connection to that skunky outfit, which I will get in to briefly below) wish to promulgate these things, is also hard to understand. "15 minutes" of fame? ** Doesn't make sense.

**(PS)...Their '15 minutes' of ignominy are up....

What this dreck does do, though, is rile people up, and then 'everyone' becomes an 'expert'...seemingly overnight...and then go on to pontificate from behind a keyboard (also anonymously). It perpetuates myths, repeatedly.

Further, within the "hard-core" conspiracy believers, once their minds are thus set, they will resist ALL logical explanations showing their newly-found beliefs to be hogwash. These are the 'nitpickers' who, through a combination of misunderstandings of a field that is very complex, and a mixture of BAD 'information' that is passed around within the "Truth' community, overall...'information' that starts as someone's 'speculation', but due to the viral nature of the Internet, rapidly becomes a new 'truth' in the lexicon of "Truthers".


Those (few) of us on this Board, for example, have our OWN words thrown back at us, because of the different levels of comprehension, and the difficulty in conveying a lifetime of one's experience in a few short paragraphs, and having it be understood properly.


To wit, I must belabor the 'clock', if I may be indulged:

You used your authority...

No, stop right there! I have no 'authority' over anyone here, except myself. I (and others) use what experience and knowledge we have, and attempt to impart some of it, in order to clarify what is so frequently gotten wrong, especially in the aviation bits, as relates to 9/11.

.... to convince the readers that it was a common practice to mis-set that clock.

NO! No, no, no. No. That seems to by YOUR interpretation. See the minefield that is laid??

To re-iterate: The accuracy , to the second, of the Captain's clock is not a requirement for a safe flight!! We've had a century of aviation before the luxury of such accurate timekeeping we enjoy today....

You know what the ACARS is...IT is primary for Flight Following reporting, and OUT/IN to the parking ontime reporting requirements.

Before ACARS? Pilots DID use their own timepieces (and flights tended to be "ontime" a lot more, too!). BUT, a minute, here or there, is NOT a big deal, in normal operations...more important, perhaps, for International Ops, over-water, out of radar coverage where horizontal separation is maintained by airspeeds and time...but there's a great deal of safety margin built in, there. (In near future, Satellite ATC will be much more common, and allow MORE traffic, with tighter tolerances).

Now, this IS a bit egregious, on your part, and unwarranted...hyperbole, actually:

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?

See what you did, there? Totally without merit, and completely misses the point...as I've mentioned often.

Did I even bother to get into the OTHER aspects of who else sets the clocks?? What doyou think maintenance technicioans are for?? Just turning wrenches (spanners) and checking the oil?

Trying to keep it simple, earlier, and not cluttering your mind with the myriad OTHER aspects of such a trivial instrument (the clock) was a mistake, and led us down this merry path....

I'll tell you what we mostly use the clocks for --- the ELAPSED TIME function. If the minute hand isn't EXACTLY to the minute, mostly it just doesn't matter (because of ACARS, remember?). ELAPS. TIME is punched at start of takeoff...THAT is more useful, on the clock...also, the sweep-second hand...START/STOP stopwatch function..that too.

OK? See, I tried to limit the details, see where it got me?

One more, totally different area, but points to what I perceive to be a major problem in your 'researching'...one of the sources you rely on. You accused ME of using 'authority'; but that group you mentioned is the WORST at using, actually USING their implied 'perception' of authority and expertise, and GETTING IT WRONG just about every time.

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.

Frankly, I haven't looked into the AAL 77 clock issue...but now YOU have 'gone off the runway' and it's evident because you've dipped into their dreck, and either they (as is usually the case) don't explain these things properly...they ARE biased, and inept to boot...or you read, and draw incorrect, (from insufficient practical experience) conclusions.

The "position shift" seen in the AAL 77 DFDR takeoff track is COMMON for the IRS Navigation system. Again, lacking GPS updating, the IRS accumulates errors over time...if you knew HOW the machine operates, you'd understand better, but will take much more than a simple paragraph to teach you.

The inherent 'impreciseness' of IRS-only navigation, and its tnedency to accumulate small errors is NOT a factor in safety --- it is UNDERSTOOD, and accounted for. IRS as the ONLY source of navigation reference (un-enhanced, un-updated) is never considred as 'precise', but a 'gorss' navigational reference. This all, again --- applies to the days before GPS was so prevalent.

Now, THIS bit is snarky, and your bias shows:

Another "common practice" coincidence of 911?

I believe you're in a bit over your depth, and should try a new approach...take some time to go learn MORE about these things. Take some classes on the FMC, the IRS, how they integrate and work together, and how they are used (and when they are are NOT used, when they are non-essential).


I saw a lot more posts....in fact, this post I replied to is longer, and I ignored some of it....I hesitate to sully this thread, if they're just about the clock.

SO, the OP: Setting aside the rest, for now....because it's gone astray....with YOUR focus on the clock, and the times of impact, HOW do you think that relates to the "remote control theory"?

A trivial three-minute discrepancy, easily explained, is 'proof' of 'remote control' gone wrong? What is the consensus in "Truth' circles, hmm?



[edit on 21 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

Please, stop ranting, and trying to overflow us with useless technicalities.

You did not address my last post, not at all, and are trying to get a moderator to listen to your desperate call on authority (theirs, not yours btw), while you are dodging the overload of clear and simple evidence I laid before you, that the captain's clock was set CORRECTLY.

Of course you want to avoid anymore dispute about it, because you are clearly wrong, there is no difference of any importance between the captain's clock connected transcripts and the outside clocks connected transcripts.

THERE WAS NO 3 MINUTES, NO 180 SECONDS wrongly set captain's clock.
Both the maintenance mechanics, the pilot and the co-pilot performed that task PERFECTLY.
Proved by that post of mine above. All time stamps are synchronized perfectly within the human interpretation factor boundaries. A few seconds misinterpretation of human transcribers are insignificant, and you know it.

Come on, don't keep trying to belittle me, admit you were wrong.
And you knew it already from the last page, where you already tried to dodge the same problem by trying to get a moderator in to get you off the "captains" hook.

Thus, your whole private theory to try to dodge the fact that the 911 Commission and NORAD (the ones who ought to defend our countries, and we should expect them to be HONEST) both still hold on to a clearly wrong crash time; is proved wrong.

And my red bolded text above does address the crux of the matter.
Why was there a need to frantically hold on to a clearly fake crash time?
Because the plane was taken over in those last three minutes by remote control, to assure that especially that plane, which was taken back by the passengers, would not survive to let the cat out of the bag.

Address the facts I laid before you, and try to ad some more sources than usual, to your rebuttals.

And while you're at it, try to explain to me that quick "rebuttal" of Viola Saylor's filmed witness report, where you and/or 767doctor put her aside as an unreliable witness who can easily been mistaken in her observations.

While the only remark from her which I use to show you all how wrong and thus FALSE the FDR of flight 93 is, depends on her reporting of the height of the plane above the Maple tree in her back garden in Lambertsville.
A very simple and easy to remember observation. Especially when she vividly remembers the leafs at the top been disturbed by the jet engine exhaust gases.

That flight 93 very low, flying-height is co-opted by several other reliable witnesses as I showed you in the last pages' links.
That near tree top height does not even faintly compare to the NTSB reported flight 93 height at that spot on Google Earth, the roads junction in Lambertsville :

LaBTop posted on 2/1/09 @ 18:46 :
We now look at the newly found moment of crossing of the plane above Viola's house, that's 16 seconds before the 10:03:07 impact position, which is 10:02:52.
We note the air speed and height above sea level readings in the Italian NTSB animation.
We register 383 knots speed, and 6733 ft above sea level, which is (minus 2182 feet) 4551 ft above local ground level (x 0.3048) is 1387 meter above Lambertsville junction's ground level, even higher than we first assumed.
That NTSB plane flew 1387 meters above Viola, while she insists it flew just above her, not more than 30 to 40 meters.

And nobody feels the need anymore to react on such blatantly falsified data from official sources ??? Are you all really so numbed down, that you let the greatest con-job in history pass by, without a glimmer of hope to DO something about it?

Maple-tree top height does NOT AT ALL fit into NTSB's 1387 meter height.
PERIOD.

See this post of mine for the 1387 meter NTSB given height of Flight 93 above Viola's house position in Lambertsville.

I invite you or anybody else to try to prove me wrong on that post or the others on that page.

Don't come up with 'simple-Simon' solutions like character killing of the witness Viola Saylor.
She looks and acts as my grandmother, and I used to have great trust in her judgment of affairs.

By the way, when I still had the joy of my grandparents company, their house was still lit by gas lights, with those fine white burning gas sockets in the lantern lights. No electricity then. Only a gas line between the houses, and the quiet streets were lit by gas lanterns too. If you remember the soft sizzling sound of the burning gas, you're of my age.
So, do not get fooled by my avatar, it's more the other way round, regarding my present-day age. But it does reflect my everyday state of mind.

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

When you, the reader, are interested in this UA93 false FDR and CVR subject, you can read a lot more in my posts in the above thread.
And follow and read all links provided in here and there, it will strengthen the case for falsified data for flight 93 flying over the road junction in Lambertsville in the direction of Shanksville.

The following interview discusses the details of this test which was performed prior to September 11, 2001, the violations of FAA regulations and the possibilities using such technology.

With all of the possible avenues for this to go it remains that the heart of this thread is, stating the Fed lied outright, with malice and fraudulent intent designed to deceive the America public regarding the true outcome of this flight.
The remote controlled aircraft issue was a big one because it was proven a lie from the get go. Look at our current based Predator & Drone capabilities then do a little looking into how that remote control technology came into being.
It was from the research performed on airliners of that type by the government.

reply to post by mikelee


mikelee, this is blatantly wrong, and you know it. Dropping by, and leaving this smelly mess behind - "pigeon style" - isn't a very attractive tactic to use.

Look at our current based Predator & Drone capabilities then do a little looking into how that remote control technology came into being.

Yes!! I think people should!!

because then they wilol see what a load of # this is:

It was from the research performed on airliners of that type by the government.

Ding! Drive-by pooping alert!

SHOW the documentation and sources for this "research performed on airliners of that type" that you so valiantly claim to be true.

Else, you are just flapping your lips....and spreading disinformation.

reply to post by LaBTop


I have told you, you are skewing together your material, and it is causing you some confusion...dig deeper, get the longer-term CSV data from United 93's DFDR, to include the time from gate departure in Newark, and co-ordinate the time references on THAT to the ATC time stamp references from Newark Ground Control and Local Control transmissions.

But, firstly...this:

....interested in this UA93 false FDR and CVR subject....

I noticed you completely ignored my request to PROVE just how, by example or scientific discussion, it was possible to "falsify" so much digital data from the DFDR....AND, how the CVR recording was also "falsified".

I will invite you to research into how CVR listening sessions are set up, and the procedures involved. They are quite regimented, and formal.

SO, explain HOW these things could be "falsified". Opinions such as this can be tossed about with impunity, but it is the proof of such allegations that matter most.

Unfortunately, the ENTIRE topic of so-called "9/11 Truth" relies very heavily on innuendo, allegations and wild opinions, and is woefully absent any proofs, and relevant facts regarding many of the technical aspects so cavalierly tossed out.

[edit on 8 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Its only a weed if you don't like it in your garden. Calling it whatever you wish does not diminish the facts.

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Its only a weed if you don't like it in your garden. Calling it whatever you wish does not diminish the facts.

What facts?

On one hand you have the hearsay of "Wayne Anderson", who says he saw a guy at Dalfort Aerospace rewire a transponder to talk to the autopilot.

On the other hand you have the technical specifications as to how that is not possible to do.

Incidently, I looked up Dalfort Aerospace, it seems they closed down a few years ago. What's interesting however, is that they never seemed to serve neither the 757 or the 767 airframe in the first place. So I wonder how David Prentice was able to tinker around with a 757/767 cockpit in the first place, let alone take one up in the air and fiddle around with its controls. Not to mention, how was the airlines own mechanics (the number of private 757/767's 2001 was not exactly impressive) not able to spot that the cockpit had been tampered with?

reply to post by mikelee


mikelee, what "facts"?

Sorry, but you only leave a vague statement 'claiming' something, but offer no back up as proof.

Even IF we can (for sake of argument) agree that in some way, some how, four airplanes were rigged and equipped for "remote control"....an incredibly impausible concept, but I'll play along for a moment....it looks to me that your theory relies on the autopilot to effectuate the control movements?

Setting aside the many words I've already written, elsewhere, about the nature of the autopilot, its servos, and their limitations (they simply cannot move the controls in the manner seen; only can be done by actual, physical human manipulation), the two surviviing DFDRs clearly show that the A/Ps were OFF; disengaged; not operating; for the last few minutes of both AAL 77 and UAL 93. No surviving DFDR info exists from the other two, but one can assume them to be similar, at least in that case.

**Also, for a true "remote control" capability to exist, there has to be some sort of camera to give the "pilot" on the ground a perspective view...actually, in real life we use a lot of our peripheral vision too, so that is a limitng factor, the camera concept....**

A deeper understanding of the specifics of the systems is beyond the scope of a single post, here. The way the A/Ps are programmed involves layers of complexity....the most basic mode is referred to as "Control Wheel Steering" (CWS)....this is a sort of attitude control only mode, where the pilot moves the controls to change pitch or roll attitude, and the A/P dudtifully tries to maintain that new attitude. More layers involve the "higher brain functions", as it integrates with the other systems, and is programmed for altitude hold, capture, lateral tracking, etc, etc.

WHEN (in the normal world) the A/P is programmed with its "higher brain" functions (via the Mode Control Panel inputs...the MCP) a bit of excessive manipulation of the control wheel itself, physically be a human, will cause the "higher' programmed functions to drop out, down to the more basic state of CWS...continued movements, by humans intervention, beyond certain limits (especially in PITCH) will trigger a complete A/P disconnect signal.

You can see the UAL 93 DFDR information, as the terrorist hijackers were manipulating the controls to attempt to thwart the passengers' ongoing revolt.

The center A/P remains engaged (per the DFDR info) as the airplne rolls left, right, left....BUT, when the hijacker begins to PITCH (he is hoping, here at this point in the flight, to use the principle of momentum, and how the forces of an airplane in forward flight can be used, to simulate various 'G' forces)...**look at the NASA method of simulating 'zero G' in the "Vomit Comet", for comparison and understanding**... when he moves the column to significantly alter the PITCH, the A/P does kick off completely, at that point.

It takes ME many, many words to describe what I know from experience, and what can be demonstrated (in a different venue) very simply by example. It is more difficult to describe, than to demonstrate....to help those who have no personal experience to understand.

~~
I may be accused by others of using the "appeal to authority" tactic, here, in my writings. BUT, how else do you learn, if not from someone who actually has the experience and knowledge?

This topic of "remote control by autopilot" reminds me of a story from many years ago...an actual event I witnessed. I thought about spending a lot of space and energy writing it; even started to...but it would merely be a trip down memory lane, and nothing more, so I stopped.

Gist is...I try to express, to the best of my ability, what I know from my experiences and knowledge base. It is all I can do. When I read some things by others, they sometimes strike me as "off", and I recognize them as a layperson's misunderstanding, usually -- due to a lack of actual experience with all the technical detaisl, and nature of the topic sometimes.


To put it simply....there is NOT a "remote control" system in existence that cold not be over-powered by a human, at the controls, exerting his/her will and dominance and authority.

Period.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Wayne reveals his observations of a remote guidance test on a Boeing 757 in which technology was used to control the aircraft remotely, while also being able to "Lockout" the Flight Crew from overriding the autopilot system in order to regain control of the airplane.

Deal with it or get over it. Its that easy.

reply to post by mikelee


Laugh out loud!!!!!

IF you really sink your "faith" into this nonsense...then by all means, go ahead.

I can only laugh at your post, and the person you quote...to say that an autopilot could NOT be counter-acted by Human intervention???

It's...well, only way to describe is...It''s Nonsense!

I've offerred up a lot of reasons why....please review my other posts on this topic, for perspective...

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Laugh out loud!!!!!

IF you really sink your "faith" into this nonsense...then by all means, go ahead.

I can only laugh at your post, and the person you quote...to say that an autopilot could NOT be counter-acted by Human intervention???

It's...well, only way to describe is...It''s Nonsense!.

How would you know it's nonsense?

Are you an avionics technician with access to classified military technology?

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Laugh out loud!!!!!

IF you really sink your "faith" into this nonsense...then by all means, go ahead.

I can only laugh at your post, and the person you quote...to say that an autopilot could NOT be counter-acted by Human intervention???

It's...well, only way to describe is...It''s Nonsense!.

How would you know it's nonsense?

Are you an avionics technician with access to classified military technology?

First of all, here's a technical account on how it is not possible to remote control a 757/767 type aircraft, wtithout the pilot/pilots having a way to regain control: www.911myths.com...

And second, if it's classified military technology, how did a couple of mechanics at an MRO get their hand on it?

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Are you an avionics technician with access to classified military technology?

Probably a Boeing line pilot with access to the MCP, CB, and the overhead panel.

Edit:

www.911myths.com...

...

To me, the 757/767 is simply the worst choice as a "robojet", unless you completely redesigned the plane.

I agree, referring to Boeing philosophy of the time.

[edit on 11-7-2010 by Ivar_Karlsen]

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Are you an avionics technician with access to classified military technology?

No.

YOU know very, very well WHO I AM.

Your game is being splayed out for all to see...and it will eventually be shown.

The ("implied") insult is obvious, too...and adds to the evidence as to your true nature, and (as I suspect) your true idendity. Of which, I have alluded already.....

I think that ATS member 767Doctor will also be laughing at this pathetic attempt to impugn crediblity.

Perhaps he/she will some day stumble across this theread, and read this, and giggle...or be incensed. Not sure.

ONLY THING I AM SURE OF IS....I have only ONE ATS screenname. EVER!!!

I have NEVER, EVER EVER created a fake "sock" screenname, because I have NEVER, EVER, EVER been banned from this site.

My history here will show this to be true.

I have NO NEED to create an "alter-ego" in order to perpetuate a myth...for I do not perpetuate myths.

UNLIKE a few others who seem to be pathological liars, to a great extent.....








[edit on 11 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker

I have NO NEED to create an "alter-ego" in order to perpetuate a myth...for I do not perpetuate myths.

At least your one of the few who say that aloud about the official story. Good for you.

I love the people who claim this is all bunk.... seriously, what do you think a predator drone is? Its a remote controlled aircraft.

Originally posted by MrWendal
I love the people who claim this is all bunk.... seriously, what do you think a predator drone is? Its a remote controlled aircraft.

Designed to act as one.

Passenger jetliners is an entirely different ballgame.