ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags UAL93

Reply
Old 28th May 2012, 04:30 PM   #1
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
UAL93 Encounter With PIT

I thought some of you might find this screen capture of PIT's local radar (ASR-9) interesting. It runs from 1345 - 1358 UTC. UAL93 is tagged N123 prior to encounter and then proceeds on as an untagged primary target.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Of course it is untagged after the encounter because it was the FAA's finest hour. The air traffic controllers ran for the hills and nobody was left in the tower to re-tag it.

YouTube quality really stinks, so here is a GIF version that might be a little better.

PIT GIF

Here is the audio for the PIT Arrival North position from 1339 - 1403 (UTC).

PIT Arrival North
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM

Last edited by BCR; 28th May 2012 at 04:52 PM. Reason: Add GIF and mp3
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2012, 04:38 PM   #2
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,725
If I'm to understand correctly, the Green lines are flight planned aircraft with specific squawk codes, the purple are 1200 squawk G.A aircraft, the red is primary radar?
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88
cjnewson88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2012, 04:42 PM   #3
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Your guess is as good as mine on that one. I think you have it right, except that the green are targets that have been tagged with identifiers, either by the transponder or ATC. The N123 for UAL93 was added by ATC since at that time it was a primary target.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2012, 04:48 PM   #4
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,725
Oh right, if it's primary track was tagged, why did it un-tag and continue as an unknown target? Did it drop off the primary radar for a few seconds and cause it's target to un-tag itself?
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88
cjnewson88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2012, 04:54 PM   #5
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
Oh right, if it's primary track was tagged, why did it un-tag and continue as an unknown target? Did it drop off the primary radar for a few seconds and cause it's target to un-tag itself?
It went over the "top" of the ASR-9, so it was not tracked for a short time. When it re-emerged, there was no ATC to tag it again. They were running for the hills

PIT Arrival North audio
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2012, 04:58 PM   #6
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,725
They evacuated?? That's embarrassing...
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88
cjnewson88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2012, 06:18 PM   #7
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Of course we are laughing about this now, but at the time (1355) there was a commercial aircraft, CHQ4334 (Chautauqua Airlines) on approach and descending. Crossing it's flight path was another plane, N8222N holding at 9,000 feet. Looks like they had to take some serious evasive action (although they were still a few thousand feet apart in altitude).

Was not a smart move leaving hundreds of lives hanging in the balance like that.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2012, 06:58 PM   #8
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,513
Originally Posted by BCR View Post
I thought some of you might find this screen capture of PIT's local radar (ASR-9) interesting. It runs from 1345 - 1358 UTC. UAL93 is tagged N123 prior to encounter and then proceeds on as an untagged primary target.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Of course it is untagged after the encounter because it was the FAA's finest hour. The air traffic controllers ran for the hills and nobody was left in the tower to re-tag it.

YouTube quality really stinks, so here is a GIF version that might be a little better.

PIT GIF

Here is the audio for the PIT Arrival North position from 1339 - 1403 (UTC).

PIT Arrival North
I know nothing about flying, but isn't it "PGH", not "PIT"?
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2012, 07:02 PM   #9
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I know nothing about flying, but isn't it "PGH", not "PIT"?
Something you have to ask the FAA. It is the designation they gave the records.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2012, 07:12 PM   #10
EventHorizon
Atheist Tergiversator
 
EventHorizon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,103
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I know nothing about flying, but isn't it "PGH", not "PIT"?
It's PIT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsbu...tional_Airport
__________________
"One of the hardest parts of being an active skeptic - of anything - is knowing when to cut your losses, and then doing so."
-Phil Plait
EventHorizon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2012, 10:10 PM   #11
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 16,775
Are you saying there was a Pittsburgh stand-down??!?!!!?!?!?

This could unravel the whole plot! Where did those orders come from? Allentown, Hershey, or Scranton could be implicated. The trail might even lead all the way back to Harrisburg!
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2012, 04:49 AM   #12
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,513
Originally Posted by EventHorizon View Post
Well, pardon me! I lived there for eight years, and I'm sure I knew the call letters at that time (since I flew in and out regularly), but obviously I've misremembered.

I wonder where I got the silly idea it's PGH. Just confusing the common abbreviation for the city with the airport, I guess.

Thanks for the correction. Though, frankly, I'd rather it hadn't come from a Rangers fan. Bah.

Last edited by phiwum; 29th May 2012 at 04:50 AM. Reason: Added caveat
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2012, 06:05 AM   #13
swright777
Muse
 
swright777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 897
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Well, pardon me! I lived there for eight years, and I'm sure I knew the call letters at that time (since I flew in and out regularly), but obviously I've misremembered.

I wonder where I got the silly idea it's PGH. Just confusing the common abbreviation for the city with the airport, I guess.

Thanks for the correction. Though, frankly, I'd rather it hadn't come from a Rangers fan. Bah.
Harrisburg used to be HIA, but it changed to MDT (Middletown) sometime since 1985. Maybe there was a general update. The airport is in the same place. Only the call letters changed.

Either that, or I misremembered as well.
swright777 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2012, 05:17 PM   #14
Cheap Shot
Critical Thinker
 
Cheap Shot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 386
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
They evacuated?? That's embarrassing...
A lot of ATC facilities evidently evacuated that day, we did at Boston Center when we were advised that a B757 was going to crash into Boston Center and that it was imminent. We did get everybody on the ground first and then we evacuated. The call of the imminent aircraft was a miscalcualtion of our Regional Office of a Coast Guard aircraft that we had identified 20 minutes earlier. But who knew that day, if you were told to go you went. We considered ourselves under attack.

Notice the call sign they tagged, pretty common to tag an unknown as N123.
__________________
'Two things are infinite: The Universe and Human Stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.'
- Albert Einstein
Cheap Shot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2012, 06:06 PM   #15
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
I was hoping you would check in Cheap Shot. I would hate to be beating up on the guys at PIT without anyone giving a defense. But face it, there is something of a difference here. In this case, they were the only one's who were able to track it and the other local traffic. I would have expected at least one controller to rise to the occasion.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2012, 06:31 PM   #16
EventHorizon
Atheist Tergiversator
 
EventHorizon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,103
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Well, pardon me! I lived there for eight years, and I'm sure I knew the call letters at that time (since I flew in and out regularly), but obviously I've misremembered.

I wonder where I got the silly idea it's PGH. Just confusing the common abbreviation for the city with the airport, I guess.

Thanks for the correction. Though, frankly, I'd rather it hadn't come from a Rangers fan. Bah.
That was my flight sim geekiness coming out.
__________________
"One of the hardest parts of being an active skeptic - of anything - is knowing when to cut your losses, and then doing so."
-Phil Plait
EventHorizon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2012, 02:15 PM   #17
Cheap Shot
Critical Thinker
 
Cheap Shot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 386
Originally Posted by BCR View Post
I was hoping you would check in Cheap Shot. I would hate to be beating up on the guys at PIT without anyone giving a defense. But face it, there is something of a difference here. In this case, they were the only one's who were able to track it and the other local traffic. I would have expected at least one controller to rise to the occasion.
They may have been evacuating for N123 (UAL93). Don't know. But since it was hijacked and not under ATC control they may have assumed it was aiming for them. Though I can't imagine leaving any kind of ATC work that needed to be done first, you should clean up your mess before you go.
__________________
'Two things are infinite: The Universe and Human Stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.'
- Albert Einstein
Cheap Shot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2012, 12:53 PM   #18
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Looks like I'm going to have to do a full radar analysis for UAL93 similar to what I did for AAL77. I have discarded any idea of doing such a thing because of the enormity of the task. So many different data sets, all in a different and unfriendly format. However, the learning curve will not be quite as steep as it was before, so perhaps it won't take as long.

Due to the release of Gaffney's new book, Black 9/11 and the suggestion that a UAV "shot down" UAL93, I did some rough analysis on some ZDC data to get a lower altitude look at the moments just after the PIT screen capture in the OP. And sure enough I found something that is sure to be exploited and misinterpreted.



During the minute of 1401 (UTC), two slow moving targets are seen in very close proximity of UAL93. Here is a slightly better graphic of the target tracks discovered in this particular data set.



Needless to say, targets #2 and #3 are of particular interest. Target #2 makes a "direct" line to the abandoned (in 1999) airstrip at Indian Lake. Here is a very rough animated GIF which includes the ground clutter returns also.



Of course I forwarded my worksheets and data set to the 'radar team' and we've spent the last few days scratching our heads. But, here are our very preliminary findings and thoughts.

1) Both targets exhibit speeds of 50-70 knots. A little slow for even small planes and definitely not likely candidates for a UAV such as the Predator (stall speed ~54 knots).

2) No meteorological phenomenon known to exist that day which could account for them.

3) Too far from the radar facilities (>50 nmi) for birds.

4) Not enough data to make an identification.

So, because of 4), here I go again. I reckon this thread will do just as good as any for updates.

And how could I have forgotten? Here is a link to the GE kmz. I should also mention that this is primary-only data.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM

Last edited by BCR; 31st May 2012 at 01:46 PM.
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2012, 12:20 AM   #19
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
By the way folks, there is a question on the table that some of you might be able to assist with. What were the meteorological conditions on the surface and at altitude in the Shanksville or Pittsburgh area on 9/11 at the time of the crash? Factors such as wind speed and direction could be a factor in these low speeds.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2012, 04:51 AM   #20
SUSpilot
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,159
Try overlaying the radar tracks with an aviation sectional or a good map of the area and see if a highway or railroad matches them. I've had ATC call out primary targets caused by ground vehicles; Cedar Rapids approach, for example, once had me looking for a couple of slow moving primary targets, but the controller said it was most likely trucks on I-80. Unlikely, given the distance in this case, but maybe the sharp edges of a truck or rail cars acted as corner reflectors.

It's also possible that the targets were a couple of planes without electrical systems; a Cub bucking a 20 knot headwind would match the speed profile.

ETA: BCR, I just saw that you considered that last item - I hadn't scrolled that far on my iPad.

Last edited by SUSpilot; 1st June 2012 at 04:53 AM.
SUSpilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2012, 06:14 AM   #21
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
No, not oriented to any roads. One even goes over a lake, but definitely a good suggestion. Thanks.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2012, 02:45 AM   #22
celestrin
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 173
FWIW, here's data from Weather Underground for some of the nearby airports. Alas, there's no data for Somerset County or Indian Lake airports.

Code:
Time (EDT)	Wind Dir	Wind Speed	Gust Speed	Precip	Events	Conditions

Pittsbourgh Intl. - KPIT (120km WNW from Shanksville)
7:51 AM 		West	7.4 km/h / 2.1 m/s 	 - 	N/A	   	Clear
8:51 AM 		West	13.0 km/h / 3.6 m/s 	 - 	N/A	   	Clear
9:51 AM 		NW	14.8 km/h / 4.1 m/s 	 - 	N/A	   	Partly Cloudy
10:51 AM		NW	13.0 km/h / 3.6 m/s 	 - 	N/A	   	Partly Cloudy


Westmoreland County - LBE (50km WNW)
7:45 AM 		Variable	7.4 km/h / 2.1 m/s 	 - 	N/A	   	Clear
8:45 AM 		Variable	9.3 km/h / 2.6 m/s 	 - 	N/A	   	Clear
10:45 AM		Variable	7.4 km/h / 2.1 m/s 	 - 	N/A	   	Scattered Clouds


Johnstown - JST (30km N)
7:54 AM 		West	13.0 km/h / 3.6 m/s 	 - 	N/A	   	Clear
8:54 AM 		WNW	14.8 km/h / 4.1 m/s 	 - 	N/A	   	Clear
9:54 AM 		WNW	16.7 km/h / 4.6 m/s 	 - 	N/A	   	Clear
10:54 AM		NW	16.7 km/h / 4.6 m/s 	 - 	N/A	   	Clear


Altoona Blair County - KAOO (55km ENE)
7:53 AM 		SSW	5.6 km/h / 1.5 m/s 	 - 	N/A	   	Clear
8:53 AM 		Variable	7.4 km/h / 2.1 m/s 	 - 	N/A	   	Clear
9:53 AM 		WNW	16.7 km/h / 4.6 m/s 	 - 	N/A	   	Clear
10:53 AM		NW	18.5 km/h / 5.1 m/s 	 - 	N/A	   	Clear
Assuming that those blue and green tracks in your kmz file correspond with Unknown Radar Returns, it would appear that the predominant winds at the time do generally fit with the travel direction of your URRs.

AA77 had wind data on its FDR. Did UA93? I don't have the files at hand to check...

WU links:
http://www.wunderground.com/history/...q_statename=NA
http://www.wunderground.com/history/...q_statename=NA
http://www.wunderground.com/history/...q_statename=NA
http://www.wunderground.com/history/...q_statename=NA
celestrin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2012, 06:06 AM   #23
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by celestrin View Post
AA77 had wind data on its FDR. Did UA93? I don't have the files at hand to check...
Thanks for the wind info, I'll send the link our team member who asked for it. I have not had the chance to look at the UAL FDR data in detail yet. Still busy parsing out data from the FAA files, but I'll dig into it too when I get a chance.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2012, 01:34 PM   #24
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
I put together a composite of ZDC and ZOB primary files to see if I could get an extended track for either Track 2 or Track 3.



Keep in mind that this is primary target data from two different systems involving at least 3 different ARSR's. Target 3 shows up in both systems, while Target 2 seems limited to ZDC. At this point I am speculating that this is due to different operating altitudes, with Target 3 operating at a slightly higher altitude than Target 2. It is also very clear that UAL93 is significantly higher in altitude than either of those two targets (consistent returns on all ARSR's). Keep in mind that the ARSR's are at different directions and ranges from the targets.

Best guess and estimates of radar locations:

Oakdale\Pittsburgh 40°23'56.69"N 80° 9'23.18"W PIT (55 nmi)
Clearfield 41° 4'12.67"N 78°33'2.39"W QCF (58 nmi)
The Plains 38°52'56.25"N 77°42'11.12"W J-50 QPL (99 nmi)
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2012, 02:22 PM   #25
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Hypothesis # 2

Well, I've gone through all of the "easy" data and quite frankly I have no working hypothesis at the moment (except perhaps helicopters). However, not everyone agrees with the helicopter scenario and I got this alternative hypothesis this morning via email. So, I'll throw it into the mix.

Quote:
Has it occurred to you that you might be looking at radar returns generated by an advanced radar jamming unit?

The returns might resemble a pair of helicopters one minute -- then a flock of birds -- then might disappear altogether. There would be no typical radar track -- and the overall pattern would be incoherent.

It would be interesting to compare what you are seeing with the returns from those two Israeli commuter jets that disappeared over Budapest.

I'm just thinking out loud, here -- brain storming. Please bear with me.

SuSan McElwain said she had a good look at the craft. This tells me it was moving at a slow speed. She also said it was silent -- which rules out a jet. This means it was prop driven -- with a silent running engine.

I am still suspicious of that so called piper cub that first appears on radar at 8:58 am near Culpeper, Virginia. What if this was not a piper at all -- but a drone mimicking a piper? Curious that it disappears from radar as it approached a rendezvous point with UAL 93.

What if the drone was an attack platform -- equipped with an advanced radar jamming unit? What if it disappeared from radar after the ground controller turned the unit on -- as the drone neared its rendezvous point.

This drone might have taken off from an abandoned parking lot --- maybe it did not even require a runway.

The drone was never going to return to "base." Its fate was sealed from the moment the decision was made to revert to plan "B." After completing its mission -- of taking down the errant UAL 93 -- to assure that no one on board would survive to tell their story -- the drone was then flown as far away from Shanksville as possible -- and also in the opposite direction from where it took off.

The controller then terminated the mission with on board explosives.
Well, it beats my helicopter hypothesis
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2012, 06:46 PM   #26
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
The Best Identification Thus Far

I was puzzled that there seem to be a number of similar targets following similar paths in the radar data. All seem to be traveling in the same general direction (West to east, northwest to southeast). So whatever these tracks are, they are not limited to the vicinity of UAL93. Thanks to the information provided by celestrin in his post, we may have an identification.



It just so happens that these correspond to the the flyway patterns of large migratory birds that begin their migrations from Canada south in .... September!

Quote:
That is a help to the idea that they could be birds, since a 40 knot bird with a 15 knot tailwind only has to fly 25 knots, which is not impractical. Even the 60-ish knot target could be a 45 knot bird.

On daily feeding flights, geese might fly between 100 to 1,000 feet between feeding
areas. Airplane pilots have reported seeing Canada geese at an altitude of 9,000 feet.

Reports vary on speed but between 40 and 55 miles per hour (Rathbun 1934) seems
to be the general consensus. It’s also been reported that geese can attain a speed of
70 miles per hour with a tail wind.
(from: http://www.canadageesenewjersey.com/...se%20Facts.htm)

which seems to be as authoritative as any other site.

It definitely makes birds a possibility. At L-band (the 1200-1400 MHz) and S-band (the 2800-3000 MHz) radars may be able to "see" birds the size of Canada Geese at some of these ranges. - D.J.
Actually, in context is the best idea I've heard yet.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM

Last edited by BCR; 2nd June 2012 at 07:02 PM.
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2012, 08:35 AM   #27
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Here is an hours worth (1330 - 1430) of the PIT ASR data. This is raw data, no corrections for magnetic declination applied or lat/long calculations (just system x, y) for a subset.

Parsed PIT Data

__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2012, 03:19 PM   #28
SUSpilot
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,159
It's amazing what ATC can see and report sometimes - see my reply in the other thread.

One of the better traffic calls I've ever gotten was west of Omaha near the Platte river, where we practice air work around here:

"Piper xxx, traffic two miles north of your position, no altitude read-out, primary only. From the pattern it's flying, it's either a large, fast hawk trying to catch dinner or a crop duster working a field."

Turned out to be a crop duster with the transponder off. My student and I decided to use another set of fields as a reference point...
SUSpilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2012, 03:09 AM   #29
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Well, I got in a rush and forgot to add my quadrant sign corrections to the x, y values. Hence, the first PIT file has bad x, y values and has since been deleted. Instead of correcting them, I just went ahead and aligned the ASR data (mag dec 8 degrees) to the PIT ARSR data by latitude and longitude. Works much better

PIT Corrected Data

__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2012, 02:58 PM   #30
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Positional Data Composite

I've merged the PIT ASR (Pittsburgh International), ZDC (primarily PIT ARSR data) and the UAL93 FDR positional data into one worksheet for the time frame 1345 - 1410 UTC. Since it is hard to understand the graphical representation of the data while static, I created an animation GIF for the time frame 1345 - 1407 UTC. Each frame represents the full minute of data.

PIT Composite Data Workbook



There are time differences between the data sources which have not been corrected for, so there is lag between the PIT ASR and FDR positions. And no, I have no intentions of doing the correlation since it is on the order of seconds, not minutes.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2012, 12:47 AM   #31
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Bump for some of the fine folks at ATS who have questions about UAL93's radar track.

Hope this helps LaBTop. I really don't want to duplicate the effort at ATS.

The question on the table is this remark from CPT'n Bob's buddies at P4T.

Quote:
the 84Rades product from the data (the derived "UA93" flightpath) omits some key blips - where the radar shows two separate flying objects in the air just before the "UA93" allegedly crashed - which suggests that at least the products from the data were wittingly manipulated to conceal something.
Nope. Just a case of P4T once again not understanding how to work with radar data.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM

Last edited by BCR; 20th June 2012 at 12:50 AM.
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2012, 07:18 PM   #32
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,775
Originally Posted by BCR View Post
Just a case of P4T once again not understanding how to work with radar data.

Shocking, that.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2012, 06:00 PM   #33
Mynott
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 48
Sorry if I may appear to be interloping but am currently dealing with a P4T fan down under. Currently we are dealing with Eyewitness accounts of Flight 93 crashing at Shanksville.

He is playing on apparent eyewitnesses contradictory accounts of what happened there. Ones like Susan Custer and Jim Stop. And of course ,Truther favourite Susan McElwain.

http://behindthecurtain.freewebfor.m...3Witnesses.php

I know one John Keegle was lying about his account at Indian Lake.These witness are used to suggest that 93 was coming from another direction that the flight data analysis suggests

Thanx for any advice.

Last edited by Mynott; 24th July 2012 at 06:09 PM.
Mynott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2012, 06:14 PM   #34
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by Mynott View Post
Sorry if I may appear to be interloping but am currently dealing with a P4T fan down under. Currently we are dealing with Eyewitness accounts of Flight 93 crashing at Shanksville.

He is playing on apparent eyewitnesses contradictory accounts of what happened there. Ones like Susan Custer and Jim Stop. And of course ,Truther favourite Susan McElwain.

http://behindthecurtain.freewebfor.m...3Witnesses.php

I know one John Keegle was lying about his account at Indian Lake.These witness are used to suggest that 93 was coming from another direction that the flight data analysis suggests

Thanx for any advice.
That is why I prefer to stick with objective data (like radar). As CIT has demonstrated, eyewitnesses are the worst measurement devices ever created. I'm sure if you search long enough you'll find someone claiming that it was the star ship Enterprise that crashed in Shanksville.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2012, 07:50 PM   #35
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by BCR View Post
That is why I prefer to stick with objective data (like radar). As CIT has demonstrated, eyewitnesses are the worst measurement devices ever created. I'm sure if you search long enough you'll find someone claiming that it was the star ship Enterprise that crashed in Shanksville.
You are correct. Objective data trumps subjective eyewitness reports. Especially the hundredth retelling given well after the fact and after hearing/reading many others' reports as well.

I am in law enforcement. I was in a shooting once and never realized the officer beside me, standing two feet away, was also shooting. I have no recollection of the sound of his gunshots.
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2012, 08:58 PM   #36
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,277
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
I am in law enforcement. I was in a shooting once and never realized the officer beside me, standing two feet away, was also shooting. I have no recollection of the sound of his gunshots.
Why am I picturing this when I read your post?



Fess up man: You and your "partner" are really working for Marsellus Wallace, aren't you?

----

Ok, to everyone else, and on a more serious note: It's amazing how conspiracy peddlers of any stripe - not just 9/11 truthers, but any event that has a conspiracy fantasy made out of it - don't recognize the inherent problem with witness testimony and refuse to deal with it when that problem is identified. They cite the minutiae of witness statements and fail to see the real trends behind the aggregation of them. And that, I feel, is a direct result of wanting to find evidence that fits a conclusion instead of gathering evidence with the intent of forming a conclusion.

In short, they don't know how to properly consider eyewitness accounts. It's maddening. But it's also insight into how conspiracy fantasists totally don't get how empiricism and evidence based research should work.

Take a hypothetical shooting scenario: Witnesses may differ on whether he had a revolver or an semiautomatic. They may differ on which hand he held the gun in, or how many shots he took. They may disagree on whether he stood still or was moving when he shot. But you'd know that:
  1. If all of them were making single handed motions while describing the shooting, chances are strong they're all still referring to a handgun, as opposed to a rifle or a shotgun.
  2. If all of them identified the general direction that he came from, it doesn't matter if he came out of the door of a store, an alley, a car... he came from that direction, and further research can concentrate over there. As opposed to him coming from the opposite direction, at least when he started shooting.
  3. If they're all describing the shooter as "him", it's either a well-disguised woman, or it's genuinely a man. And obviously, the witnesses are working off of clues that indicate a male shooter, so you can at least temporarily disregard any person on the scene that was wearing a dress, looked like a bikini model, etc. Unless witness testimony arises that makes you to look at people wearing a dress, people that looked like a Vogue model, etc. you don't waste time investigating those leads. It's fishing at best and distorting the narrative at worst.
Evidence works in aggregation. People obsessing over contradictions in testimony don't account for poor witness recollection, outright witness mistakes/errors in recollection, etc., and they don't know how to properly consider evidence within context. But that's of the utmost importance in considering witness testimony: Contextualizing it with other verifiable evidence. If radar and other electronic data, the vast majority of witnesses, the crash investigators, etc. all provide evidence that a jetliner crashed in Shankesville, it's useless to continue to hammer on the minute details of, say, Susan McElwain's testimony about a military-looking jet (a twin-rear engined, rear "spoiler", twin-"fin" one??). Regardless of what she saw, Flight 93 is identified through other evidence, and the only credible part of her testimony is the stuff that's not outright contradicted (such as the explosion upon impact). She may indeed have seen a small military passenger jet (the Air Force C-20, for example is indeed white and does roughly fit the description; so does the civillian Dassault Falcon 20, one of which was confirmed in - in fact, ordered into - the area, albeit not in the same timeframe that McElwain discussed). But even if what she saw wasn't FL93 nor a Falcon 20, no one can blatantly strip off context and ignore other evidence to raise her testimony to a level that trumps the conclusion reached by other evidence. Doing so uses witness testimony improperly. And doesn't value it the way it should: In the context of all evidence.

Witness testimony is important, but it's used in all the wrong ways by truthers. Misuse like what they perform is more abuse than anything else. And that's simply bad.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2012, 09:12 PM   #37
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,725
One thing that was covered in detail for my three air crash investigation papers was eye witnesses. They need to be interviewed as soon as after the fact, otherwise all it takes is for them to either have time to forget certain detail, or alter their story (sometimes without even realising it) as more information becomes available to them, or they collude with other eye witnesses. Revisiting eye witnesses weeks, months, years after the event can give a completely different account than what they would have originally.
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88
cjnewson88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2012, 09:21 PM   #38
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
One thing that was covered in detail for my three air crash investigation papers was eye witnesses. They need to be interviewed as soon as after the fact, otherwise all it takes is for them to either have time to forget certain detail, or alter their story (sometimes without even realising it) as more information becomes available to them, or they collude with other eye witnesses. Revisiting eye witnesses weeks, months, years after the event can give a completely different account than what they would have originally.
Absolutely. I am a bit of a raconteur. I have told some stories so often that I can hardly remember the actual facts.
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2012, 09:41 PM   #39
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
Absolutely. I am a bit of a raconteur. I have told some stories so often that I can hardly remember the actual facts.
As a police vet myself, I can relate. We call those 'war stories'.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2012, 10:33 PM   #40
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by BCR View Post
As a police vet myself, I can relate. We call those 'war stories'.
You ever have that awkward moment when you realize you are telling someone else's story, and he's part of your audience?
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:57 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.