United 93 Crash: 10:06 as per original reports, or 10:03 as per 9/11 Commission?

[JackRiddler]

First, it must be stressed that the time of 10:06 am for the United 93 crash was given in the original news reports on Sept. 11th and throughout the first week, and was still being upheld by some media up to a year later. The time of 10:03 am was first claimed by NORAD in its confusing press release of Sept. 16 (the first of several dramatic timeline revisions submitted by that agency over the next two and one-half years).

You can find links to various stories by going to the Complete 9/11 Timeline at historycommons.org and searching for "10:06" or "10:03".

Here's a Sept. 13th report in which the source for 10:06 is the FAA's analysis of its own radar records, which however it has just turned over to the FBI:

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913flightpathreg2p2.asp

These initial reports matched the seismographic readings, which were released weeks later and treated in a Pentagon-commissioned report of Spring 2002 by Kim and Baum. We thus have independent statings of the 10:06 time: in reports from the day itself, and by the seismologists in their published report concluding a ground tremor had occurred at Shanksville at 10:06 am.

The 9/11 Commission Report, countered with note 168 to Chapter 1, pp. 478-479:

We also reviewed a report regarding seismic observations on September 11,2001, whose authors conclude that the impact time of United 93 was “10:06:05±5 (EDT). ”Won-Young Kim and G.R.Baum, “Seismic Observations during September 11,2001,Terrorist Attack,” Spring 2002 (report to the Maryland Depart- ment of Natural Resources).But the seismic data on which they based this estimate are far too weak in signal-to-noise ratio

In fact, the signal-to-noise ratios claimed for the data from two of the stations evaluated in the Kim-Baum report are 2:1 and 2.5:1; the signal strength for a small ground tremor measured at these distances isn't going to be more dramatic than that.

and far too speculative in terms of signal source

Whatever that means - that's not what the Kim-Baum report itself says!

to be used as a means of contradicting the impact time established by the very accurate combination of FDR, CVR, ATC, radar, and impact site data sets.

All of which, unlike the measurement of a real-world tremor, can be manipulated or misrepresented, all of which was held classified by the government until quite recently.

These data sets constrain United 93’s impact time to within 1 second,are airplane- and crash-site specific, and are based on time codes automatically recorded in the ATC audiotapes for the FAA centers and correlated with each data set in a process internationally accepted within the aviation accident investigation community. Furthermore, one of the study’s principal authors now concedes that “seismic data is not definitive for the impact of UA 93.” Email from
Won-Young Kim to the Commission,“ Re:UA Flight 93,” July 7,2004;

Which is to say, one of the study's principle authors, Baum, does NOT "concede" this; even when the 9/11 Commission asks him to do so. Furthermore, I'd love to see at least the full sentence quoted from Kim's e-mail to the Commission. Given the orphan quote, one wonders if "concedes" is accurate.

The 9/11 Report concludes by listing a further Kim reference:

see also Won-Young Kim, “Seismic Observations for UA Flight 93 Crash near Shanksville, Pennsylvania during September 11,2001,” July 5,2004.

No publisher or addressee is given. I can't find it on the Web and have yet to see it among the documents released by the 9/11 Commission, though I might just be lousy at finding things there.

In short, Kim, one of the two scientists who wrote the report, answered an e-mail from the 9/11 Commission to the effect that it was possible, in his view, that this was a false reading. The 9/11 Commission does not say if he assigned probabilities to this notion.

Meanwhile, you can find a link to the original Kim-Baum report here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/flight93/kim.html

Wherein Jim Hoffman writes:

In the spring of 2002, earth scientists Won-Young Kim and G. R. Baum published Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack in a report to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. In that paper they established the time of the crash of Flight 93 at 10:06:05, plus or minus five seconds. Their conclusion was based on the analysis of the seismic records from the four seismic recording stations listed in the table on the right.



This illustration from Kim and Baum's paper shows the locations of the four seismic stations whose records they used to establish the time of Flight 93's crash.

Kim and Baum quantified the signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of the relevant parts of the signals from the four stations. They found that whereas the SNRs from MCWV and SDMD signals were low, those from SSPA and MVL were about 2.5:1 and 2:1, respectively. The authors examined the three-component records from the SSPA station (vertical, North-South, and East-West), noting that "Short-period surface waves, Rg and Lg waves, are quite clear."

The authors also note that the features of the signals are consistent with an airliner crash:
The three-component records at SSPA are dominated by strong Lg arrivals, whereas the Pg waves are difficult to discern and have amplitudes comparable to the noise level. This is typical for seismic waves generated by airplane impacts and crashes.

The authors state with confidence their conclusion that Flight 93 crashed at 10:06:

The seismic signals marked as Sg in Figure 5 propagated from the Shanksville crash site to the stations with approximately 3.5 km/s. Hence, we infer that the Flight 93 crashed around 14:06:05±5 (UTC) (10:06:05 EDT). The uncertainty is only due to seismic velocity at the uppermost crust near the surface in which the Lg waves propagated.

(SNIP - FOOTNOTE FROM COMMISSION)

All of the sources that the Report cites to support its claim of a crash time of 10:03 are apparently unavailable for public inspection,

(AT THAT TIME)

including Kim's 2004 paper, for which one will search in vain on the web. The "FDR, CVR, ATC, radar, and impact site data sets" cited by the Report all remain unavailable to the public. This contrasts with Kim and Baum's 2002 paper, which documents its case for the 10:06 crash time.

Early press reports consistently pegged the crash time at 10:06 or later. Only NORAD asserted that Flight 93 had crashed at 10:03.

SNIP

page last modified: 2007-04-05

We are left with a dilemma:

1) According to the Commission, no tremor was caused by the crash of United 93 at Shanksville at 10:03 am. But as their argument implies, a tremor mimicking the properties of a plane crash was caused at Shanksville by some unspecified source, entirely by coincidence, three minutes later. (And for our next act, we shall produce a man electrocuted on a spot where a lightning strike was recorded at a precise time, but persuade you that the lightning didn't kill him, because he in fact died three minutes earlier, at a time when no lightning was recorded.)

or else

2) NORAD and the Commission could be lying, possibly because they prefer not to deal with whatever happened during the last three minutes of the flight.

Which is more likely?

[JackRiddler]

1. Some further comments from Will Bunch's 2002 article...

written soon after relatives of the passengers heard the supposedly unedited CVR from United 93 for the first time:

http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=3990

An FBI spokesman, Steven Berry, said the bureau continues to officially list the time of the Flight 93 crash as 10:03 a.m. The NTSB referred all questions to the FBI.

But the relatives of Flight 93 passengers who heard the cockpit tape April 18 at a Princeton hotel said government officials laid out a timetable for the crash in a briefing and in a transcript that accompanied the recording. Relatives later reported they heard sounds of an on-board struggle beginning at 9:58 a.m., but there was a final "rushing sound" at 10:03, and the tape fell silent.

What can be heard

"There is no sound of the impact," said Kenneth Nacke, whose brother, Lou Nacke Jr., is one of the passengers believed to have fought with the hijackers. Nacke confirmed that the government said the tape ended at 10:03 a.m.

He added: "The quality of the sound is really poor."

Vaughn Hoglan, the uncle of passenger Mark Bingham, said by phone from California that near the end there are shouts of "pull up, pull up," but the end of the tape "is inferred - there's no impact."

New York Times reporter Jere Longman, who spoke with relatives of all but one of the 40 Flight 93 victims, writes in the epilogue to bestseller "Among the Heroes" "at about three minutes after ten, the tape went silent."

Lisa Beamer, the wife of passenger Todd Beamer, who heard the tape while working on her No. 1 best seller "Let's Roll," also gives 10:03 as the end of the flight.

Seismologists - experts in the earth's vibrations - have almost exactly pinpointed the time of the crash of Flight 93 at 10:06:05.

"The seismic signals are consistent with impact at 10:06:05," plus or minus two seconds, said Terry Wallace, who heads the Southern Arizona Seismic Observatory and is considered the leading expert on the seismology of man-made events. "I don't know where the 10:03 time comes from."

Likewise, a written study commissioned by the Department of Defense - carried out by seismologists from Columbia University and the Maryland Geological Survey - also determined impact was at 10:06:05.

Normally, such a large discrepancy might be cleared up when the National Transportation Safety Board releases a written transcript of the voice recorder - edited for sounds of suffering or profanity - right before holding public hearings on an air disaster. But because the Flight 93 crash was part of a criminal act, no NTSB hearings are expected.

The Justice Department has also insisted that the cockpit tape can't be released because it will be played to the jury at the trial of admitted al Qaeda terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui, now set for January.

Note that Wallace, the "leading expert," is a third scientist looking at objective data from the seismic stations on his own, and coming to the same conclusion as Kim and Baum. Bunch happens to cite him in advance of Kim and Baum, even though the latter wrote the official report, because in reality, none of them are the definitive authorities here - the seismographs are.

We can talk about the number of sources claiming one time or the other forever. But different seismic measuring stations recorded a ground tremor consistent with a plane crash in Shanksville at 10:06 am. That doesn't come from a source. The tremor was a physical fact that delivered itself, and cannot be denied.

Furthermore, there wasn't a tremor at 10:03, although plane crashes cause ground tremors. The physical fact of the tremor -- and, almost as telling, the absence of such a physical fact at the government's preferred crash time -- elude press releases, compilations and spins. They just are.

[seemslikeadream]

4. Thanks JackR

[Bolo Boffin]

10. Again, the 9/11 Commission report

in a torture-free footnote, says this:

But the seismic data on which they based this estimate are far too weak in signal-to-noise ratio and far too speculative in terms of signal source to be used as a means of contradicting the impact time established by the very accurate combination of FDR, CVR, ATC, radar, and impact site data sets. These data sets constrain United 93's impact time to within 1 second, are airplane- and crash-site specific, and are based on time codes automatically recorded in the ATC audiotapes for the FAA centers and correlated with each data set in a process internationally accepted within the aviation accident investigation community.

If something happened at 10:06, it wasn't Flight 93.

[BeFree]

37. Interesting

About the "ATC audiotapes for the FCC centers". I don't recall any audiotapes from the other ATCs involved that day. IIRC, there were some tapes trashed at an ATC. But somehow F 93 is again a special case where not only are audiotapes available but they found the FDR and VCR. What happened to the other three flights' data?

Maybe a real investigation can answer those questions?

[Bolo Boffin]

38. Please release your misconception about trashed tapes.

Those tapes were not the controller tapes while they were working. The tapes trashed were of management interviewing ATC personnel after the fact, interviews that were against union contracts. They had nothing to do with the tapes of the controllers while working and involved in these events.

Educate yourself.

[BeFree]

39. So

Where are the tapes of the other controllers who worked the other events? I have never seen those transcripts in full. Are they in the Omission's report?

[Bolo Boffin]

40. They are probably in the place where they are stored.

I can't help you with where they are. I don't know.

[BeFree]

41. You never read those transcripts?

[Bolo Boffin]

42. Why would I have read those transcripts? n/t

[BeFree]

43. Why?

To discover what really happened. Everybody who seeks the truth never stops at a level below where there is more to be known.

[SDuderstadt]

44. Bolo, I love you, man, but...

with all due respect, you're trying to reason with a "no-planer". It's time to invoke the "lared rule".

[Realityhack]

48. I like that rule...

but sometimes it is good to at least point out for the audience the glaring errors.

[BeFree]

49. So

You "experts on 9/11" haven't read or even cared to look for more information?
You want to ignore the ATC audiotapes? Says a lot about your agenda.

Typical OCTers: "Nah,nah,nah, I'm not listening to you. I got my eyes and ears closed but my mouth is running, nahnahanah"

[mhatrw]

65. What do you mean, "if something happened"?

You are priceless. You go so far as to deny the existence of clear seismic evidence in order to preserve your agenda.

What caused the seismic spikes if not "something that happened"? Please explain.

[BeFree]

18. Hmmmm

How damned confusing all this is. No wonder nobody really knows what really happened. Not even the commission that studied some of this!!

What could have happened.....

One that the plane was hit by a missile in mid-air, disintegrating, and the black boxes somehow survived and were later found. And a small bomb was set off on the ground 3 minutes later..

Another that there was no plane at all that crashed but a small bomb was set off and all the black box data is made up.

Third could have been that plane was buried into the ground 3 minutes after an explosion on the craft blew the blackbox into midair making it stop recording.

Could have been any one of the three (or more) scenarios given the available evidence. I'm keeping an open mind, until there is a complete investigation.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. Final moments of Flight 93

In order to be airborne until 10:06, Flight 93 would have to have recovered from a staggering dive at 10:02:15 in which it lost 7000 feet in 40 seconds, upside down, flying at a 40 degree angle to the ground.

If you want to believe that, Jack, go ahead. But you're dreaming.

[JackRiddler]

6. Author/Source for graphic, please.

It's a very pretty rendering, presumably of the record on the CVR and FDR as provided by the government years later, and assuming of course the times given are properly synchronized to each other and to actual time, nothing's been tampered with, and the audio has been understood correctly and translated accurately.

But where does it place the ground tremor consistent with a plane crash at Shanksville, as detected by independent seismic stations in the region and timed by multiple geologists working independently to 10:06:05 am EDT, plus or minus 5 sec? Keeping in mind this particular data point delivered itself as a physical fact simultaneously to multiple measuring devices.

Otherwise I ask you please not to personalize this discussion. Thank you.

[Bolo Boffin]

8. I made the graph, based on the FDR and the CVR

"provided by the government years later" - provide any proof that this is anything but you poisoning the well by insinuating tampering. Got proof? No? Deal with the evidence then.

The times are baked into the FDR data.

The data point of a ground tremor at 10:06 could not be this plane, setting aside one of the people who first made that conclusion withdrawing it. At 10:02:15, Flight 93 starts a dive from 10,000 feet. In just over 40 seconds, they drop 7,000 feet. It's at 40 degrees, it's upside down, and from the CVR it's clear that the hijackers retained control of the controls until the very end.

Now if you want to explain how the plane could recover from that dive and be available to crash three minutes later, be my guest. But this plane, according to the evidence, is on a path to crashing just after 10:00, and if "unrecoverable" ever applied to any aircraft, it was this one.

[JackRiddler]

13. It's a very nice graphic.

Under the standard, time-honored practices and ethics of scholarship, it would be customary for you to put an author credit (e.g., "Graphic: BB") and date on your graphic -- this can be modest, but it's customary -- as well as an indication of the data source (for example, the agency or court who released the data and the date of release, e.g., "Source: XX").

Or do whatever you like. Thanks. Very pretty graphic.

Despite the omission of author and customary cites, I'm sure it's an accurate rendering of the data as provided by the releasing authority.

The only other problem would be the editorial conclusion inherent in the title, as this data is actually "Flight Data Recovered from Flight 93, According to Government Release of xx/xx/07" (or whatever the date).

But hey: Your graphic, your title. Very pretty.

Where does the tremor go, by the way? The one released at 10:06:05 plus or minus five seconds on Sept. 11, centered at ground level in Shanksville, PA and measured after propagating by four different seismographic stations in the region?

Because that's data too, just like the government data releases. Maybe a graphic artist compiling data on this subject might want to include it.

Except, this data delivered itself, and cannot be denied as a physical fact or changed in time.

Scientists gather this data from the four different seismic stations that measured it and agree on what it says: a tremor!

Even if one of them went back on what he published in his Pentagon-commissioned study and now says, golly the tremor, it might have come from something other than Flight 93. He still says: There was a tremor in Shanksville at 10:06, because that's what the lines say. The tremor made lines go slightly wacky at four different seismic stations, each of them many miles away.

Funny that.

[Bolo Boffin]

14. Whatever the tremor was, if it was anything, it wasn't Flight 93.

The data from the FDR and CVR confirm this. Flight 93 crashed just after 10:03.

Kim, one of the people you keep citing, has withdrawn the identification of the signal as a "tremor." It seems the data is fuzzy enough not to be conclusive. So if there was anything at all, it wasn't Flight 93.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. Some more of Jim Hoffman's briliant theorizing

1,000,000 explosive ceiling tiles with a nanothermite layer hooked up to wireless detonators and secretly installed on every floor of the WTC towers, both of them (I think the million tiles is total for the job).

Jump on down into that crazy pit, Jack.

[JackRiddler]

5. Relevance = none. (Though bringing it up is predictable.)

Can't have a thread that doesn't go straight to demolitions theory, that's a rule!

And in the quoted matter he's not "theorizing," he's summing up the Kim-Baum report.

Your post provides a textbook case of the ad hominem fallacy: ignoring the argument, an immediate attack is launched on a name for other purported sins.

If your impulse is to personalize, perhaps you should begin by examining your own motives for doing so. You would be an expert on that, presumably.

Thank you and have a nice weekend.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. Impeaching your source of material = relevance.

Hoffman is a looney bird. You should find a better witness to "sum up" anything at all.

[JackRiddler]

11. He is not the source of material. The tremor is the source.

I'm sorry. This isn't a game where you play Johnny Cochrane using emotional arguments against a person to "impeach" him, when this person has nothing to do with any of the facts of the case being argued.

Jim Hoffman made a nice page summing up Kim and Baum and the 9/11 Commission footnote.

Apparently, you have nothing to say about his nice page. However, his page is the issue, not him. He's not the source of the material. He only made a nice page.

There's an obvious parallel. You.

You made a pretty graphic summarizing the US government's presentations of alleged CVR and FDR data from Flight 93. If your graphic is an accurate summary of that material as the government presented it (and far as I know it IS an accurate summary, except for the conclusion implicit in the title you added), then it wouldn't matter any more who you are.

If you were a guy on top of some Arby's counter screaming about conspiracy theorists being unfair to the government and yea, even if you were being manhandled to the floor by big gents in white coats... Your graphic would still stand on its own as an accurate summary of the data presented by the government. Impeaching you would not say anything about that data, pro or con.

Now. Just as you are not the source of the material the government presented as DVR and FDR data, Jim Hoffman is not the source of the 10:06:05 crash time. To call him the source is to obfuscate!

Kim and Baum are the sources.

Actually, they aren't either.

Four seismographic stations in the region around Shanksville are the source of material. Kim and Baum used this source to derive a time. So did Wallace, deriving the same time.

In turn the "sources," the seismographs, got their inconvenient readings from a tremor.

Thus the SOURCE is a ground tremor showing properties of a plane crash, centered at Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and timed to within five seconds of 10:06:05 EDT on September 11th, 2001. Said tremor was recorded at four seismographic stations and still shaking up the official story.

Dance irrelevantly with Jim Hoffman's name all you like. Write his name in 118-pt. type and add animations. Doesn't change a thing. He and you and the rest of us are still looking at the same tremor, except, I guess, you don't want to look. Apparently you don't want to even write words like tremor, detected, seismographs, geologists.

But the tremor happened anyway. At 10:06:05, plus or minus 5 seconds, centered on Shanksville, and showing the properties of a ground tremor caused by jetliner crash.

The tremor is still the tremor.

A very small one, but matching initial reports of the crash time from local authorities and the FAA citing its own radar record on Sept. 13th.

A very small tremor, but still it causes the government's preferred time for the United 93 crash to tumble.

[Bolo Boffin]

12. And Kim has retracted.

And you and Hoffman begin speculating about pressure from the government.

Whatever that 10:06 "tremor" was, if it was anything at all, it wasn't Flight 93. Flight 93 crashed three minutes earlier.

[JackRiddler]

15. Did Kim say there was no tremor at 10:06?

Did Baum "retract"? Did Wallace "retract"? Did the four seismic stations "retract"? Note also with regard to Kim, that this is your word. The Commission does not use it. Rather, they say Kim "conceded" that the data was "not definitive for the impact of UA 93." He did not say that the data - showing a tremor - does not exist. Which he couldn't, of course, since it does exist and other geologists have read it.

[Bolo Boffin]

17. Kim says the data is "not definitive for the impact of UA 93."

Which is a good thing, since Flight 93 crashed three minutes before that data was recorded.

[JackRiddler]

22. So, you're saying, he didn't say there was no tremor.

Come on, it's not a hard word: tremor.

[Bolo Boffin]

23. Right, he didn't say there was no tremor.

I don't have a problem with that. Tremor.

However, he didn't say there was one in the end, apparently. And it wasn't definitive that it was United 93, no matter what it was.

Since United 93 crashed at 10:03, the event, whatever it was, at 10:06 could not have been United 93.

If you would like to say otherwise, you need to explain how the dive the plane is clearly in over the 10:02 minute could have been recoverable. I don't see it. The plane's FDR data starts at the correct takeoff time (in fact, it contains previous flights of the aircraft), so the 10:03 crash time is fixed in time. Show how a plane going that fast at that angle that close to the ground could have pulled out of that dive, and then we can talk about the government whacking off the last three minutes of the data. Until then, you're just blowing smoke signals and pushing inconclusive data.

[LARED]

7. I have a suggestion

Contact Kim via email here [e-mail]

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~wykim/

In short, Kim, one of the two scientists who wrote the report, answered an e-mail from the 9/11 Commission to the effect that it was possible, in his view, that this was a false reading.

Perhaps he would be willing to clarify the issue for you.

[JackRiddler]

16. How do you know I didn't six months ago and he never answered?

Did you? Did you contact Baum, or Wallace, or the four seismic stations that detected the ground tremor consistent with a plane crash and centered in Shanksville, PA? Do you think anyone's going to tell you the tremor didn't happen, or that, golly gee, it happened at 10:03?

[LARED]

27. Well gee golly Jack how could I know that? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

29. Hey, is it Jack's fault you don't check the wiretap records on him?

At least you could keep up with the quarterly report...

:sarcasm: for the sarcasm-impaired

[LARED]

31. Those reports are sooooooo booooorring

I hate to read them. But you're right, if I was being diligent I would have know Jack diligently tries to resolve this quandary with no luck and turned to the only other authoritative source, the DU 9/11 forum.

[greyl]

30. If you did, you probably would have included that fact in your oh-so-thorough OP. nt

[JackRiddler]

19. FAA, Sept. 13th, 2001: Radar Data Shows Crash at 10:06

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913flightpathreg2p2.asp

Thursday, September 13, 2001

By Jonathan D. Silver, Post-Gazette Staff Writer

No one can yet say exactly how close the hijacked jetliner that crashed Tuesday in Somerset County came to Pittsburgh, but a map of the flight path shows the plane passing just south of the city.

The Federal Aviation Administration said yesterday it turned over to the FBI a radar record of United Airlines Flight 93's route.

The data traced the Boeing 757-200 from its takeoff from Newark, N.J., to its violent end at 10:06 a.m., just outside Shanksville, about 80 miles southeast of Pittsburgh.

Funny how when the FAA (do they do radar?) read their own radar data, they coincidentally made the exact same mistake that the geologists made when they read the seismographic data from four different stations. The FAA mistakenly read crash time as 10:06, and the geologists mistakenly read a tremor at 10:06 as a crash time!

Silly gooses, NORAD by then had said it was 10:03, and you're not some loon who thinks they'd tamper with the truth, are you? Gosh, no!

Luckily the FAA handed off that radar data they couldn't read right on 9/11 or 9/13 to a big,
dark closet marked "classified," where it could be kept safe and far away from the eyes of amateurs for a few years. And good thing we had the 9/11 Commission to correct these mistaken initial assessments and provide a better and definitive reading of all data sets that fit the NORAD statement.

Because FAA and geologists can misread the data that they specialize in and come to false conclusions -- hey, they're only human! But the military that sacrifices and serves and defends us every day out of love to country would not lie about a matter of such national significance.

And good thing we have graphic artists who take the corrected data seven years later and make pretty graphics out of them, so we can all understand better.

And damn those CTs who read the early reports and expect them to gibe with a later story. How paranoid.

Thanks, sunshine! Thanks, bunny rabbits!

[Bolo Boffin]

20. How do you know the time came from the FAA?

Perhaps the reporter pulled that from somewhere else after being told the radar tracks it from beginning to end.

[JackRiddler]

21. Because I read a lot of newspapers and I can figure out attributions.

What he wrote says: The FAA SAYS it gave radar records to... The data says... and is by journalistic conventions an attribution to the FAA (as the last source cited as SAYING).

Can the author be wrong? Inexcusably sloppy? Can he be lying?

Take it up with him. And the others. Because by the afternoon of Sept. 11 and until the NORAD press release on Sept. 16, all of the news reports said 10:06, and lo, some damn tremor that shook the scratchy lines at four stations happened just at the same time. Fucking tremor. Traitorous tremor! Bad luck for the 10:03 "correction" crowd, I guess. Why anyone would not believe NORAD, the Zelikow-led commission that always acted so honorably, and the Bush government, instead of these initial reports (citing the amateur radar readers at the FAA, no less) AND the seismic stations' confirming measurements of a tremor, I don't know.

You've persuaded me, thank you. Remember the Maine!

[Bolo Boffin]

24. Keep dreaming. n/t

[JackRiddler]

25. Mate.

[Bolo Boffin]

26. The 10:06 time could just as easily be from another source, and you know it.

Keep dreaming. Keep playing silly games. You pretend you're above it all and you're here trotting out the same CD bullroar as anyone else.

[OnTheOtherHand]

45. meh

I think it's a real stretch to read those two sentences as evidence that the FAA extrapolated a time from the radar records.

I do like the idea of appealing to the seismic data. The appeal is radically inconclusive so far, because (inter alia) the Kim & Baum paper doesn't provide data for an earlier period to which we can compare, doesn't even indicate (AFAICS) if the earlier data were analyzed, and doesn't offer a rationale why the station closest to Shanksville records nothing distinguishable from noise in the period under analysis. Do you happen to have the seismic data from 10:00 on?

[jberryhill]

47. "geologists can misread the data that they specialize in and come to false conclusions"

In fact, they do that several times a day.

I subscribe to USGS email reports (which are a great service, btw), and get a text message for any US tremor over 4 and any international tremor over 5.5. It's a configurable service offered here: https://sslearthquake.usgs.gov/ens/

Anyway, for a lot of the events, there will be an initial report followed by several revisions. So, yes, they get it "wrong" on a regular basis, and revise and correct the reports on an ongoing basis, precisely because of interpretive issues.

[BeFree]

50. Sure they do

It's part of being a scientist.

Much unlike the OCTers who have their bible which they've never really read so of course they refuse to..."revise and correct the reports on an ongoing basis".

"Nope, Bushco said it happened just like that, my OCT bible says so and that's good enough for me, nahnahnah "

[jberryhill]

51. If you'd been paying attention....

...then you'd know that NIST indeed changed primary hypotheses about the WTC failure mechanics on the basis of continued study of available information.

CT'ers, of course, went nuts over that at the time.

[BeFree]

54. Sure, I paid att.

And NIST set a good example, for a moment. An example the OCTers fail to ingest. As it is the OCTers have refused to entertain any new thoughts or ideas, much unlike the really honest researchers who keep looking. Not only that, the OCTers are so embarrassed at their head in the sand tactics that they have to come here and try and get everyone else to stick their heads in the sand with them. Misery, they say, loves company. Fuck that, the OCTers misery is theirs and theirs alone.

The rest of us continue to make progress against bushco and the lies.

[JackRiddler]

56. I'm sure, but how is this relevant?

Wallace (the geologist cited by Bunch in 2002, see Reply 1), and then Kim and Baum (who submitted their report in the spring of 2002) were all presenting findings months later -- i.e. with ample chance to thoroughly revise and correct and process all available data.

There was no initial seismic notice on the Shanksville crash of the kind you get in e-mails from the government. (It didn't meet the threshold of 4 on the RS, as a plane crash would not.)

Read the Kim and Baum paper. They were not hired to look into the UA 93 crash time. The military commissioned them to study seismic evidence for the Pentagon crash, in the hope of resolving the differences in reported times for that event. However, they could not locate a clear and unmistakable signal for the Pentagon crash that was consistent among different seismic stations. (Note to avoid an irrelevant debate: I don't think that means there was no Boeing; the Pentagon crash was at least a couple of feet above ground; the Pentagon foundations are in bedrock and the building presumably features reinforcements of some kind, whereas the Shanksville field is a former quarry.)

So for a comparison, they decided on their own to look at UA 93, and that's why they examined the data from the four seismic stations nearest Shanksville, and finally determined there was a clear signal consistent among the different sources for the Flight 93 crash time at 10:06 am. (The signal was apparently also present in measurements from the two stations with low signal to noise ratios, while the SNR exceeded 2 at the other two stations.)

Their conclusions about Shanksville stood as the cited crash time from 2002 until 2004, when the Commission saw a problem in it because the supposed conflict with the then-classified flight and radar logs in the government's possession (and with the NORAD pronouncement of 10:03 starting on 9/16/01, after the 10:06 time had already been first reported). Presumably why the Commission, as per its footnote, engaged in an e-mail correspondence with Kim to have him "concede" (their word) the conclusion is "not definitive" (Kim as quoted).

[OnTheOtherHand]

58. "Their conclusions... stood as the cited crash time from 2002 until 2004"

Not according to http://web.archive.org/web/20020917193804/http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/4084323.htm">this story from September 2002, which states, "An FBI spokesman, Steven Berry, said the bureau continues to officially list the time of the Flight 93 crash as 10:03 a.m."

The story also cites Terry Wallace as a source supporting a 10:06 time.

[OnTheOtherHand]

59. accidental dupe, delete n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

28. At approxiamately 10:04, a ZOB controller statement indicated that the primary radar signal of 93

had terminated.

This is according to the FAA's prepared timeline based on its records, dated September 17, 2001.

And this would support the 10:03 time or the 10:06 time, Jack?

ETA: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa7.pdf

I wonder where that reporter got the 10:06 time from, Jack? 10:06 doesn't show up on this timeline at all. It must have been (gasp!) another source.

EATA: A clip from the PDF, page 23:

[JackRiddler]

32. "This time is approximate and is based on personal statements..."

So what's your point? Not radar track readings, but "approximate" "personal recollection." Sounds like they should look for something concrete and physical. (Say, were there any seismic stations in that region?)

In the same series of FAA documents obtained by the National Security Archive at GWU, we have --

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa4.pdf
"FAA report, Chronology of the September 11 Attacks and Subsequent Events Through October 24, 2001, undated" (Referenced Chapter 1, The 9/11 Commission Report, "We Have Some Planes," footnote 62)

-- which lists the United Flight 93 crash time as 10:10 am, "approx."

A lot of things might be written in documents (authors not always clear, who assigned and who read to what purpose unclear) working from "approximate" "personal recollection." Then they might be forgotten until they're dug up later, without clarity as to which document was used for what, if anything. It all suggests confusion, perhaps more so than was the case.

Where I'd think the FAA would pay more attention than in this file fodder would be in their statements to the press, and by Sept. 13 they were consistently saying 10:06. Then on Sept. 16, NORAD first claimed otherwise.

And the seismic data showed a tremor at 10:06. But we must eliminate the impossible case that NORAD would be wrong and go with what's possible no matter how unlikely, so by your version of Sherlock Holmes: The tremor must be wrong.

---

By the way, are the ad hominems and general sneering a passive-aggressive way of conceding the paucity of your argument? Or do you think it's persuasive? I guess that depends on the sophistication of the audience. I keep thinking of readers at a ninth-grade level or higher, but you're obviously aiming for lower. PT Barnum's dictum about the intelligence of the public would favor your side, I suppose.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. You switched "personnel statement" to"personal recollection"

Fail. And very, very naughty of you, Jack. No cookie.



Look again. They got this from the controller tapes. At 10:04, a controller is saying that Flight 93's primary radar track has disappeared. You know what primary radar is, don't you? That's the one that doesn't use transponder information. That is the signal bouncing off the skin of the aircraft.

Not "personal recollection." The personnel statement is made at 10:04 am.

On September 17, 2001, this document was compiled by the FAA. This is what the reporter was talking about in his or her story. But the time of 10:06 doesn't even appear in this document. So the reporter had to have come up with that time from another source.

So keep dancing the conspiracy theorist dance, the one you claim to despise. You seem to know all the moves like a natural.

ETA: Oh, you were quite naughty, indeed. You not only switch "recollection" for "statement", but "personal" for "personnel." Bad Jack. Bad.

[JackRiddler]

34. Sorry about my mistake. Do you know what "approximate" means?

It still says approximate, doesn't it now? Hence: Not definitive.

I found another FAA "approximate" that claimed 10:10 am, which you don't mention. Also, I pointed out the difference between memos (without an assessment of their context or function), as opposed to FAA statements to the press.

Ignoring that, you try to make a jeremiad out of my mistake, for which I do apologize.

Now, do you know what a tremor is? They don't state, they don't recollect: they deliver themselves. The dance here is of you pretending the tremor didn't happen and wasn't detected at four different seismic stations, establishing the time of 10:06:05 (plus or minus 5 sec) as a physical fact.

[Bolo Boffin]

35. The event was not "definitive" to be United 93.

I don't dispute the tremor. I dispute identifying it with Flight 93 based on evidence that is definitive for United 93.

[eomer]

52. Clearly the time of 10:04 is from recollection and is approximate.

If the time given had been based on the time of the event on tape then there would be no reason to qualify it as being approximate.

There is another event that has the same qualifying language and just happens to provide an exact quote of the controller's statement:

0900:00 This time is approximate based on personnel statements from New York Terminal Radar Approach Control (N90). N90 controller stated "at approximately 9:00, I observed an unknown aircraft south of the Newark, New Jersey Airport, northeast bound and descending out of twelve thousand nine hundred feet in a rapid rate of descent, the radar target terminated at the World Trade Center."

If this controller's statement had not been quoted verbatim then you would be arguing that 9:00:00 (in this case) was the time that the controller made the statement. This is clearly not the case; the time given is a time that came from the recollection of the controller and was provided at some later time.

Also notice that all the events that include the "this time is approximate" qualifier have times with :00 for the seconds, while most of the other events have times with actual seconds -- further evidence that the events with the "approximate time" qualifier do not have times based on the time the statement was uttered on a tape.

[Bolo Boffin]

53. Good find.

However, I maintain that 10:04 isn't the same kind of "approximate" as "9:00". And it certainly isn't 10:06.

[Old and In the Way]

36. Jack, I'm curious, what significance do you apply to this discrepancy?

If this was a tremor at Shankville, 3 minutes after the crash...this might be a coincidence, depending if tremors occur around there with any frequency. If there's no history of tremors in this area, then I'd tend to believe the seismic record over a politicized record of this event.

[jberryhill]

46. Well, that's the fun part, OIW...

...small tremors are pretty common. The earth is never sitting still. The term "epicenter", by the way, does not refer to the source location of the tremor, but to a projection of that location to the surface, since the source location of tremors is never actually at the surface, but is generally specified by a subsurface depth.

[JackRiddler]

57. The 10:06 event is identified as a ground tremor.

[jberryhill]

60. Finally contacted him, did you:

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~wykim /

Yes or no?

[Bryan Sacks]

67. What did you learn? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

71. He was asking if Jack had ever contacted him. n/t

[jberryhill]

55. Why didn't you ask Kim for his second paper directly?

All of his contact data is right here:

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~wykim/

You don't know what he said in his second paper, but you are comfortable in your ignorance. Yes?

[IceAxe]

61. Flight 93 crashed at 10:06

The signal Kim and Baum analyzed was not some naturally occurring ground motion, i.e. some tiny earthquake or "tremor." In technical terms, the amplitudes of the waves associated with that type of ground motion were "relatively weak compared with the background noise level." However, the "short-period surface waves" were "quite clear," 2 to 2.5 times larger than background noise.

In other words, the ground shook significantly at the surface, and less so beneath the surface. Vibrations travel through rock as waves -- the amplitude of those waves decreases as it propagates further from the source. Earthquakes happen beneath the ground and generate long-period waves that propagate outward/upward causing the surface to shake. Seismographs record that surface motion, break it apart into its component waves, then backtrack the long-period waves to locate their source.

So, if the surface shakes and those long-period waves are small or 'missing', the surface wasn't shaken from below: something smacked into the ground at the surface. This is how seismologists (i.e. Kim and Baum) say it:

"The three-component records at SSPA are dominated by strong Lg arrivals, whereas the Pg waves are difficult to discern and have amplitudes comparable to the noise level. This is typical for seismic waves generated by airplane impacts and crashes."

The impact was large enough that 2 stations recorded it definitively, ~100 km and 200 km from the crash site respectively. Furthermore, the readings from those 2 seismographs independently place the location of the location at essentially the same location. Seismologists determine distance using the different arrival times of the different waves, and very well-known speeds and fixed relationship between those arrival times. That is why Kim and Baum report their error in terms of time: +- 5 seconds. The speed at which waves propagate through rock depends primarily on the density of the rock. Their uncertainty of +- 5 seconds is the result of estimating that speed.

Understanding error in the context of science is crucial. Kim and Baum never suggested the signal was too small compared to the noise. They stated that the component of the signal associated with earthquakes was "relatively weak" compared to noise, to support their conclusion that the seismographs had recorded the crash. And, they stated that the component of the signal typical of an airplane crash was "quite clear." The 9/11 Report turns all that on its head, claiming erroneously that "the seismic data on which they based this estimate are far too weak in signal-to-noise ratio."

But even w/o the technical facts, it is very straightforward that Kim and Baum got it right. If the 'tremor' recorded by the seismographs at 10:06 was some event similar to (seismically) an airplane crash, but not Flight 93, why didn't those highly sensitive instruments record the crash of Flight 93 at 10:03? Of course the real question is why did those 3 minutes matter so much to the 9/11 commission? Dismissing science in this manner is way too familiar as a means to some end.

In truth, all the other evidence is worthless compared to Kim and Baum's work. Seismologists are technically/mathematically elite in geosciences. If they say +-5 seconds, it's +-5 seconds. Ultimately, they answer to other seismologists not the army.

[Fainter]

62. Jiminy Crickets. n/t

[Bryan Sacks]

66. "Of course the real question is why did those 3 minutes matter so much to the 9/11 commission?"

Thank you for this analysis.

[JackRiddler]

68. Thanks iceaxe and welcome to DU.

Sounds like you have some knowledge in this field. Also sounds like the very facts that indicate a plane crash at 10:06 am - a small, discernible ground component (such as a ground event causes) and an indiscernible underground component (i.e., such as would have indicated a natural tremor) - are as you say turned on their heads by the Commission's brief and vague footnote. This was not an earthquake or a natural tremor originating underground. A plane crash would not have provided a stronger signal than the one recorded; thus the stronger signal the Commission implies is lacking for a "definitive" identification of the crash time by seismological measurements would, in fact, have indicated something other than a plane crash. One can imagine this is what the Commission would have then argued, if the signal was stronger (or if it had had a measurable underground component): that it was too strong for a crash and therefore a natural tremor. But it was as weak as a crash, so they effectively argue as though it didn't exist.

[Bolo Boffin]

70. Until you explain how 93 could have pulled out of a steep dive

(7000 feet out of 10,000 available, 40 seconds) at 10:02:15, going at the speed it was going, upside down, you don't have 93 in the air at 10:06 to make that tremor.

It really is as simple as that.

[JackRiddler]

72. Actually it's you who has to explain the ground tremor

And the government and Commission who have to explain why their claimed time calibration for the presented FDR data doesn't match with the objective physical signal sent by the tremor. Maybe you could try on their behalf by adding to your graphic a note specifying "plus-or-minus 3 minutes" to the claimed times of the FDR data as presented, which the government first made available several years after the tremor made its own statement.

[Bolo Boffin]

73. No, I don't.

The evidence for the 10:03 crash is quite clear. You have to show that the 10:06 tremor has anything to do with the crash. That's your assertion. That's all you.

[JackRiddler]

74. Sure. All the best to you.

Fine.

There was no ground tremor indicating a plane crash at 10:03 am, semi-miraculously. Please don't feel a need for you to explain that! Let's just call it a very light plane crash.

Coincidentally, second miracle, there was then a ground tremor measured at several stations and indicating a plane crash at 10:06 am, which emphatically lacked the properties of a natural (i.e., underground) tremor. All these science guys thought this might have had something to do with the crash. And reporters fell for it too, because it corroborated earlier reports of the 10:06 crash time, including from the FAA on Sept. 13, the day it turned over its radar readings to the FBI.

But obviously they were wrong! Because NORAD said otherwise and a couple of years later, the Commission said otherwise, and in doing so presented the unimpeachable, timelined-to-the-second, printed transcripts of data they said was taken from the FDR and calibrated to the correct real time.

Which you wrapped up into a beautiful graphic presentation on their behalf, adding the bow of an only mildly tendentious title.

Are we done yet?

Remember: Last one to repeat themselves in this thread wins!

[Bolo Boffin]

77. You act as if the ground tremor was the only evidence worth dealing with.

When all the other evidence says one thing, and you prefer to focus on this anomaly that even one of the co-authors you rely upon admits isn't necessarily 93, well, I don't know what else to say. The evidence is the evidence, and when I repeat it, I fall into your little stupid "repeating means you win" trap.

The evidence can't win with you, Jack.

[JackRiddler]

79. It's a) the only evidence that can't be faked, b) corroborates first FAA reports to press.

Before there was even certainty about which plane crashed where, seismographs recorded the tremor, a physical fact.

[Bolo Boffin]

80. It's also c) the only evidence that can't be tied to 93 with certainty. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

94. By the way, you're still spreading the silly story about "FAA said 10:06"

when I've already shown in this thread that the FAA said 10:04, and the reporter must have gotten the 10:06 figure from somewhere else.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

[JackRiddler]

96. You didn't show this. We did this already.

You cited an FAA memo released to the National Archives that says "approx." 10:04am. Another one, which I then cited, has an approximation at 10:10am. No one is arguing for either of these times. These are memos of unspecified authorship and function, released long after. Not statements to the press.

The FAA on Sept. 13 as they handed their radar records to the FBI told the reporter 10:06. The attribution is clear in the article, and if he "must have gotten" it elsewhere, then he didn't source it and you should take up your complaint with him. 10:06 was cited repeatedly in the reports of the first week, and then confirmed by the later analyses by (Wallace and later Kim and Baum) of seismological records from four stations showing a ground tremor at 10:06. Only NORAD claimed otherwise, without specifying why, until the 9/11 Commission Report's footnote.

You're entitled to as many platitudes as you see fit.

[Bolo Boffin]

98. And again you try to slip a factual inaccuracy into this discussion, Jack.

The FAA document I quoted is from September 17, 2001. "memos of unspecified authorship and function, released long after"? Not hardly. It was drawn up within a week of the attacks. Shame on you.

[JackRiddler]

99. sigh...

that's right, dated Sept. 17 but unpublished and released long after, unspecified authorship and function, like the other one that says approximately 10:10am. These are memos, internal documents, not published until later. As opposed to a statement to the press in the paper, published Sept. 13, saying 10:06 am. Your constant attempts to personalize don't change that.

[OnTheOtherHand]

101. do you have any evidence that FAA _ever_ stated 10:06?

Because your snippet from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette doesn't cut it. I'm willing to stipulate that you sincerely believe that by rules of journalistic attribution, the reporter is putting FAA on the hook for that time. But I don't read it that way, and even if I did, it could easily be a reporting or copy-editing glitch rather than an accurate paraphrase of anything from the FAA.

[Bolo Boffin]

103. No, he doesn't! That's it.

A statement by a reporter that could just as easily have been the reporter pulling a statement in he'd heard somewhere else. That's enough in JackRiddler's mind to overthrow the FDR evidence, that and a weak seismic signal that might have been 93 had it occurred when Flight 93 crashed.

[OnTheOtherHand]

104. perhaps he doesn't believe in the FDR evidence?

Hey, if seismologists were willing to seriously pound the table for 10:06, I'd be willing to consider almost anything. But that's not the fact pattern confronting me right now.

[mhatrw]

108. Here's the "fact pattern" that IS confronting you.

1) Flight 93 crash set a world record for a debris field in terms of both dense material -- metal and bone were confirmed to be found more than 1.5 miles away and there are other eyewitness reports of metal debris found at least 8 miles away -- as well as light material -- a load of paper, plastic and foam were found more than 8 miles away.

2) Despite setting records as the most energetic ground impact in the history of plane crashes, Flight 93's crash produced no seismic signal whatsoever, not even the tiniest blip at any seismic station whatsoever.

3) However, a scant three minutes later, some unknown and unreported nearby event did produce a seismic signal consistent with a plane impacting the ground.

[SDuderstadt]

110. Dude...the claim of materials 8 miles away...

come from people not smart enough to know not to use MapQuest to try to determine an "as-the-crow-flies" measure of distance versus DRIVING DIRECTIONS.

[mhatrw]

112. Dude, you aren't addressing the issue. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

115. Yes, I am....

I am addressing your goofy claim.

[OnTheOtherHand]

117. actually not

I haven't seen any evidence for 2), and the evidence for 3) is equivocal. As for 1), as far as I know there is no debris field database to which we can turn in assessing whether the outcome in this case is surprising or not -- so everyone seems content to speculate. Very well, then.

[mhatrw]

118. There has been no plane crash in the history of aviation in which metal debris

was ballistically projected more than 1.5 miles. That is unequivocal.

There is no seismic reading greater than the S/N ratio on any seismograph indicating a 10:03-10:04 impact at the crash site. That is unequivocal.

Get the data. Examine the data for yourself. I have.

[OnTheOtherHand]

119. get the data where?

Are seismic data from the morning of 9/11 available for download? That would certainly be interesting. Can you point me to any analysis more recent than 2002? That would be interesting, too.

On the first point -- first of all, I don't know how it could be unequivocal, for the reason I stated. Second, I'm not sure why it's relevant, for a reason already stated: I don't know of any other plane crash in which the pilot apparently tried to crash the plane as fast and as hard as possible. I also don't know of any other plane crash into a strip mine. It is not necessarily incongruous for unique events to yield unique outcomes. This is the same truism that emerges repeatedly in discussion of the tower collapses.

I can only respond to your arguments for what they are worth. It might help if I knew of your alternative hypothesis for the debris. I take it that damage in the air is ruled out as not conspiratorial enough? (For the debris we're considering, it isn't obvious to me that an alternative hypothesis is needed.)

[mhatrw]

122. Just request the data as I did.

http://www.iris.edu/data/WebRequest.htm

SSPA & MCWV are the relevant stations. SSPA has the better S/N ratio.

[OnTheOtherHand]

127. OK, we'll see how that goes

It's always kinda fun to pick up a new kind of data.

[OnTheOtherHand]

139. OK, got it

I needed someone to give me a quick tutorial on bandpasses. Without the bandpass filter, it looks like bloody noise.

So, I see some apparent signal around 1407 (as in Kim & Baum), and a stronger apparent signal a bit before 1401. (I haven't done the same thing for MCWV yet.) I can see both why a seismologist would favor a 1406 impact over a 1403 impact, and why s/he would backpedal in the face of discrepant data from other sources.

[OnTheOtherHand]

137. no joy

I received what looks to be a clean SEED file with SSPA BHE/N/Z channels beginning slightly before 1400 UTC on 9/11/01. I used jrdseed to convert it into SAC, then R with Rsac to open it for analysis. What I'm looking at (over the appropriate time frame) looks nothing like Kim and Baum. I assume my ignorance of seismology factors in here: the data may need to be detrended or differenced or....

[Bolo Boffin]

102. Well, Jack, all these "mistakes" you keep making favor you.

If you were making mistakes that worked against your point every now and again, we could put it down to sloppy.

But being factually inaccurate again and again, in a way that supports your point? Well, I'm not sure "sloppy" is the right word here.

For example, the FAA document I produce does have a specified function. It is a timeline, drawn up from various sources that are specified, to lay out as best as the FAA could on September 17, 2001 exactly what happened and when. Since a number of people would have contributed to this document, its specific authorship is rightfully the FAA. So your repetition of the factual inaccuracy "unspecified authorship and function" isn't sloppiness, not for someone who's actually opened and looked at the document in question -- something I'm sure you did. Otherwise, why would you be trying to characterize a document you hadn't actually examined?

On September 17, 2001, the FAA included in their timeline this fact - at 10:04 am on September 11, a controller stated that Flight 93 had disappeared from her radar.

On the other hand, you have a tremor that has been admitted by one of the people qualified to remark on seismic signals that it is not conclusively Flight 93.

Add to the equation all of the FDR information which terminates around 10:03 with the jet under an extraordinary flight pattern, with all other systems functioning normally, and it's crystal clear to anyone who respects the evidence that Flight 93 crashed at 10:03 am.

Oh, no, I repeated myself! You win!

[JackRiddler]

114. Approximately.

[Kesha]

120. Well, Bolo, it seems you`re in your Berlitz mode again

"On September 17, 2001, the FAA included in their timeline this fact - at 10:04 am on September 11, a controller stated that Flight 93 had disappeared from her radar."


Seems you forgot to mention that the controllers had some additional info which has
vanished in your personal Bermuda Triangle...


Source:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14141827/NYC-B1-NTMO-East-Position-3-Fdr-Transcript

Quote:

1405 (10:05 a.m.)

ntmo-e: ok united ninety three we're now receiving a transponder on and he is at eighty two hundred feet

doug: now transponder and he's eighty two-hundred

ntmo-e: southeastbound still

doug: eighty two hundred feet and now getting a transponder on him

ntmo-e: correct

doug: ok buddy


10:06

ntmo-e: ok we've lost radar contact with united ninety three
doug: all right


10:07

ntmo-e: sixteen south of Johnstown where they lost united ninety three and it was heading turning one four zero heading


10:10


ntmo-e: I don't know if he's landed ok; the last position of united I'm going to give some coordinates united ninety three

doug: yes

ntmo-e: three nine five one north zero seven eight four six west

doug: zero seven eight four six

ntmo-e: west

doug: west

doug: all right



SUMMARY:

United 93 switched on the transponder at 10:05 (two minutes after its alleged crash), and the transponder indicated an altitude of 8200 ft. It is heading southeast.

One minute later, at 10:06, radar contact with United 93 is lost, at the position 39,51 north, 78,46 west. This point is about 13 miles southeast of the crash site.



Cheers to Woody Box who found this interesting piece,
Kesha

[Bolo Boffin]

121. Uh-huh.

Whatever "Berlitz mode" is, I don't know.

But do you and Woody Box know the difference between ZOB and NTMO-E?

[Kesha]

123. Bermuda Triangle mode explained...

How abouts facts?

So, how does the "difference between ZOB and NTMO-E" explain the fact that
UA93 switched on it`s transponder at 10:05, according to the ATC script?


Kesha

[Bolo Boffin]

124. I'd like to see the radar equipment that could receive a transponder signal in D.C from Pennsylvania

Have you figured out the difference between ZOB and NTMO-E yet?

[Kesha]

125. This ain`t a problem in Europe... dunno about the US

We have such fabulous inventions like telephone and computer networks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Organisation_for_the_Safety_of_Air_Navigation

Do you suggest that the FAA transcript is false?


Immer diese Verschwörungs-Theoretiker...
Kesha

[Bolo Boffin]

126. No, I don't suggest the FAA transcript is false.

I don't suggest that the FAA timeline is false either.

I am suggesting that you discover the difference between ZOB and NTMO-E and which one may actually have been looking at the radar screen and which one was in a building in D.C. waiting for information to make its way to them on a desperately chaotic day.

[JackRiddler]

128. Anscheinend...

hat der Kaos des Tages die Telefon- und Radiosignale um 2 Minute verlangsamt!

Gruss!

[Bolo Boffin]

129. While you're busy worrying about a 2 minute difference between what

ZOB knew and when NTMO-E learned it, have you any idea exactly which plane might have shot down 93, seeing that there wasn't a fighter jet anywhere near it, at 10:03 or at 10:06?

[JackRiddler]

130. Now what makes you say the plane was shot down?

And I guess your sudden shift to that is an implicit concession on the question of crash time?

[Bolo Boffin]

133. What other reason are you arguing for a 10:06 time?

And I've conceded nothing.

[JackRiddler]

138. The question is why NORAD and the Commission are so stubborn about 10:03.

[Bolo Boffin]

140. Because that is where all evidence verifiably connected to Flight 93 leads.

So you don't want to say why you are clinging to 10:06? I don't blame you if the reason is you think 93 was shot down.

Because then you would have to explain why there is no evidence of such in the released tapes of people doing their jobs that day (NORAD, the ATCs).

You would have to explain why no one among the hundreds who would have known about the shootdown have never said anything about this shootdown to this day. People tend to notice when a fighter jet lands minus a missile or two they loaded onto it.

You would have to explain why the FDR and CVR both cut off at 10:03, while Flight 93 is in a unrecoverable dive, upside down, at full throttle.

You would have to explain why the Bush Administration chose not to release the information about a shootdown, instead of adding it onto the emotional ammunition of the day.

You would have to explain why there were no fighter jets in the vicinity of Flight 93, much less one with a weapon ready to knock it out of the sky.

You have to explain why people on the ground watching Flight 93 crashing saw no missile hitting the plane.

It is not the 9/11 Commission and NORAD being stubborn here.

[Kesha]

141. Yep... must be the reason for the delay

An 9/11 war nicht nur die Luftabwehr, sondern sogar die Lichtgeschwindigkeit langsamer als sonst... :-)

The OCT vs. Einstein.
Nothing is absolute...

[mhatrw]

105. Where did all of these reporters get the 10:06 time from?

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/flight93/postgazette_20010912crash.html

United Airlines Flight 93, a Boeing 757-200 en route from New Jersey to San Francisco, fell from the sky near Shanksville at 10:06 a.m., about two hours after it took off, leaving a trail of debris five miles long.

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/flight93/usatoday_clearskies.htm

10:06 — United Airlines Flight 93 crashes in Shanksville, Pa.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/september11.usa

During this time, two passengers make calls to their wives saying passengers are discussing how to stop hijackers; and a struggle - recorded by the cockpit voice recorder - occurs. At 10.00 the controller observes the plane is flying at 7,500 feet. Six minutes later the controller says the flight is down

http://www.aetv.com/flight_93/f93_history.jsp

The passenger leaders, including Tom Burnett, Mark Bingham, Todd Beamer, Jeremy Glick, and the rest of the passengers and crew, began making final, heartrending calls to say goodbye to loved ones and family. BY 9:58, most cell phone calls had ended. The frantic fight began.

At 10:06, Flight 93 crashed in a field near a wooded area in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, in Somerset County, a scant 20 minutes by air from the White House. All 33 passengers and 7 crewmembers were killed. Tragically, the people on board had achieved their goal.

http://www.aviationexplorer.com/flight_93.htm

(Reuters)

United's Flight 93, bound for San Francisco from Newark, New Jersey, crashed near a strip mine at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday in a wooded section of Somerset County, about 80 miles southeast of Pittsburgh, apparently killing all 45 people on board.

Eight minutes earlier, emergency officials in neighboring Westmoreland County said they received a cell phone call from another passenger who said the plane had been hijacked.

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp

CeeCee Lyles let out a scream.

"They're doing it! They're doing it! They're doing it!" she said. Lorne Lyles heard a scream. Then his wife said something he couldn't understand. Then the line went dead.

Forty-five seconds after telling Fritz to evacuate the Johnstown tower, Cleveland Air Traffic Control phoned again.

"They said to disregard. The aircraft had turned to the south and they lost radar contact with him."

It was 10:06 a.m.

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/flight93/philadelphiadailynews_111501.html

Of course, in 2001, Internet conspiracy theories are hardly shocking. What is surprising is this: Go to Shanksville and the surrounding farm fields where people actually saw or heard the jetliner go down at roughly 10:06 that morning and there are a number of people -- including witnesses -- who also think that Flight 93 was shot down, or at least aren't ruling it out.

[Marksbrother]

69. Why couldn't explosive detonations account for the signal?

If a plane had crashed there, it would leave behind more than a tremor signal. It would leave behind credible evidence
of the event - far more credible evidence than what has been produced (literally).

[JackRiddler]

75. Why bother to speculate like this?

It's not on you to explain the lack of a 10:03 tremor, or the occurence of a 10:06 ground-level tremor that fits the profile of a plane crash - it's on the government and the defenders of its 10:03 story.

[Marksbrother]

76. Because there's no credible evidence of a plane crash there.

Creating the crater via controlled explosion makes sense. Recall the mushroom cloud?

[Bolo Boffin]

78. No. It's your assertion that the tremor is 93. It's your burden of proof.

But even one of the scientists you rely upon admits that it isn't necessarily 93.

Oops, I repeated myself! You win!

[mhatrw]

85. So Flight 93 hits the ground hard enough to ballistically eject solid

metal debris more than 1.5 miles away from the site of impact and this causes no seismic disturbance whatsoever. Then some unknown and completely unexplained tremor exhibits the seismograph readings that would be expected for just such an impact some three minutes later, and the "burden of proof" is on those who don't buy it?

[SDuderstadt]

86. what is the source for your claim of " solid metal debris"...

being found more than 1.5 miles away from the site of impact?

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

93. Does this sound like "solid metal debris" to you?

Some Indian Lake residents reported seeing “sparkling confetti” or hearing sounds like “acorns hitting the house” around the time of the crash. “Every piece that we picked up was charred,” said Indian Lake Mayor Barry Lichty, whose neighbors spotted debris in their yards.

“We found a few small pieces of sheet metal,” Lichty said in a telephone interview. “They were about the size of bolts.”

At nearby Indian Lake Marina, employees took FBI agents out on boats and helped collect debris that washed up on shore including “parts of the plane and papers – just little pieces,” said Tom Spinelli, a marina service technician. “A lot of California information on it, like phone numbers,” Spinelli said in a telephone interview. “We thought we saw pieces of bone – they took it with them.”

Face it. You put the word "solid" in there to make it sound like the debris was more substantial than it actually was. I don't think that debris that people describe as "confetti" quite fits the definition of "solid", do you?

[mhatrw]

95. Name another plane crash in the history of aviation in which the plane hit the ground fully intact

and in which pieces of metal "about the size of bolts” were found over 1.5 miles away from the impact site.

Face it. You cannot.

[SDuderstadt]

97. Dude...your source talks about pieces of SHEET metal about the size of bolts...

does that sound to you like something heavy? Why would you be surprised that small pieces of what was essentially sheet metal confetti were borne by the wind some distance from the crash? More importantly, please point to another plane crash in history in which the hijackers deliberately rammed the plane into the ground at an extremely high rate of speed.

[mhatrw]

106. Name another plane crash in the history of aviation in which the plane hit the ground fully intact

and in which "bolt sized pieces of metal" were found over 1.5 miles from the impact site.

You cannot. Just another world's record for the 9/11 OCT!!!

[SDuderstadt]

107. Dude...do you understand the difference when the pilot is doing everything possible...

to AVOID the crash and one in which the pilot is deliberately trying to ram it into the ground at the highest speed possible?

[mhatrw]

109. Dude, do you understand the plane crashes show up on seismographs

even when the pilot is trying to AVOID crashing?

[SDuderstadt]

111. What in the fuck does that have to do with how far away...

debris was found? Try to stay on topic.

[mhatrw]

113. Read the OP. Check and mate. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

116. Typical "truther"....

declare "victory" and try to pretend the debate is over. Amazing.

[JackRiddler]

131. Typical resort to the labeling strategy.

[SDuderstadt]

132. What would you call the "strategy", Jack?

n/t

[JackRiddler]

134. Irrelevant? Stupid? Denialist? Biased? Laughably arrogant? So much to choose from.

[SDuderstadt]

135. I would agree that all those choices describe the ''truth movement''

I am, however, surprised at your refreshing candor.

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

87. Self-delete...

accidental dupe

[Bryan Sacks]

81. No-planer alert, Jack. n/t

[Marksbrother]

90. What exactly does that mean?

Is it some kind of secret code signaling the need to be careful because people who have bothered to study enough to know
that there were no real plane crashes also are likely to be informed about other aspects of 9/11 and therefore it won't be
easy to fool them or distract them away from the subject at hand. Is that what "no-planer alert" means?

But, don't forget about the CGI-planers. Like the man said, "they've got feelings too."

[Bolo Boffin]

91. Yes, that's exactly what it means.

We can't fool you. Jack and Bryan can't fool you. Nobody can fool you.

And why should anyone try to fool you? You do a fantastic job of fooling yourself.

[Marksbrother]

92. It other words, it means one who knows that no planes

crashed on 9/11. The only fooling is that done to try and fool people into thinking there were real planes that crashed, but
any fool can plainly see that the videos show only CGI planes and they didn't even crash. They just melted into the WTC
buildings, and at the Pentagon instead of a CGI plane, they used a Nike image and tried to pass it off as a huge airliner.

[Kesha]

63. Here`s another reason why 10:03 is dubious

Quote Woody Box:


According to Paul Thompsons timeline,

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/dayof9...

the passengers began to attack the hijackers at 9:58. Everybody, especially the "heroes", was running to the cockpit.

Everybody?

What did Jeremy Glick do?

He was talking with his wife in the rear.

From Jere Longman, "Among the heroes", p.147:

//////
Were they going to crash his plane into the WTC? Jeremy wanted to know.

"No", Lyz said, almost laughing. "They are not going there."

Why? Jeremy asked.

One of the towers had just fallen. ((9:59))

"They knocked it down," Lyz told him. The north tower, was wounded, too. //////

And the phone call is not finished yet. So let's get straight: There was a fight in the cockpit going on, there were screams, there was a wobbling plane going down rapidly .

And Jeremy Glick is sitting in the rear and talking with his wife about the WTC.

-------------------------

The South Tower collapsed exactly between 9:59:04 and 9:59:14. So the quoted passage between Glick and his wife took place between 9:59:14 and 10:01:00 if not later.

Now let's hear what was going on aboard Flight 93 in this two minutes according to the 9/11 report:

At 9:58:57, Jarrah told another hijacker in the cockpit to block the door. Jarrah continued to roll the airplane sharply left and right, but the assault continued. At 9:59:52, Jarrah changed tactics and pitched the nose of the airplane up and down to disrupt. the assault. The recorder captured the sounds of loud thumps, crashes, shouts, and breaking glasses and plates. At 10:00:03, Jarrah stabilized the airplane. Five seconds later, Jarrah asked, “Is that it? Shall we finish it off?” A hijacker responded, “No. Not yet. When they all come,we finish it off.” The sounds of fighting continued outside the cockpit. Again, Jarrah pitched the nose of the aircraft up and down. At 10:00:26, a passenger in the background said,“ In the cockpit. If we don ’t we ’ll die! ”Sixteen seconds later, a passenger yelled, “Roll it!” Jarrah stopped the violent maneuvers at about 10:01:00 and said, “Allah is the greatest! Allah is the greatest!”

And Jeremy Glick is sitting in the rear and talking calmly with his wife about the WTC.

---------------------------

Discussed here, 5 years ago:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x6210

[Theobald]

82. No it didn't

"the South Tower collapsed exactly between 9:59:04 and 9:59:14"

Not one video shows the towers collapsing in exactly 11 seconds. It is ludicrous for you to believe this 'fact'.

[mhatrw]

83. Is that all you have? How does that materially affect the actual timing of Flight 93's crash?

[Theobald]

88. It doesn't affect the actual timing of flight 93

It was a statement of fact proffered, that is demonstrably false, and I simply pointed that out.

[JackRiddler]

100. Which means your comment is irrelevant to the point.

Okay, fine, let's say the collapse took 30 seconds if you like. What's the difference? That in fact would buttress the point, which is that Bingham was seated at the back and talking with his wife about the WTC collapse, at a point when the Commission says a battle was going on at the cockpit door and Jarrah was causing the plane to dive wildly, which however (and very implausibly) Bingham doesn't mention. See?

[Kesha]

84. get real

Is this a proposal to expand the collapse time from 09:59:04 to >= 10:03?

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.