Flight 93 question

[paulthompson]

I've found this article from NBC on 9/11/02. If you look at the below, I'd like to know when exactly is Flight 93 over Youngstown, Ohio so I can place this chronologically. Can anyone look at its flight path and figure that out?

This might bear on the whole "could phone calls have been made from Flight 93" question, if it can be determined when the flight climbs then dives, and just how far down it dives. Certainly it would be hard to imagine a successful cell phone call at 35 to 41,000 feet from around or before this time, like the Tom to Deena Burnett call at 9:27. The Youngstown placement would have to be after 9:28, because that's when the cockpit struggle below is said to happen.



As American Flight 77 was breaching Washington's airspace to eventually hit the Pentagon, back in the skies over Youngstown, Ohio, Flight 93 still is on course, now airborne for more than 50 minutes. But now, Stacey Taylor and other controllers watch the plane suddenly start to climb. The controller working Flight 93 tries to contact the cockpit.

Unidentified Air Traffic Controller #7: (From tape) United 93, Cleveland, do you still hear the center?

Ms. TAYLOR: I was afraid of that flight. I see this plane, climbed up from his assigned altitude to 35--of 35,000 feet to 41,000 feet, turned around and aimed right back at where we were, and descended rapidly. And when a plane descends too fast, the computer can't keep up with it. And you get Xs in the altitude box. So we knew he was aimed at us and descending very, very rapidly. At that point, I knew it was a confirmed hijacking. I didn't know where they were going, what they were doing. I was worried that we were a target, that the center was a target. I remember looking at the ceiling and thinking, 'Here--you know--here it comes.'

BROKAW: (Voiceover) We have all shuddered at the thought of what must have been going on in the cockpits of those hijacked airliners. It turns out the Cleveland controller working United Flight 93 at the time, along with supervisors, actually heard the sounds of the struggle in the cockpit.

Ms. TAYLOR: I said, 'Did you guys talk to him?' He goes, 'Yeah, we talked to him.' I said, 'What did the pilot'--he said, 'It wasn't the pilots.' He said, 'It was the hijackers.' I said, 'The hijackers?' I said, 'Are you telling me the hijackers were talking to you on the frequency?' He said, 'The pilot opened up the mike before.' He said, 'We heard it all.' I said, 'What?' He said, 'We heard them being killed.' And he said, 'We heard.' And I said--I said, 'Don't tell me any more.' I said, 'I don't--I don't want to know any more.'

[paulthompson]

1. also from the same article

more clues to the altitude of Flight 93:

Ms. TAYLOR: Yeah. And then the transponder came back on. We got two hits off the transponder. That's something we've always wanted to know. Why did the transponder come back on? Because the hijackers had shut it off so that they couldn't be tracked, even though we were still tracking them. Now we were getting an altitude readout on the airplane. I can't remember the precise numbers, but it was around 6400 feet, and then around 5900 or 5800 feet. And we're thinking, 'Oh, you know, maybe something's happened, maybe this isn't what we think it is.'

BROKAW: (Voiceover) But minutes later, at 10:03, the transponder shuts off again. Flight 93 disappears from radar.

[medienanalyse]

3. Dear Paul - you rely on data that are rubbish

and so you will never get a conclusion. It is just as simple as that: Nashua ATC tells us about a F-16 circling, and our dear Stacey forgets to mention that. Or: One of the passengers is on the toulet and makes his allged phonecall. This is the one that ends with the alleged time of the crash. But we have witnesses seing UAL93 flying upside down. And Stacey about up and down -which is a difference. but on a toilet it has the same effect: it shgould be worth to be mentioned. And so on and so on.
As I said:
There is NO PHONR CALL worth a label " evidence". Not even one.

When jumping for the sticks the dogs forget a lot about their primary goals. So forget about any "map" like the one "Woody" offers. What are the quotes, the fundaments of such a "map"?

Concerning "But now, Stacey Taylor and other controllers watch the plane suddenly start to climb. The controller working Flight 93 tries to contact the cockpit." - tell me about the other controllers. Who? Where? And Staceys colleague was just named yesertday by our "ATC" Mercutio again,("The colleague was John Worth, a controller in another Area" here. Which gives is nothing about evidence.

[paulthompson]

4. I disagree

A good investigative technique is just to keep people talking. The more people talk, and the more different people talk, the more one can spot the lies and contradictions.

Finding out the altitude for flight 93 is a key part in understanding the phone call question. What you talk about with the F-16 circling and the passenger on the toilet happens later and isn't what Stacey Taylor is talking about here.

[MercutioATC]

5. Paul, I'd encourage you to remove the paragraph stating that

a plane that's 15 degrees or 2 miles off course should cause the controller to hit the "panic button". It's simply not true and detracts from the seriousness of your timeline.

If you have doubts, talk to ANY controller. They'll confirm that it's pure sensationalism.

[paulthompson]

6. statement

Hi,
As you may know, I use official reports and mainstream media as the only sources for my timeline. I believe the quote you're talking about came from Newsweek. If you find anything - gvmt. regulations, quotes or statements in articles, etc, that fit my criteria, I'll be glad to add to or replace that Newsweek bit. But "talk to any controller" doesn't count as evidence by the standards I've set.

[medienanalyse]

7. ATC will like this answer and

some of this too, may be:

"let them talk" is witgout doubt a good way.

In fact I mixed Youngstown up with Johnstown, which plays a role in the very last seconds of UAL93 ( it is Rep. Murtha`s private airport). So both are USAF facilities anyway.

Stacey telling us: "So we knew he was aimed at us .....that we were a target, that the center was a target." is a nice story. It is not mentioned anywhere else that it was not a bomb, not Delta1989, not ANY plane but UAL93 that "caused" the evacuation by its rapid descent. So far I agree to your question.

But when we follow Staceys timeline in comparison to the "edited tape" we can conclude:
first "cockpit murder"
then "descent", evacuation
then turn off direction Shanksville
then "we have a bomb on board"
then the very intelligent and appropiate question "did he say we have a bomb on board" to pilots/planes that should be veeered off since half an hour
then "up and down", zigzag, "upside down" - and no caller tells us that
then crash.

Whatever you fit into this line of events (radioing, phone calls, events - nothing makes sense.

If you are able to report the events in a logic order AND to fit them together: congratulations. I can not.

Concerning the 15 degrees: it is not only the quote. It is logically. Especially in the East coast region of the U.S. which is more crowded than Central Europe.

[MercutioATC]

10. Concerning the 15 degrees...

...it's still an untrue statement.

As I've explained, the wind can push a non-area-navigation equipped airplane by more than that. It's something we keep an eye on, but nothing like the police car speeding down the highway as Paul's timeline quote would suggest.

[medienanalyse]

11. who is wrong about what

nobody ever claimed here "it cannot happen that a plane deviates 15 degrees" Nobody. It is not the question.
Same with altitude.
Same with the need to get out of a thunderstorm.

It is just not the point.

The point is: will it be noticed by the ATC? Yes.
Will it cause radio contact with the ATC? Yes.
Will the ATC (depending on the airspace available) force thge pilot back? Yes.
Will such an incident cause major questions (at least) if the pilot cannot explain why and especially if he does not follow the ATCs advise? Yes. Nothing less than the loss of the license.

Besides: a deviation of 15 degrees causes in one hour a very interesting new destination in the nowhere.

[MercutioATC]

12. I'm speaking of this quote from Paul's 9/11 timeline:

“Pilots are supposed to hit each fix with pinpoint accuracy. If a plane deviates by 15 degrees, or two miles from that course, the flight controllers will hit the panic button. They'll call the plane, saying ‘American 11, you're deviating from course.’ It's considered a real emergency, like a police car screeching down a highway at 100 miles an hour."

The obligatory link to that paragraph:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?startpos=600&timeline=complete_911_timeline

Yes, it will be noticed. Yes, we will have the pilot correct his course. No, it's definitely nothing like "a police car screeching down the highway at 100 miles per hour". We see it every day. We simply let the pilot know. Depending on his/her competence, we usually get them back on course. It's NOT a "panic button" issue.

[MercutioATC]

8. I do understand your policy, but the statement is still false.

I'll try to find something more accurate and submit it.

Thanks for the response.

[Woody Box]

2. Re

Here's an animated gif of UA 93's flight path:



The data in the first line under "UAL 93" are altitude (inclusive notifying of climbing) and speed.

UA 93 turned around slighty west of Cleveland at 9:36. Youngstown is about 60 miles away from this turning point.
From the plane's speed (440 mph) we can therefore conclude that UA 93 was over Youngstown at...9:28.

As I said before, the transponder was switched off at 9:40, so we know the speed and altitude at the time of Burnett's first call (9:27).

My comment? Phone call impossible.

[ramblin_dave]

9. Is cooperativeresearch.org down?

I can't get to it:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/index.jsp

[DougFir]

13. "no phone calls" - a slick tactic to divide researchers and families

http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

stories used to alienate the public from 9/11 truth


"cellphones can't be used in airplanes"


The articles on the web that discuss cellphones in planes vary in their opinions about the feasibility of this. An experiment to replicate these claims would need to know the exact altitudes and phone companies and be in the same locations -- which is probably impossible to do.


The implication is that the calls that WERE made were (1) not made from an Airphone (which clearly DO work), and (2) were military psyop campaigns to spread the myth of the cellphone calls about the hijackers.


While it is certainly true that fake audio and video is much easier to make these days, this is probably the meme most calculated to alienate "911 researchers" from the family members. It is very unlikely that a spouse would not know they were having a phone conversation with their partner, and the extra complication to the operation this would require makes this theory one of the least credible. There is enough provable evidence of official complicity without claiming that 9/11 family members really didn't talk with their loved ones on the phone.


 

[Abe Linkman]

14. HEY "lared" bolo mr. murky: YOU'VE got company.

The fearless threesome have been very lonesome, so they owe you a big debt of gratitude, dougfir.

[DulceDecorum]

15. Oilempire is a PUBLIC RELATIONS disinfo site

And they are SCREWED
because the video taken on September 11, 2001
shows MULTIPLE SIGNS OF TAMPERING.

If you take film of an average family vacation at Magic Kingdom
and submit it for testing
the results will usually demonstrate
that the film has NOT been tampered with.
All the images and sounds on the family video are true.
Those things really happened.
Nobody adjusted anything.
There are no special effects.
It happened just the way you see it up on the screen.

If you take the video that was shown on the screen on September 11, 2001.
It has been tampered with.
Stuff has been deleted.
Stuff has been inserted.
Many images and sounds are fake.
Those things did NOT really happen that way.
There ARE special effects.
It did NOT happen just the way that you saw it up on the screen.

In other words,
Goofy is REAL.
And you can see him for yourself if you go to Orlando.
There REALLY is something that looks like Goofy
and you can see it
and you can touch it
and you can speak to it
and it will nod its head
and it will even respond with gestures.
And you KNOW I am telling the truth.

And, according to the FAA,
N591UA did NOT crash into a field.
It is alive and well and it STILL has a valid US registration.
According to the FAA,
N612UA did NOT crash into the World Trade Center.
It is alive and well and it STILL has a valid US registration.
According to the FAA,
N334AA did NOT crash into the World Trade Center.
It remained alive and well until January 14 2002 when it was removed from the US registry.
According to the FAA,
N644AA did NOT crash into the Pentagon.
It remained alive and well until January 14, 2002 when it was removed from the US registry.

Therefore,
according to the FAA,
which has been ACTIVELY involved
in the investigation of the events of September 11, 2001
ALL THE PLANES SURVIVED:
NOT ONE SINGLE AIRCRAFT CRASHED ON THAT DAY.
THAT is what the FAA has to has to say.
Any questions?
Ask them.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/acmain.htm

WHO says that planes crashed on September 11, 2001?
WHO says that Arab terrorists committed a heinous crime?
WHO has FORBIDDEN the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) from doing what Congress requires them to do
regarding the investigation of aircraft disasters in the US?
Boston FBI.
The guys who framed Salvati.
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/000298.html
And the ones who protect them.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1214-01.htm
Congressional pressure on executive branch prosecutorial decisionmaking is inconsistent with separation of powers and threatens individual liberty. Because I believe that congressional access to these documents would be contrary to the national interest, I have decided to assert executive privilege with respect to the documents and to instruct you not to release them or otherwise make them available to the Committee.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011213-1.html
Sound familiar, doesn't it?
http://www.rense.com/general29/ddy.htm
REAL familiar.
http://www.americanether.net/CheneyEnergy911.html
http://www.house.gov/commerce_democrats/EnergyTaskForce/energytaskforce.shtml
"It is regrettable, but not surprising, that a newly appointed federal judge chose to look the other way. Vice President Cheney’s cover-up will apparently continue for the foreseeable future unless the Republican Congress demands appropriate disclosure. I’m not holding my breath."
http://www.house.gov/commerce_democrats/press/107st163.htm

But I digress.
ALL the video taken of the events of September 11, 2001
FAILS to live up to the stringent testing
that corroborates the existence of Goofy at Magic Mountain.
The 911 video is fake.
Goofy is not.

Goofy - ONE.
Planes - ZERO.
oilempire - sucks worse than Monica.

[MercutioATC]

16. Re: Cellphone use at altitude:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=11736&mesg_id=17062

Yes, it's one flight, but I did have intermittent service (even at 35,000 feet).

[DulceDecorum]

17. And most people here

have probably missed the winning lottery number by a few digits.
With the same result.
Ya got nothing.

[MercutioATC]

18. Yeah, whatever...

I still had a signal at 35,000 feet.

[LARED]

19. It's curious

You got a signal at 35,000 ft, meaning you connected with a cell tower. Meaning you were connected to the cell system, meaning you could have made or received a call.

I wonder why the CT crowd discounts that?

[MercutioATC]

20. Frankly, I have no idea...

I agree with your assessment. Had I actually made a call, I'm sure there would have been those here who would doubt me anyway.

As I said, I was surprised that I was able to get a signal at all. 35,000 feet is nearly seven miles. I guess I was beginning to buy into the "you can't make cell calls from a plane" BS, too. Glad to see I was wrong.