Tuesday, April 30, 2019

United 93 Evidence Against Crashing At Shanksville, Pennsylvania

Operation Clean Sweep 

Soil samples were collected from mid-September to mid-October 2001. Soil was collected from the bottom of the excavated crater, crater backfill material, surface, subsurface, and subsurface background. Soil samples were analyzed by a portable field gas chromatograph or sent to a laboratory for analysis for one or more of the following: TPH, TCL VOCs, TCL SVOCs, DRO, GRO, metals, PCBs, and wet chemistry. Surface and subsurface samples were collected based on a grid system of the site, extending 200 feet to the east, west, and south of the crater and 150 feet to the north. 

Only lead was found at the bottom of the crater and was attributed to 

Why was only lead was found at the bottom of the crater for Flight 93 do to previous mining activities onsite?  What happen to Flight 93 Jet Fuel?


 I found a footpath crossing over the flight 93 impact crater, what does that mean for the official theory of flight 93 digging it's way out of out of sight ? 






Dan Plesse
Dan Plesse
Original Author · 41m ago

Lets talk about what Sandy Dahl heard on the cvr black box

"For instance, they talk about passengers indicating that the pilots were dead and laying in the "first-class section. I heard evidence to the contrary on this tape. And I don't understand why they would report that." Sandy Dahl

If Sandy is saying the original flight 93 Pilots were in control then they were the ones who typed D-C-A into the flight control management system causing the radar data block to update and also caused the electronic domino effect on 9/11 which leads to the "Landing" issue on FlightAware system and the results are frozen as an image below.

“However, take-off was delayed because of the airport's typically heavy morning traffic.”

This was an updated ticket after takeoff on 9/11, so this information is being made while the flight is in the air on 9/11 and is relative to AFTER take-off only. So they can say “on time” because the plane is in the air at 8:43 therefore “on-time”. The shoot down happened soon after this update, but no one sees a shoot down. We have Norman Mineta talking about the Stand Down Order, but no visual evidence as of yet.

“did they have body part map for flight 77?” YES!!!!

“ why would the trail be destroyed” because flight 93 was a 757
 “When it was not impacted by anything?” because flight 93 was said to hit that area!!

The trail shows nothing hit that area or it could be made after but the paths would ALL lead directly at the crater and not indirectly.

Dead center of the area of impact is the footpath. If 757 impacted this area the footpath should be gone too.

9/11 Norman Mineta talks about the Stand Down Order but believes the cover story

the trail shows nothing hit that area or it could be made after.




United 93 was reported as landed on 9/11 and the data block was updated to DCA








Interview with Wolf Blitzer, CNN 8/8/03:
Wolf Blitzer: A new report suggests a hijacker may have deliberately crashed United Flight 93 into a Pennsylvania field the morning of September 11, 2001. Officials say an FBI analysis of the cockpit voice recorder indicates the hijackers were trying to end a passenger uprising. Earlier speculation was that the passengers stormed the cockpit and crashed the plane themselves.
I'm joined now by Sandy Dahl. She's the widow of Flight 93's captain, Jason Dahl. She listened to the actual voice recorder.
Sandy, thanks very much for joining us. Welcome.
What you to make of the new information the FBI is putting out?
Sandy Dahl: I don't understand it, Mr. Blitzer.
I heard the tape. I listened to it twice, listened to the transcripts. I didn't hear anything that indicated to me the hijackers were intending to crash the airplane.
Wolf Blitzer: What they're suggesting, that a -- sort of an enhanced audio of that cockpit voice recording suggests that perhaps one of the hijackers ordered the hijacking pilot who managed to get into the cockpit to go ahead and crash the plane, as there was a disturbance among the passengers in the back. You've actually heard, though, the discussion, the cockpit voice recorder. And what did it say deliberately, clearly, to you?
Sandy Dahl: There was no discussion of crashing it right now. They talked about ending their mission earlier.
And they -- and they decided not to do that. So I don't think -- I don't think it was deliberate and it certainly wasn't planned.
Wolf Blitzer: One of the suggestions they've suggested, at least some of the experts who heard the cockpit voice recording, was that, in the Arabic, that there may have been a different translation, there may have been a more precise explanation of what was going on that than in the translation or in the English, whatever you may have heard in English. Is that possible?
Sandy Dahl: I heard the translation that the FBI gave us that day.
And I wanted to say, I would really love for the government to come out and marry the flight data record with the voice recorder. And we would have a very clear picture of what went on. I'm kind of disappointed in reading this report.
(CROSSTALK)
Wolf Blitzer: Well, tell us why, Sandy, you are disappointed, because there clearly was resistance aboard the plane, the United flight. The passengers clearly took the matter into their own hands, even if the final order to crash the plane came from the hijackers, as opposed to the passengers, who decided to save, let's say, Washington, D.C., the White House or the Capitol, knowing what happened at the World Trade Center.
Sandy Dahl: I'm disappointed at the FBI report, because I heard something other than what they reported. And I don't understand how they came up with it.
For instance, they talk about passengers indicated that the pilots were dead and laying in the first-class section. I heard evidence to the contrary on this tape. And I don't understand why they would report that.
Wolf Blitzer: Tell us exactly what you heard.
Sandy Dahl: Oh, I can't do that. I have signed papers with the FBI saying that I wouldn't.


Flight 93 last Primary radar return happened while flying above 19,000 feet via FDR data at 9:46:47. Flight Explorer continues to update while flight was reported lost by air traffic controllers. 10:03 - 10:06 was the official impact time.



 Study results using radar, 9/11 commission report and FBI 302's show that the   best explanation for Flight Explorer late destination change for UAL 93 to  Reagan National Airport (DCA) was either it was a new plane or an attempt to aid lost hijackers by insiders providing a general area autopilot can use . If UAL 93 received aid, its possible that all the 9/11 hijacked flights received additional help in navigating to their targets using same method.  It incumbent on the lawyers committee for 9/11 to hunt down criminals and bring Justice  to the families.

From the FlightExplorer flightpath animations, and statements from the company who produce FlightExplorer, it is clear that the data is NOT predicted flightpath data, but is driven by radar data supplied by the FAA.

 The FlightExplorer flightpaths were used by 11 news agencies on 9/11, and the FAA themselves regularly used FlightExplorer flightpath recordings until 1999, at which point they began recording them internally.
The FlightExplorer flightpaths include all deviations from the planned flightpath, confirming they are position based rather than predictive. The FlightExplorer flightpaths produced by FlightExplorer themselves used their internal data, negating all client refresh timing updates, and so incorporate all FAA supplied positional data. FlightExplorer received regular requests from the FAA themselves for flightpath traces, confirming the accuracy and validity of their data. source



UAL 93 was lost and updated at around the same time 9:52. If the Command Center informed headquarters that controllers had lost track of United 93, then it was not the controllers that were updating UAL flight plan to DCA, then who was and why?

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/UAL-93-was-lost-and-updated-at-around-the-same-time-9-52-9-53-If-the-Command-Center-informed-headquarters-that-controllers-had-lost-track-of-United-93-then-the-controllers-were-NOT-the-ones-updating-UAL-to-DCA-Then
9/11 Commission Report  
“ Then the Command Center informed headquarters that controllers had lost track of United 93 over the Pittsburgh area.

 First its not a “blue track” is millions of primary radar bounces reflecting off an aircraft. The orange dots are the transponder and the the blue dot has no call-sign attached. The blue dots just have location and time.

 Unless you download the kml file and interact with data you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.
http://www.11-septembre.com/GoogleEarth/911maps.kml

“No radar display using primary only can show automatically a call-sign or an altitude (Mode C).” that is correct and since you have no idea about the data itself you are making things up.

“So, the ATC-system was able to continue to show this primary track of UAL93” As I just said for short while NO it did not! please review the above 9/11 Commission report.

UPDATE: U.S. BTS FOIA Records For 9/11 Planes Differ From BTS Online Database

Aidan Monaghan mon, 06/22/2009 - 4:49am
According to a Freedom of Information Act reply from the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), the last known pre-9/11 flights for three of the four aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 took place in December, 2000, nine months before the attacks, while no pre-9/11 final flight information was provided for American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA).
However, a discovered searchable online BTS database produces the following search results for three of the four 9/11 aircraft on September 10, 2001:
AA 11 departs San Francisco (SFO): AA 09/10/2001 0198 (flight number) N334AA (tail number) BOS (destination) 22:04 (wheels-off time)
UA 175 departs San Francisco (SFO): UA 09/10/2001 0170 (flight number) N612UA (tail number) BOS (destination) 13:44 (wheels-off time)
UA 93 departs San Francisco (SFO): UA 09/10/2001 0078 (flight number) N591UA (tail number) EWR (destination) 23:15 (wheels-off time)
AA 11:
UA 175 and UA 93

Primary Radar UAL 93 Stopped Briefly 

Primary Radar stopped pinging UAL93, so how could ATC update UAL93 flight plan, (which is reflected on flight explorer) if every single data point has been eliminated?


Evidence is mounting that Flight 93 received a new flight plan on 9/11, reported by both a male flight attendant and seen on CNN Flight Explorer during a review of the hijack. Who authorized this flight plan change and was this action more evidence of an 9/11 being an inside job? 

Flight 93 had two actions happen at the same time:

1. primary radar dropped
2. Flight plan was updated

Exhibit #1
Flight 93 primary radar dropped, Flight plan Updated!

Exhibit #2 

Dan Plesse
Dan Plesse


"her attendant husband added that United Flight #93 had changed the flight plan from Las Angeles to Washington D.C. just before the crash."


source 

Mal Fuller  and JOHN WERTH ATC flight 93 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlXDBGu-cfY
Show notes 45:03

JOHN WERTH

flight was assumed going back to New York. then turned South East


Mal Fuller 

Pittsburgh was the assumed a target


Mal Fuller was an air traffic control watch supervisor at Pittsburgh International Airport 

Pittsburgh was the assumed target not Reagan National Airport. Plane was headed directly at Pittsburgh International Airport. 
speed”. It is one of many “V-speeds” defined for an aircraft that limit operation at various flight phases. 

Flight 93 was traveling at VNE.

20:43 Mal Fuller never saw flight 93 over Pittsburgh International Airport (Ghost)  


“The tag change clearly indicates a change in an existing flight plan (not a new flight plan), which would have almost certainly been initiated by ATC, since ATC is the only entity that would care or benefit from it.” Not true.

The “hijackers” were first time pilots with zero real world experience with 767’s and 757’s and the only way they found their targets was someone would show them the way using airports and allowing automation to do the work otherwise they would be lost. The planes all had too much back and forth roll, while flight 93 rolled 180 degrees too far. This is the reason for the DCA switch. AA11 targeted JFK but this switch does not show up in the data block. EWR for Flight 175. Flight 175 had to fly too close to active Air force and Air Guard bases which means 1. the flight path was fake or 2. stand down was ordered.  FAA has stated that flight 175 turned in a circle around NYC.

A noticeable gap in primary radar happens right when UAL93 switches from SFO to DCA between 9:52:03 and 9:53:21. No other flight has this issue on 9/11.

Updated View 8:12
Older view
“Yes. Without the transponder, the target track would be lost and there would be no point in updating the data (i.e. destination) in it any longer.”
Then why was someone or something updating this flight and doing just that? A new arrival time was updated at lease two additional times.
Arrival time #1
Arrival Time update #2
Is 350 the airspeed and 473 the altitude. UAL is lost while increasing in altitude. It does not sound like a low flying, crashing plane 50 feet above eyewitnesses heads.
“That’s standard procedure. It prevents speculation and misinformation, and in this case, yes, the controller may have seen things that could compromise the investigation.”
Have you heard anything from air-traffic controllers in Cleveland in 18+ years since? Do you know their names? “forbidden” might mean the gag-order is permanent and that is not justifiable.
KAL 085 at least manufactured additional ATC to undermine the whistle-blower. Did you watch that video?9/11 Commission Report
"Command Center informed headquarters that controllers
had lost track of United 93 over the Pittsburgh area" 

 How does plane manage to drop its primary radar return unless it was a ghost to begin with or below radar? 

"JOHN WERTH advised that he turned on the "primary return" on his radar scope in order to continue tracking UAL Flight 93. WERTH said that the primary return used ground based radar to track aircraft, but that it is unable to provide altitude readouts. WERTH advised that he was able to continued tracking UAL Flight 93 using the primary return, until it went under the radar southeast of Pittsburg"

JOHN WERTH advised that he was the only controller at Cleveland Center to handle UAL Flight 93"

https://www.scribd.com/document/24392516/T7-B19-Key-302s-Fdr-Entire-Contents-FBI-302s#download

9/11 Commission Report
"Within seconds,the Command Center received a visual report from another aircraft,and informed headquarters that the aircraft was 20 miles northwest of Johnstown. United 93 was
spotted by another aircraft, and, at 10:01, the Command Center advised FAA headquarters that one of the aircraft had seen United 93 “waving his wings.”

All 9/11 hijacked planes had a roll problem. UAL93 rolled over completely.

"The 9/11 Commission Report cleared that all up" I search said report and zero results for the following: TDS and Traffic Display System.

JOHN WERTH Cleveland ATC

"one particular ATC in Cleveland updated the Traffic Display System (TDS) JOHN WERTH is not updating anything. ( Or are you guessing ?

ATC in Cleveland (JOHN WERTH) still has to verify that they were ones updating the data block. Was flightexplorer receiving updates via a messaging system from UAL93 via ACARS?

Three flight explorer updates

Primary Radar also dropped off at the same time as the flight started to increase in altitude, assuming 473 is altitude.

quora is just filled with these types of people.
Hachi Ko replied to your comment on an answer to: "Flight 93 received a new flight plan on 9/11 which was caught on CNN to DCA arrival time 9:34a via Flight Explorer. What does this mean?"
The flight attendant had probably heard the hijackers or whoever was in charge at the time say that they were headed to D.C. A flight attendant wouldn’t know anything about the flight plan and would just be using the term “flight plan” to mean that they were now headed towards the D.C. area. It’s also clear that the person giving the report (flight attendant’s spouse?) doesn’t understand what a flight plan is or how it affects the flight… check the quote above…

Answer: "whoever was in charge" should be the hijackers.

"probably heard the hijackers" Why would they announce this information. helpful hijackers?  FYI Guys? 
"A flight attendant wouldn’t know anything about the flight plan" Nope flight attendants know more then you think. 

“from Las [sic] Angeles to Washington D.C.”

United 93 was never headed to Los Angeles (it was planned for San Francisco), and the person making the report didn’t even spell-check it (Las Angeles).  Answer: So what. 

There is nothing that anyone on the airplane can do  — it is literally impossible — to change the data tag’s destination from SFO to DCA.
Answer: the data tag’s destination from SFO to DCA was a reflection of the Flight Plan change. the data tag from Flight Explorer is not the same thing as an ATC terminal. Maybe you are confusing the two because they look the same. 

  It has to be done by ATC. The controller would make that change because he observed the airplane headed towards D.C. Answer JOHN WERTH Cleveland ATC is on video saying the plane was going EAST back to NY.  He did not observe the airplane headed towards D.C. Next they assumed an attack on Pittsburgh, so they cleared the airport. Did you watch the video?  

If the pilot wanted to change his destination from SFO to DCA, he wouldn’t file a new flight plan or “change the flight plan”… a phrase that sounds like gibberish or at least very amateurish to a pilot or controller. The pilot would request to divert to DCA or change his destination to DCA. If the pilot did want to file a new flight plan, he would have to contact his company (airline) and have them send the new flight plan to ATC. Then, the controller would have to locate the new flight plan, assign the new transponder code, manually drop the old data tag, “depart” the new flight (computer entry), and wait for the new data tag to acquire.

 Answer: First time pilots in a 757. Remote Control or Autopilot maybe required to complete the mission. Maybe routing to a new location unseen would lead to being lost.

"The pilot would request to divert to DCA" ??? The hijacks are not pilots and they don't need to request to do anything. They need only to hit a target on a map. 

Even if the pilot/hijacker did make that request and the controller makes that change, it doesn’t do anything on board the aircraft. The pilot has to manually program the aircraft’s navigation system with the new route and destination. The controller can’t do that or help him with it. If you’re talking about a hijacker who doesn’t know how to program the aircraft’s NAV systems, the easiest thing for him to do would be to use a handheld GPS.

Again… The video shows a basic misunderstanding of how the navigation and ATC systems work and what the term “flight plan” actually means. It’s difficult for me to respond to because the term is used out of context. A flight attendant might use the term “flight plan” in this case because he/she has heard the term used before but doesn’t understand what it means.

 Answer:  The video only shows flight explorer being updated three times before the plane vanishes off screen.  It does NOT show any misunderstandings . 







John Hachi, PREFACE: I've received a notification of a further clarification on your part to my thoughts & questions on air-traffic-controller SOPs; BUT, I don't see it anywhere in this Comments section - like it should be. Thus, I can't reply directly to your latest thoughts / info; which is why I'm posting this separately. MY REPLY TO YOUR LATEST REPLY TO ME: Thanx again for the clarifications (in good detail too); what you say makes sense to me.





Sorry about that. I was trying to provide a simple explanation for why the destination would change in a data tag -- a very rudimentary change that is well-understood by anyone who has ever worked radar air traffic control. However, it turned into a very twisted discussion with someone (not you) who has no idea what he's talking about and still thinks that somehow "Flight 93 Received a New Flight Plan" (whatever that means) and that somehow that provided the aircraft with guidance to its target -- which is complete nonsense and is not how the ATC automation system works... not even close. So, I deleted all my comments here and on a few other sites and blocked the guy. I don't have time to explain to my 5-year-old nephew that the Earth is not supported by an elephant standing on the backs of 4 turtles, so I definitely don't have time to get tangled up in a discussion about ATC automation and aircraft navigation with someone who has no idea what they're talking about (again, not you). This guy is copying and pasting some of my posts out of context so I just ended it. He's convinced himself that what he believes is true and dismisses anything that doesn't support his theory. I'm not going to fuel it. For the record... I neither believe nor dispute any particular theory regarding 9/11. I have no idea whether there was a conspiracy or not. What I do know is how the ATC automation system works, and the "conclusions" made using this video as "evidence" are totally wrong and show a complete lack of understanding of how the flight plan, ATC automation (radar) and aircraft navigation systems work.



People on the plane reported a flight plan change and those reports are public via my blog. John Hachi knows this but if he don't please visit or tell him to visit the link under the video.




@John Hachidata tag in flight explorer may not the same thing as an ATC system. You have ZERO evidence that JOHN WERTH had any part updating directly or indirectly flight explorer data seen on CNN on 9/11 or updating the ATC system on 9/11. He provides his story to anyone who will listen here on Youtube. You have no idea how flight explorer updates its data or where the data is coming from. I do however have a flight attendant saying exactly what the flight explorer update says and at the exactly the same time frame. Once you saw I got the names of ATC and FBI documents supporting my claims you pulled the plug because you lost. this is NOT an ATC automation system but third-party software provider called flightexplorer which you have zero understanding thereof.



@911Truth Now1 "Once you saw I got the names of ATC and FBI documents supporting my claims you pulled the plug because you lost." No, once I saw that, I saw that the FBI report contained information from a non-pilot who heard something over the phone from a non-pilot about a "flight plan" changing from Las [sic] Angeles to Washington (third-hand information). The plane was never going to Los Angeles (which the report couldn't even spell correctly). They didn't even know where the airplane was originally heading and you're trusting the info in that report, all of which is from non-pilots who don't know what a flight plan really is? None of those people know how a flight plan works (not even the flight attendant, who we can't even ask if that's exactly what he said) and the report contains inaccurate info that is readily noticeable. That's the moment that I realized you don't know what you're talking about and that your "evidence" is a joke.



@911Truth Now1 "You have no idea how flight explorer updates its data or where the data is coming from." I do know generally, but I don't know exactly how FE gets or processes its data... that's internal company business. I do know how commercial flight-tracking services work in general. The FAA does provide ATC data to Flight Aware, Flight Explorer, and other companies, although it is often slightly delayed (not perfectly real-time) for security reasons. Flight Explorer is then free to modify that data on their own system as they see fit. Maybe somebody at Flight Explorer guessed the airplane was going to D.C.? Maybe the airline thought the airplane was headed towards D.C. and typed it into their system? (doubtful) Maybe the pilot/hijacker did know how to operate the airplane's NAV system and managed to type "DCA" into the FMS. (don't know how anyone would know that in 2001) This doesn't really give us any more information than we already had on 9/11... the airplane appeared to be headed for the D.C. area. No matter which way you look at it, the tag destination changing from SFO to DCA is not exactly a surprise or any kind of ground-breaking information. The airplane was very close to the ZOB/ZDC boundary (it's near PIT) and headed straight for ZDC airspace at the time the tag changed, so this could have been initiated either at ZOB or ZDC. Again, this is why it would need to be changed... If the controller doesn't change that tag's destination to DCA, the Washington Center controller won't have a tag on it. The reason I "pulled the plug" is because not only are you wrong, most of what you say doesn't even make sense. It sounds like gibberish to an air traffic controller or a pilot. What does "receive a flight plan" mean anyway? I stopped answering and blocked you on the other sites because, as a professional pilot (35 years), controller (25 years), and aircraft accident investigator (18 years), I can clearly tell that you have no idea how the system works or what you are talking about. It's like you looked up Air Traffic Control, Aviation, and Flight Plan on Wikipedia or something.



@John Hachi You forgot the phone conversation was validated electronically by flight explorer, so BOTH support each other. The small mistakes mean nothing as they don't matter. ATC JOHN WERTH said the plane was heading EAST back to NY then South East to Pittsburgh international airport (PIT). If he updated anything it would be PIT not DCA. after (PIT) the primary pings stopped, he would have assumed the plane landed or crashed. Soon after the plane did crash. but he might have seen the switch to DCA himself via a remote hack. Who do you think sent all 7500 codes via ACARS on 9/11 Pilots? Guess again.. Why don't you ask him yourself? Are you chicken or worse - Yellow? I asked you to look into KAL085, so did you? No? Yes?



@John Hachi "the airplane appeared to be headed for the D.C. area. " JOHN WERTH did not say this in his interviews. I  told what he said and YOU  keep going back to this unfounded statement.  Clearly,  you don't want to listen to JOHN WERTH oral history because it does not support your claims. Your guesswork turned out to be wrong and that was the only thing of value you had to share and it did not work out. Now With that part closed, you don't have a single thing left in the tank and I should have been the one to "pull the plug" but I am a better man.  "I do know generally" no you have to know exactly how data goes in and goes out. No more guesswork from you.  Your guesswork has turned out to be bad data.



@911Truth Now1 The aircraft had already passed PIT when the tag changed to DCA, as clearly shown on several tracks... The plane has clearly already passed PIT in your own video, at the moment the tag changes! As usual, the excuse "small mistakes don't matter." Of course they do... you don't trust a report that's riddled with errors as it indicates sloppiness and lack of thoroughness. You can't even get the small things right, but you know the important ones? No. You haven't a clue what you're talking about. Yeah, you've got a recollection of a phone conversation that contains glaring inaccuracies, between two people who are not pilots (one of whom is dead, so we can't ask him what he really said or meant), recorded by someone who can't spell... sloppy, shoddy investigating (and/or an interviewee who clearly can't remember the conversation correctly). What do they know about a flight plan? What they heard on TV? They're using lingo and industry terms that they don't fully understand. My Mom's sister was a flight attendant for 35 years and she doesn't know anything about flight plans... nothing wrong with that, it's not her job. Your entire argument is full of holes, misunderstandings, and illogical statements. I am certainly not going to interrogate a fellow controller who worked on 9/11. I don't have a problem with anything that happened -- the tag change is a perfectly normal and expected change at the point in time that it appears on your video (and many others). Besides, it's very likely he wouldn't remember anyway. If I got asked about amending a tag on any of the accidents I've worked (total of 6), I would probably say, "I don't remember updating the tag, but I'm sure I did. It's second nature and you don't think about it. You're busy with other stuff."


​@John Hachi No the data tags changed when the primary radar stopped pinging off the plane after PIT and the primary radar was the only data point remaining on ATC screens. So now the plane was gone. At this point, he would NOT have updated anything. I even made photos of the primary radar drop and the switch. I recall that you tried to change my "primary radar return" discovery and exchange it with "transponder radar returns" (transponder was long gone, but turned back on second before impact strange) but caught you in the act, then you just dropped the primary radar return issue completely. Who does this? You are also hiding from other issues like KAL 085 on 9/11. Why would you do that? Flight 93 had two actions happen at the same time:  1. primary radar dropped 2. The flight plan was updated https://911truthout.blogspot.com/2019/04/ual93-switches-from-sfo-to-dca-while.html.

Dan Plesse
Dan Plesse
Original Author · 5m ago

How is ‘assumed landed’ confusing with saying it was shot down? Do you understand what assumed means????

“what caused the crater?” Do you SEE the Footpath?

“Why were the passenger’s DNA at the impact site?” they could be lying?

Sandy Dahl: I'm disappointed at the FBI report, because I heard something other than what they reported. And I don't understand how they came up with it.

i.e cover up

 Where is the body part map? Normal everyone gets GPS position. See the map below!

.Last know Position of Flight 93

Sandy Dahl: I'm disappointed at the FBI report, because I heard something other than what they reported. And I don't understand how they came up with it.

For instance, they talk about passengers indicated that the pilots were dead and laying in the first-class section. I heard evidence to the contrary on this tape. And I don't understand why they would report that.

Wolf Blitzer: Tell us exactly what you heard.

Sandy Dahl: Oh, I can't do that. I have signed papers with the FBI saying that I wouldn't.

United 93 Evidence Against Crashing At Shanksville, Pennsylvania

Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, April 17, 2019

9/11 Truther Wars: Forensic Evidence Avoidance Issue

9/11 Truther Wars

  • Stuart Crosbie What is that plane part from ?
    Write a reply...

  • Wayne Coste Daniel M. Plesse: Dan: I've investigated the damage to the Pentagon and showed conclusively that the damage is consistent with a large plane impact -- a momentum event -- with the dimensions of a Boeing 757.

    I did not study this piece, nor would I know where to find a complete parts list of a 757 to begin to identify it. I have no opinion on it.

    Here is the analysis that I have looked at -- and which people have not found any significant flaws with the material that I was confident enough to include. I can talk about material that I have in this presentation.

    http://911speakout.org/wayne-coste/
    Wayne Coste | 911SpeakOut.org
    911SPEAKOUT.ORG
    Wayne Coste | 911SpeakOut.org
    Wayne Coste | 911SpeakOut.org

    1
    • Daniel M. Plesse Stuart Crosbie this is NOT a good reply! He is basically saying he has no idea and placed zero effort into investigating this issue and says he can't figure out how to reach a definitive answer. 

      This is basically the "retard defense" 

      Wayne Coste You have placed ALL your research efforts in the wrong research basket. 

      I believe you should be shunned from 9/11 Truth until you start getting your act together and start looking at the evidence and begin showing definitive answers to solid questions like was it Flight 77 or not. Chances are you will never really going to get close if you can't get beyond this "retard defense" defense.
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

Pentagon seismic situation

Hi Dan,

I've kept mulling over Pentagon seismic situation, and the bizarre fact that a very clear shock is registered right on time at the MVL station but there is nothing at the SDMD station and also, even more strangely, nothing at the SSPA station. How could it be that the Pentagon shock registered only at MVL but not at the other two stations? It's a conundrum. 


Looking at the New York charts, also included in the Kim & Baum paper, we can estimate approximate transmission speeds for the shocks. Confusingly, Kim & Baum have inserted lines for P-waves and S-waves in the charts, but no lines for the L-waves and R-waves. The 9/11 shocks are not earthquakes so will not go deep enough to create any ordinary P-waves and S-waves, but only surface waves (L-waves and R-waves). These waves also travel more slowly than P-waves and S-waves, and we can readily see in the New York charts that the R-waves are the slowest and the L-waves a little faster but nowhere near as fast as even the S-waves let alone the P-waves.


I've mentioned before that there's a bifurcation in the chart between the two kinds of waves. I think I misspoke calling them P-waves and S-waves when the correct labels should be L-waves and R-waves, respectively. The shock goes off at Ground Zero about 10 seconds into the chart, and around the 70 second mark, the L-wave reaches the MVL station, 210 km out. That's 210 km in 60 seconds, or 3.5 km per second in propagation speed. As to the R-wave, it reaches the MVL station around the 85 second mark so travels 210 km in 75 seconds, or 2.8 km per second. The R-waves are thus about 20% slower than the L-waves.

Also note how the L-waves and R-waves give different imprints on the chart. The L-wave comes first and is somewhat more dense in terms of spikes than the R-wave, which is the second hump to the right on the MVL line. So it's easy to tell the difference between L-action and R-action simply from the appearance of the shock in the chart.

Further note how excellent the MVL station is in terms of signal-to-noise perfomance. There is very little noise and a very clear signal, even at that distance from Manhattan. The same cannot be said about the SDMD station (two lines below), which has a terrible noise level and picks up absolutely nothing of the L-action and only very little or the R-action. SDMD seems to be stone deaf to any kind of L-action, and very hard of hearing with respect to R-action. Looking even further out to the SSPA station (below the SDMD line), we find that this station did pick up some of the L-action but very little of the R-action. If we didn't have the other stations as guidance, we would hardly identify the R-action, and the L-action also comes out very differently than elsewhere. It is more protracted and also muted.

Each station seems to have its own "personality", its own characteristics in terms of what it is good at picking up, and what it is not-so-good at picking up. The SDMD station stands out as the good-for-nothing station, whch is practically deaf to any kind of surface waves and especially to L-waves. The SSPA station, on the other hand, seems capable of hearing both L-waves and R-waves, but only above a certain frequency (amplitude). If the shock isn't big enough, it just won't register.

Going back to propagation speeds, the Pentagon shock seems to be a little slower than the New York shock. I've said before that the travel time for the shock to reach the MVL station would be about 66 seconds, and the distance is 140 km. So that amounts ot a speed of about 2.1 km per second. That's 25% slower than the R-waves in the New York chart, and 40% slower than the L-waves in the New York chart. Looking at the density of the action in the MVL chart for the Pentagon shock, it is readily apparent that this isn't R-wave action but L-wave action. In other words, there is a massive difference in transmission speeds, with the Pentagon shock travelling all of 40% slower than the New York shock. How could this be?

This troubled me a lot until I realised that transmission speeds for L-waves are dependent on the frequency (amplitude) of the shock. A bigger shock will penetrate deeper, and the deeper it goes, the faster it will travel. So the mere fact that the New York shocks were far more powerful (energetic) than the Pentagon shock explains the significant difference in propagation speed.

The pciture is thus getting clearer, and we're in a position to resolve the conundrum. First of all, we're dealing with an L-wave from the Pentagon shock, there is no discernible R-wave. To understand why this is one need only consult the definition of the wave types. The L-waves are "transverse horizontal motion, perpendicular to the direction of propagation"; and the R-waves, "both in the direction of propagation and perpendicular (in a vertical plane)". For an aircraft iimpacting a building, you would expect L-wave action but not much R-wave action. This explains why even the MVL chart, which has the best ear of all station, fails to register any R-action whatever.

We can now also see why the SDMD station picks up nothing. Like I said on the basis of the New York chart, the SDMD station is stone deaf with respect to L-action, so would not pick that up even if it were still stronger. And whilst SDMD isn't completely deaf, but only hard of hearing for R-action, the problem is, there is no R-action to pick up. This is why absolutely nothing registered at SDMD.

But what about SSPA? How come nothing registered there? The explanation has already been given in the comparatively muted levels for the New York shocks. The SSPA station appears a bit dull, in the sense that it takes more stimulus to break through the threshold level of getting through to it. Once you're above the threshold level, SSPA will pick it up but it will be at a muted level. If the shock doesn't reach above a certain frequency, SSPA simply won't pick it up at all. So that's the story here. The L-action doesn't have enough frequency to be picked up at SSPA, and there is no R-action to pick up in the first place. So nothing registers at SSPA.

The more I delve into this issue, the more I parse these charts, the more convinced I get that the MVL shock is in fact the Pentagon plane impact shock. What do Kim & Baum say about the matter? Here is their explanation: "The largest signal at MVL at around 09:38:50 is probablly generated by electrical disturbance." Pardon my French, but electrical distrubance my ass! That's the most ridiculous cover-up story I've heard since Shyam Sundar's idiocies!

The reason they covered it up is that the shock doesn't look like they want it to look. Kim & Baum even admit that the shock doesn't look like they expected it to look. Here is what they say about it: "There appears to be strong seismic signals around 09:38:52 at station MVL (Millersville, Pa; Δ = 139 km), but the signals are too high frequency (5-10 Hz) and too high amplitude (328 nm/s at 139 km)." Well, maybe the amplitude is too high because there is something else going on in addition to the plane hitting the building? The shock is too high in frequency and amplitude, which means its local magnitude came out too high compared to the expected ML 0.8 which Terry Wallace had calculated.

When the shock didn't come like they expected it, they simply dismissed it instead of looking for alternative explanations of why the shock looked different. The reason why they chose to dismiss it should be obvious by now. The shock was too powerful for only a plane hitting, and it was also a bit too long for only a plane hitting the buildng. The reason it was too strong and too long is that there was another large explosion in addition to the plane hitting, and that's what they covered up in this silly way.

The cover-up doesn't get any less silly by Terry Wallace literally covering up the time window of the shock recorded at the Corbin station (CBN), and which looks identical to the one that registered at MVL. What kind of fools do they take us for? If the CBN shock isn't right on the timeline, why on earth would they put masking tape over the timestamp? The ONLY reason to put that masking tape over the timestamp is that the time window for the chart is exactly right. If it was off, they wouldn't need to cover it up but could use it as negative evidence, quoting the fact that its timing was off. These guys are not very good at lying.


Speaking of timestamps, the whole Kim & Baum chart analysis is predicated on an assumption , about a "presumed origin time of 13:38:09 EDT" for the Pentagon shock. The presumed origin time is their lingo for the time when the plane hits the building (or the frst explosion goes off, rather). The analysis of the jetlner's black box (flight data recorder) set the impact time at 9:37:46, which is all of 23 seconds earlier than the "presumed origin time" according to Kim & Baum. For this kind of analysis, being off by 23 seconds must be considered a rather major, not to say massive, error.

Turning, finally, to the Shanksville chart, we see R-wave action starting at the 46 second mark in the chart. The shock seems to go on for up towards 10 seconds, which rings familiar as we've seen the very same thing, the very same shape of the activity hump, at the World Trade Center. I have the North Tower plane impact shock in mind, not the South Tower one. Unlike the South Tower shock, which lasts for 3-4 seconds, the North Tower shock goes on for about 10 seconds and also has the very same shape as the Shanksville shock. The reason it has is that there is "something else" going on in addition to the plane hitting the tower and the ground, respectively.




Clearly there is a massive explosion in connection to the plane hitting, if that is indeed what the chart shows (we'll return to this issue shortly). In New York, I've put forth that there was a series of explosions in the basement, which gave rise to continuous seismic activity for over 10 seconds. The plane hit somewhere inside this activity window, presumably at the peak. In Shanksville, however, the activity seems divided into two parts. First there is a shock of 3-4 seconds, then a quick interlude of 1-2 seconds, followed by another shock of about 5 seconds. Total duration is 10 seconds.

My interpretation of the Shanksville chart, when juxtaposed against the New York chart and everything else we know about the seismic evidence for 9/11, is that there is a large explosion followed by the plane hitting the ground. This also jibes with the photographic evidence, as the famous snapshot of the Shanksville mushroom cloud does not appear to show the dark grey and black smoke from a plane crash but the grey smoke from a massive ordnance blast in the ground, making a big hole down into the decomissioned mine that swallowed up the plane much like the Twin Towers and the Pentagon mysteriously swallowed up the planes. Point is, they did the very same thing in all four places, the only difference being that the Shanksville hole was in the ground rather than in the perimeter wall of a building. 



Kim & Baum seem overly confident about the "time of origin" for Shanksville, certainly considering that they're wide of the mark about the Pentagon "time of origin". The official time appears to have varied a lot. Kim & Baum set it at 10:06:05 AM. The R-waves have to travel nearly 110 km to reach the SSPA station, which is the only station where they registered properly. Applying the New York propagation speed of 2.8 km per second, the propagation time from origin to SSPA station would amount to about 40 seconds. But because propagation speeds were slower for the Pentagon shock than for the New York shock, we've got every reason to think these Shanksville R-waves could be a bit slower also. Because the other stations don't pick up any of this action, it's impossible to draw a propagation gradient and determine the "time of origin" on that basis. All we've got is the SSPA reading to which we can apply an assumed propagation speed based on an educated guess. This is no basis for determining the "time of origin" down to the second. It's more like a plus/minus 10 seconds window, and I would probably put that window around 10:06:00 AM.

What bothers me with this isn't that Kim & Baum may be off by a few seconds, but that the NTSB analysis of the flight data recorder set the time for the plane hitting the ground at 10:03:11 AM. If that is correct, then Kim & Baum aren't off by a few seconds but by three whole minutes. If 23 seconds off for the Pentagon was a major error, then what is one to say about three minutes? It's an egregious error by any standards. What is worse, as far as I'm aware they have presented no updated analysis using a different time window, so we don't even have published seismic charts for the official crash time. This is very bad, and it calls for remedial action.

At this point we can only speculate about the reason why they haven't updated the analysis by publishing charts for the official time window and identifying another shock there. The only reason I can think of is that the charts for the relevant time window do not display any shocks, which means the NTSB analsysis must be off. There is absolutely no chance that the plane could have hit the ground like it did without leaving a seismic footprint. So this is another conundrum which needs to be tackled somehow. Why is there such a huge time discrepancy between NTSB and Kim & Baum? I don't know the answer, but as the above discussion shows, the Kim & Baum chart is certainly consistent with a plane hitting the ground right after a large explosion. So my suspicion is that something is off about the NTSB analysis, although it is hard to tell what precisely is going on here.

Waht is the bottom line of all this? What I wanted to achieve here is an improved analysis of the Pentagon seismic evidence, especially with respect to the types of seismic wavss, their propagation speeds and why they differ, and also, of course, why neither the nearest station (SDMD) nor the next station (SSPA) picked up the Pentagon shock whilst the station in between (MVL) picked it up very clearly. I think we've developed satisfactory answers to all these questions. Not only do our previous conclusions stand, but they're reinforced by answering all these remaining questions. There are probably more questions that could be tackled, although I can't really think of any at the moment. I'm confident that we have found the Pentagon shock in the MVL (and also CBN) chart, and the shock reveals that there was a large explosion in connection to the plane hitting the building. The explosion occurred 2-3 seconds before the plane hit. I'll submit that this is also the reason why they covered up the seismic findings, and in a very silly and shoddy way at that. 

We've also looked briefly into the Shanksville shock and made a first evaluation of it. The conclusion is that the evidentiary situation is unsatisfactory. Time estimates differ sharply between the seismologists (Kim & Baum) and the NTSB's report on the Flight 93 black box. The time discrepancy of three minutes is way too large to be acceptable, and at this point we have no way of telling why there is such a huge discrepancy and which of the two time estimates is the better one. Not that it matters a terrible lot in the grand scheme of things if the plane crashed at 10:03 AM or at 10:06 AM, but it still matters a great deal for the seismographic analysis, which ties in with all the other seismograms. If the seismographic time estimate is correct, then that implies NTSB's estimate is off by three minutes. There must be some reason for that, and I submit that reason will reveal a lot about what actually went on with Flight 93. 

More specifically, i think the black box time is off because the plane was a substitute not the regularly used machine for that flight. The explanation could be as simple as the black box timer not having been set properly so was off by 3 minutes. That, of course, would never happen for the regular machines, but I'm thinking it could happen for a substitute plane. So this timing discrepancy might actually provide a way to prove that the plane was a substitute, much like the airphones of the American Airlines flights could provide a way to prove that those airliners were substitutes as well. For Flight 175 we already have proof that the machine was a substitute, namely the nacelle (cigar-shaped pod) mounted on the belly of the plane, and which appears in the footage. That nacelle shouldn't be there on the regularly used machines, so this proves the machine was indeed a substitute. 

That's where we stand at the moment. We'll keep tackling the remaining issues at whatever pace we can muster. So many questions, so little time... 

Best, 
- Per

---

Sources and references:

• Seismic Waves: P-S-L-R waves
https://asyafe.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/seismic-waves-p-s-l-r/

• Won-Young Kim & Gerald R. Baum, "Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack"
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm

• Terry C. Wallace, "Forensic Seismology Analysis of the Terrorist Attacks on the Pentagon"
https://web.archive.org/web/20020611181727/www.geo.arizona.edu/geophysics/faculty/wallace/PENTAGON/index.html

• NTSB, "Flight Path Study - United Airlines Flight 93" (PDF, download only)
https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=478665

• 9-11 Research: Seismic Records of the Major Events in Manhattan
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, March 12, 2019

FBI Attempted Three Times to Name One Hijacker

hhhh
FBI Attempted Three Times to Name One Hijacker




Passenger Name List lists none of "9/11 hijackers"
https://stgvisie.home.xs4all.nl/List-of-Passengers-911.html

Flight Manifests and Passenger Lists
"Furthermore, on the morning of 9/11 on officially released passenger lists provided by the airlines to the media, not one of the alleged hijacker's names appears."

What's a passenger name list?


I wonder who decided to "shorten" the name and swapped out a “9/11 hijacker” which didn’t work out and was not on the plane? What they did was shorten the name from “Abdulrahman” to “Abdul” and "fixed" the issue right after being caught out in the open. So if they didn’t change the hijackers around to match a missing killed body to blame it on, would the DNA results still would have been listed as “Abdulrahman” or the guy the news saying he’s not a 9/11 hijacker and what happened to the ensuing lawsuit ? 

If one name had to be fixed, how many other fixes exists which I didn't catch.

All this can be done without anyone noticing anything.

Why is there a Flight Manifest and a Passenger name list?

Atta went to Maine because of the good CCTV cameras to show the visual evidence of the evil hijackers and to do a evidence dump for FBI. I wonder if FBI photographed the layout of this dumped material? I wonder if FBI was smart enough to know when someone smells fishy.
Posted by at No comments:

Team 7 Files



Team 7 Files

Team 7 was created to investigate commercial aviation and transportation security, including an investigation into the circumstances of the four hijackings. These files contain notes of interviews conducted by Commission staff; notes on visits to sites such as Logan International Airport and Dulles International Airport; slides of presentations given to Commission staff from federal agencies and private sector entities including the Transportation Security Administration of the Department of Homeland Security (TSA), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), American Airlines, and United Airlines; documents received by the Commission from agencies including the FBI and airlines; reports from the General Accounting Office (GAO) on transportation security; other government and private sector reports; drafts of chapter one of the Commission's final report; congressional hearing transcripts; and published articles and monographs. The records are arranged by subject.
9/11 Document Archive
319KVIEWS
8.3KTITLES
Archive of 9/11-related documents; in particular, the 9/11 Commission records. Free Torrent at 911Datasets.org

https://www.scribd.com/publisher/7104168/9-11-Document-Archive


555 9/11 review
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yTrrnLcn61sJ:911blogger.com/news/2011-02-10/critique-david-ray-griffin-s-911-fake-calls-theory+&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, March 9, 2019

September 11th Operation Phoenix was the Cover Sheet for all War Games on 9/11

XRay,

           The other Operation Phoenix / Project Phoenix was 1. the pentagon rebuilding process PhoenixProject.jpg
phoenixProject13.jpg
Operation Phoenix #2
But also the Military logo witness "CHERYL RYEFIELD 2002 testimony
Windows like a passenger plane " talked about Operation Phoenix ! 
CHERYL RYEFIELD Operation Phoenix.jpg
CHERYL RYEFIELD 2002 testimony Windows like a passenger plane.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=215bbK_BPOs

9/11 tragedy pager intercepts.



A full archive containing all the messages is available as a single compressed text file(also available via torrent), and as a number of files sorted and ordered by time, which are available as a torrent as well.

866 Looks like a pager number.

Dear Yuma, MCASYuma_Media@usmc.mil

       Does any of these strange message make sense to you? What is RTOPS? for example and  RTOPS #1536  Do you have a recording for the 866-791-7190 pager message still ?. 

What is "Operation Phoenix"? thanks 

2001-09-11 10:17:57 Skytel [007045350] B  ALPHA    RTOPS #1534 Credit Union Segment - Premier - Network Owner=Core Infrastructure * Marine Air - Yuma Branch down due to ckt outage  <SIMS>
2001-09-11 10:37:34 Arch [1421665]     A  ALPHA    RTOPS #1536 Operation Phoenix - I.S-CDE/CE NE Owner=Core Infrastructure * Operation Phoenix 866-791-7190 Passcode 7508470# Call for 10:00 CT update - activities associated with World Trade Center/Pe
2001-09-11 10:45:57 Skytel [007045350] B  ALPHA    RtOPS Update #1534 Credit Union Segment - Premier - Network Owner=Core Infrastructure * Marine Air - Yuma Branch down due to ckt outage **Update** circuit has been restored  <SIMS>
2001-09-11 10:50:39 Skytel [004220348] D  ALPHA  43 Delphi Delco Owner=Core Infrastructure * GM RenCen Building has been evacuated as a precautionary measure.  <SIMS>  (6
2001-09-11 11:48:13 Arch [1421665]     A  ALPHA    RtOPS Update #1536 Operation Phoenix - I.S-CDE/CE NE Owner=Core Infrastructure * Operation Phoenix 866-791-7190 Passcode 7508470# Call for 10:00 CT update - activities associated with World Trade Ce
2001-09-11 11:53:35 Skytel [007611174] B  ALPHA    RtOPS Update #1536 Operation Phoenix - I.S-CDE/CE NE Owner=Core Infrastructure * Operation Phoenix 866-791-7190 Passcode 7508470# Call for 10:00 CT update - activities associated w


Search CTRL+F "Owner=Core Infrastructure *"

2001-09-11 10:17:57 Skytel [007045350] B  ALPHA    RTOPS #1534 Credit Union Segment - Premier - Network Owner=Core Infrastructure * Marine Air - Yuma Branch down due to ckt outage  <SIMS>
2001-09-11 10:37:34 Arch [1421665]     A  ALPHA    RTOPS #1536 Operation Phoenix - I.S-CDE/CE NE Owner=Core Infrastructure * Operation Phoenix 866-791-7190 Passcode 7508470# Call for 10:00 CT update - activities associated with World Trade Center/Pe
2001-09-11 10:45:57 Skytel [007045350] B  ALPHA    RtOPS Update #1534 Credit Union Segment - Premier - Network Owner=Core Infrastructure * Marine Air - Yuma Branch down due to ckt outage **Update** circuit has been restored  <SIMS>
2001-09-11 10:50:39 Skytel [004220348] D  ALPHA  43 Delphi Delco Owner=Core Infrastructure * GM RenCen Building has been evacuated as a precautionary measure.  <SIMS>  (6
2001-09-11 11:48:13 Arch [1421665]     A  ALPHA    RtOPS Update #1536 Operation Phoenix - I.S-CDE/CE NE Owner=Core Infrastructure * Operation Phoenix 866-791-7190 Passcode 7508470# Call for 10:00 CT update - activities associated with World Trade Ce
2001-09-11 11:53:35 Skytel [007611174] B  ALPHA    RtOPS Update #1536 Operation Phoenix - I.S-CDE/CE NE Owner=Core Infrastructure * Operation Phoenix 866-791-7190 Passcode 7508470# Call for 10:00 CT update - activities associated w

Search CTRL+F "I.S-CDE/CE NE"
2001-09-11 11:51:42 Skytel [007045350] B  ALPHA    RtOPS Update #1536 Operation Phoenix - I.S-CDE/CE NE O

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Search