UAL93 Encounter With PIT

[BCR]

No, not oriented to any roads. One even goes over a lake, but definitely a good suggestion. Thanks.

 

[celestrin]

FWIW, here's data from Weather Underground for some of the nearby airports. Alas, there's no data for Somerset County or Indian Lake airports.

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

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


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


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


Altoona Blair County - KAOO (55km ENE)
7:53 AM 		SSW	5.6 km/h / 1.5 m/s 	 - 	N/A	   	Clear
8:53 AM 		Variable	7.4 km/h / 2.1 m/s 	 - 	N/A	   	Clear
9:53 AM 		WNW	16.7 km/h / 4.6 m/s 	 - 	N/A	   	Clear
10:53 AM		NW	18.5 km/h / 5.1 m/s 	 - 	N/A	   	Clear

Assuming that those blue and green tracks in your kmz file correspond with Unknown Radar Returns, it would appear that the predominant winds at the time do generally fit with the travel direction of your URRs.

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

WU links:
http://www.wunderground.com/history...tml?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA
http://www.wunderground.com/history...tml?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA
http://www.wunderground.com/history...tml?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA
http://www.wunderground.com/history...tml?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

 

[BCR]

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

Thanks for the wind info, I'll send the link our team member who asked for it. I have not had the chance to look at the UAL FDR data in detail yet. Still busy parsing out data from the FAA files, but I'll dig into it too when I get a chance.

 

[BCR]

I put together a composite of ZDC and ZOB primary files to see if I could get an extended track for either Track 2 or Track 3.

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

Best guess and estimates of radar locations:

Oakdale\Pittsburgh 40°23'56.69"N 80° 9'23.18"W PIT (55 nmi)
Clearfield 41° 4'12.67"N 78°33'2.39"W QCF (58 nmi)
The Plains 38°52'56.25"N 77°42'11.12"W J-50 QPL (99 nmi)

 

[BCR]

Hypothesis # 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The controller then terminated the mission with on board explosives.

Well, it beats my helicopter hypothesis

 

[BCR]

The Best Identification Thus Far

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

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

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

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

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

which seems to be as authoritative as any other site.

It definitely makes birds a possibility. At L-band (the 1200-1400 MHz) and S-band (the 2800-3000 MHz) radars may be able to "see" birds the size of Canada Geese at some of these ranges. - D.J.

Actually, in context is the best idea I've heard yet.

 

[BCR]

Here is an hours worth (1330 - 1430) of the PIT ASR data. This is raw data, no corrections for magnetic declination applied or lat/long calculations (just system x, y) for a subset.

Parsed PIT Data

 

[SUSpilot]

It's amazing what ATC can see and report sometimes - see my reply in the other thread.

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

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

Turned out to be a crop duster with the transponder off. My student and I decided to use another set of fields as a reference point...

 

[BCR]

Well, I got in a rush and forgot to add my quadrant sign corrections to the x, y values. Hence, the first PIT file has bad x, y values and has since been deleted. Instead of correcting them, I just went ahead and aligned the ASR data (mag dec 8 degrees) to the PIT ARSR data by latitude and longitude. Works much better

PIT Corrected Data

 

[BCR]

Positional Data Composite

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

PIT Composite Data Workbook

There are time differences between the data sources which have not been corrected for, so there is lag between the PIT ASR and FDR positions. And no, I have no intentions of doing the correlation since it is on the order of seconds, not minutes.

 

[BCR]

Bump for some of the fine folks at ATS who have questions about UAL93's radar track.

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

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

the 84Rades product from the data (the derived "UA93" flightpath) omits some key blips - where the radar shows two separate flying objects in the air just before the "UA93" allegedly crashed - which suggests that at least the products from the data were wittingly manipulated to conceal something.

Nope. Just a case of P4T once again not understanding how to work with radar data.

 

[LashL]

Just a case of P4T once again not understanding how to work with radar data.

Shocking, that.

 

[Mynott]

Sorry if I may appear to be interloping but am currently dealing with a P4T fan down under. Currently we are dealing with Eyewitness accounts of Flight 93 crashing at Shanksville.

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

http://behindthecurtain.freewebfor.me/Flight93Witnesses.php

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

Thanx for any advice.

 

[BCR]

Sorry if I may appear to be interloping but am currently dealing with a P4T fan down under. Currently we are dealing with Eyewitness accounts of Flight 93 crashing at Shanksville.

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

http://behindthecurtain.freewebfor.me/Flight93Witnesses.php

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

Thanx for any advice.

That is why I prefer to stick with objective data (like radar). As CIT has demonstrated, eyewitnesses are the worst measurement devices ever created. I'm sure if you search long enough you'll find someone claiming that it was the star ship Enterprise that crashed in Shanksville.

 

[Robrob]

That is why I prefer to stick with objective data (like radar). As CIT has demonstrated, eyewitnesses are the worst measurement devices ever created. I'm sure if you search long enough you'll find someone claiming that it was the star ship Enterprise that crashed in Shanksville.

You are correct. Objective data trumps subjective eyewitness reports. Especially the hundredth retelling given well after the fact and after hearing/reading many others' reports as well.

I am in law enforcement. I was in a shooting once and never realized the officer beside me, standing two feet away, was also shooting. I have no recollection of the sound of his gunshots.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I am in law enforcement. I was in a shooting once and never realized the officer beside me, standing two feet away, was also shooting. I have no recollection of the sound of his gunshots.

Why am I picturing this when I read your post?

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

----

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

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

Take a hypothetical shooting scenario: Witnesses may differ on whether he had a revolver or an semiautomatic. They may differ on which hand he held the gun in, or how many shots he took. They may disagree on whether he stood still or was moving when he shot. But you'd know that:

1. If all of them were making single handed motions while describing the shooting, chances are strong they're all still referring to a handgun, as opposed to a rifle or a shotgun.
2. If all of them identified the general direction that he came from, it doesn't matter if he came out of the door of a store, an alley, a car... he came from that direction, and further research can concentrate over there. As opposed to him coming from the opposite direction, at least when he started shooting.
3. If they're all describing the shooter as "him", it's either a well-disguised woman, or it's genuinely a man. And obviously, the witnesses are working off of clues that indicate a male shooter, so you can at least temporarily disregard any person on the scene that was wearing a dress, looked like a bikini model, etc. Unless witness testimony arises that makes you to look at people wearing a dress, people that looked like a Vogue model, etc. you don't waste time investigating those leads. It's fishing at best and distorting the narrative at worst.

Evidence works in aggregation. People obsessing over contradictions in testimony don't account for poor witness recollection, outright witness mistakes/errors in recollection, etc., and they don't know how to properly consider evidence within context. But that's of the utmost importance in considering witness testimony: Contextualizing it with other verifiable evidence. If radar and other electronic data, the vast majority of witnesses, the crash investigators, etc. all provide evidence that a jetliner crashed in Shankesville, it's useless to continue to hammer on the minute details of, say, Susan McElwain's testimony about a military-looking jet (a twin-rear engined, rear "spoiler", twin-"fin" one??). Regardless of what she saw, Flight 93 is identified through other evidence, and the only credible part of her testimony is the stuff that's not outright contradicted (such as the explosion upon impact). She may indeed have seen a small military passenger jet (the Air Force C-20, for example is indeed white and does roughly fit the description; so does the civillian Dassault Falcon 20, one of which was confirmed in - in fact, ordered into - the area, albeit not in the same timeframe that McElwain discussed). But even if what she saw wasn't FL93 nor a Falcon 20, no one can blatantly strip off context and ignore other evidence to raise her testimony to a level that trumps the conclusion reached by other evidence. Doing so uses witness testimony improperly. And doesn't value it the way it should: In the context of all evidence.

Witness testimony is important, but it's used in all the wrong ways by truthers. Misuse like what they perform is more abuse than anything else. And that's simply bad.

 

[cjnewson88]

One thing that was covered in detail for my three air crash investigation papers was eye witnesses. They need to be interviewed as soon as after the fact, otherwise all it takes is for them to either have time to forget certain detail, or alter their story (sometimes without even realising it) as more information becomes available to them, or they collude with other eye witnesses. Revisiting eye witnesses weeks, months, years after the event can give a completely different account than what they would have originally.

 

[Robrob]

One thing that was covered in detail for my three air crash investigation papers was eye witnesses. They need to be interviewed as soon as after the fact, otherwise all it takes is for them to either have time to forget certain detail, or alter their story (sometimes without even realising it) as more information becomes available to them, or they collude with other eye witnesses. Revisiting eye witnesses weeks, months, years after the event can give a completely different account than what they would have originally.

Absolutely. I am a bit of a raconteur. I have told some stories so often that I can hardly remember the actual facts.

 

[BCR]

Absolutely. I am a bit of a raconteur. I have told some stories so often that I can hardly remember the actual facts.

As a police vet myself, I can relate. We call those 'war stories'.

 

[Robrob]

As a police vet myself, I can relate. We call those 'war stories'.

You ever have that awkward moment when you realize you are telling someone else's story, and he's part of your audience?