View Full Version: Cockpit Voice Recorder

Loose Change Forum > Flight 93 - Shanksville Crash Site > Cockpit Voice Recorder


Title: Cockpit Voice Recorder
Description: Whoop Whoop Pull Up!


johndoeX - August 4, 2006 10:49 AM (GMT)
I was just reading something about the cockpit voice recorder on flight 93 not having the GPWS on it... is this true?

GPWS is the sound you hear when you are on a collision course with the ground...

you'll hear.. Whooop, Whoop.. Pull Up..


Concorde crash..

Co-pilot: "The gear won't come up" (fire alarm rings).

Aircraft instrument: "Whoop whoop pull up" (GPWS alarm).

Aircraft instrument: "Whoop whoop pull up" (GPWS alarm).


Co-pilot: "The airspeed indicator."

Aircraft instrument: "Whoop whoop pull up" (GPWS alarm).

Fire service leader: "De Gaulle tower from fire service leader."

Controller: "Fire service leader, uh ... the Concorde, I don't know its intentions, get yourself in position near the south doublet" (sound of switch).

Pilot: (unclear).

Fire service leader: "De Gaulle tower from fire service leader authorization to enter 26 right."

Co-pilot: "Le Bourget, Le Bourget, Le Bourget."

Pilot: "Too late (unclear)."

Controller: "Fire service leader, correction, the Concorde is returning to runway zero nine in the opposite direction."

Pilot: "No time, no (unclear)."

Co-pilot: "Negative, we're trying Le Bourget" (four switching sounds).

Co-pilot: "No (unclear)."

Fire service leader: "De Gaulle tower from fire service leader, can you give me the situation of the Concorde" (sound of switch, followed by another switch and sounds likened to objects being moved).

Pilot: (unclear, sounds like exertion).

Last sound noted on transcript at 4:44.30.18 p.m. Recording ends at 4:44.31.16 p.m.


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/....concorde.talk/

Is this on the UAL93 CVR?

johndoeX - August 4, 2006 10:55 AM (GMT)
nope.. its not on there....


10:00:25 In the cockpit. If we don't, we'll die.

10:00:29 (Up, down. Up, down, in the) cockpit.

10:00:33 (The) cockpit.

10:00:37 (Up, down. Saeed, up, down.)

10:00:42 Roll it.

10:00:55 Unintelligible.

10:00:59 (Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.)

10:01:01 Unintelligible.

10:01:08 (Is that it? I mean, shall we pull it down?)

10:01:09 (Yes, put it in it, and pull it down.)

10:01:10 Unintelligible.

10:01:11 (Saeed.)

10:01:12 ... engine ...

10:01:13 Unintelligible.

10:01:16 (Cut off the oxygen.)

10:01:18 (Cut off the oxygen. Cut off the oxygen. Cut off the oxygen.)

10:01:34 Unintelligible.

10:01:37 Unintelligible.

10:01:41 (Up, down. Up, down.)

10:01:41 (What?)

10:01:42 (Up, down.)

10:01:42 Ahh.

10:01:53 Ahh.

10:01:54 Unintelligible.

10:01:55 Ahh.

10:01:59 Shut them off.

10:02:03 Shut them off.

10:02:14 Go.

10:02:14 Go.

10:02:15 Move.

10:02:16 Move.

10:02:17 Turn it up.

10:02:18 (Down, down.)

10:02:23 (Pull it down. Pull it down.)

10:02:25 Down. Push, push, push, push, push.

10:02:33 (Hey. Hey. Give it to me. Give it to me.)

10:02:35 (Give it to me. Give it to me. Give it to me.)

10:02:37 (Give it to me. Give it to me. Give it to me.)

10:02:40 Unintelligible.

10:03:02 (Allah is the greatest.)

10:03:03 (Allah is the greatest.)

10:03:04 (Allah is the greatest.)

10:03:06 (Allah is the greatest.)

10:03:06 (Allah is the greatest.)

10:03:07 No.

10:03:09 (Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.)

10:03:09 (Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191520,00.html


[hmm] [nono]


johndoeX - August 4, 2006 10:59 AM (GMT)
Technically you should also hear.. "Sink rate.. Sink rate" as well. Since they were in a dive.

Merc - August 4, 2006 04:13 PM (GMT)
That's why they wouldn't let us hear it either.

JackD - August 4, 2006 04:56 PM (GMT)
Merc -- don't worry. Prob in a year or two, they'll release an update version of the UA93 VDR, with the missing sounds. These things take time.... [crylol]


Terrorcell - August 4, 2006 11:09 PM (GMT)
We can only begin to speculate what is contained on those final 3 minutes........

kimmy - August 6, 2006 03:33 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Terrorcell @ Aug 4 2006, 11:09 PM)
We can only begin to speculate what is contained on those final 3 minutes........

What ever they decide to put on the last 3 minutes is what is on it.
Why?

Cockpit voice recorders spool inward onto themselves when recording.
So if any part is damaged it is the older material and not the newer.

So, to simplify, the last three minutes could not have been damaged without the entire tape being damaged.

Therefore they are concealing them, if they exist.

The only reason they could be concealing them is in the case that they do not yet exist.

Flight 93 did not crash there, if anywhere. This I can prove.

The official story states that the plane hit the ground at 550mph and it vaporized. This does not sound possible but can it be proven mathmatically impossible?
Yep.

You must, as a degree of reason eliminate all the impossible, then whatever remaining - however unlikely is the
cause. Planes cannot vaporize. They never have before and they did not that day.
This I can prove.

Get ready for school.

The boiling point of aluminum is 4566 F . This is the point at which it goes from liquid to gas.
Most of the aircraft consists of this. There are about 47 tons of it in this air frame.
The boiling point of iron - the primary component of steel is 5182 F.
The engines and gear are made up of this.
There is about 13 tons of this in this air frame.

The maximum you can get JP-8 fuel to is 1796 degrees Fahrenheit.
4566 - 1796 =
2770F that need to be created by impact to vaporize the bulk of aluminum.

I know it has been a long time since chemistry class but you need this.

The heat required for vaporization is 294,000J per mol of aluminum.

Since 39% of this heat could be made up by the burning jet fuel. If it competly covered the aircraft and it was at max temperature. Which would require 5 times the aircraft's amount of maximum fuel to be aboard, but this I will overlook.

That only leaves about 177,000J of energy that needs to be made up by force of impact. Per Mol of aluminum.

There are 26.9815386 grams in a mol of aluminum.
So how much energy, in this case heat, does 27 grams make when it hits an object at 550mph? An immovable object for sake of equation.
Standard energy equation.
Energy = 1/2 mass *velocity (sq)
When your parents tell you that speed kills in vehicle accidents THIS is why.
.026 kilograms * 887 kph (550 miles per hour) squared = energy
.026kg * 786854 = 20,458 Joules created by impact at 550 mph
For a total of about 197,000 Joules applied to each mol of aluminum. Which is not enough to vaporize any of the aluminum or any of the steel. Titanium is even higher on the scale.

So just like Mythbusters I will find how fast it would need to be going to vaporize on contact with an immovable surface.
177,000 Joules is required on top of jet fuel heat.
177,000 /20,000 = 8.85 times faster than that
So 550mph * 8.85 = 4867.5 mph which is roughly Mach 7 would do it.
This is if the jet fuel was applied evenly over the entire airframe and if the entire airframe came to the surface at the same time. If the nose hits first it slows down the fuselage some and reduces the energy that will be needed for the tail of the aircraft.
This is why all aircraft disasters produce wreckage.



This is why it is scientifically impossible to vaporize an aircraft. Unless its going Mach 7. In a jet fuel fired furnace. So it IS possible - under those circumstances.



johndoeX - August 6, 2006 05:55 AM (GMT)
Can you do this for the pentagon.. or is it the same? Since they were both 757's.


And thank you...

Im gonna bring this over to the "skeptics" forum to have some fun... ;)

kimmy - August 6, 2006 03:17 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (johndoeX @ Aug 6 2006, 05:55 AM)
Can you do this for the pentagon.. or is it the same? Since they were both 757's.


And thank you...

Im gonna bring this over to the "skeptics" forum to have some fun... ;)

The equation remains the same since both are for collision with an immovable surface. That is the most generous of terms and it much more simple than a dynamic impact surface. The jet fuel fired furnace thing is fun to because that is actually hotter than any planetary surface by about a factor of 3.


This lends itself well to observable physics as bullets routinely do not evaporate on contact and they are moving past Mach 1 in most cases. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how anyone could believe that an aircraft could vaporize. The numbers do not add up and the logic does not add up. If these two things cannot convince a person I strongly suggest that they consider removing themselves from the gene pool. [box]

johndoeX - August 6, 2006 11:54 PM (GMT)
kimmy.. come on over to this thread. and lend them some of your insight.. nice job... ;)



http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...?showtopic=9760

try to skip all the off topic BS. it'll skim through quickly if you skip the passengers stuff.

dubitandumest - September 2, 2006 09:31 PM (GMT)
given the text is so far authentic: What does it mean to demand to cut off the oxygene just after mentioning the engine? You cut off oxygene, I suppose, when something is burning? In this case one engine? How does that come? After having been hit?

nicolas - September 2, 2006 10:47 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (JackD @ Aug 4 2006, 04:56 PM)
Merc -- don't worry. Prob in a year or two, they'll release an update version of the UA93 VDR, with the missing sounds. These things take time.... [crylol]

Probably shortly after they update the passenger lists and add some arab names in them.

nicolas - September 2, 2006 10:54 PM (GMT)
I can't edit my post... oviously they also need to remove the sentence "In the cockpit...". It's catchy, but couldn't have been said in the cockpit. And according to the scenario, the cockpit door was closed.

dubitandumest - September 4, 2006 04:56 PM (GMT)

Is there any pilot or technician who can explain this: When you look at the published text of the Flight 93 cockpit voice recorder you will find the word "...engine... " (10:01:12) and four seconds afterwards three times the sentence "cut off the oxygen". What oxygen? Why? It seems to be quite important.
(Maybe the whole text is a fake but let us, for a moment, assume its not.)

Chippy - September 15, 2006 03:43 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
We can only begin to speculate what is contained on those final 3 minutes........


What on earth could they have possibly said in the last three minutes that's so important?

"Hey guys, I'm going to make our plane magically disappear on impact! That ought to confuse the hell out of everybody!"

It's another piece of this conspiracy that is indeed suspicious but seems to be completely irrelevant.

Terrorcell - September 16, 2006 10:15 PM (GMT)
This Chippy has to be some sort of troll, right?

QUOTE
What on earth could they have possibly said in the last three minutes that's so important?


Chippy - September 16, 2006 11:22 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Terrorcell @ Sep 16 2006, 10:15 PM)
This Chippy has to be some sort of troll, right?

QUOTE
What on earth could they have possibly said in the last three minutes that's so important?

Yeah, don't bother reading any of the extended essays I have contributed here. And don't act like I'm actually here.

If it's a stupid question, then you ought to have no problem answering it. What did they say in the last three minutes that could be so important?

Terrorcell - September 18, 2006 04:52 PM (GMT)
How about "Look at that White Plane!!! Did it just fire a missile at us?? We'Ve BEEN HIT" this all comes off the top of my head.

And why should I pay any attention to anything you've said here. You know nothing about the 9/11 war games and then ignored my reply to you after that even though you continued on in the same thread.

Chippy - September 18, 2006 06:16 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
How about "Look at that White Plane!!! Did it just fire a missile at us?? We'Ve BEEN HIT" this all comes off the top of my head.


That also could have very well happened.

QUOTE
And why should I pay any attention to anything you've said here.


Because, at the very least, it's polite (not to mention that it's impolite to say that you won't bother reading anything that someone writes simply because you don't like them). I'm sorry I didn't respond to you sooner, but I think you're assuming that I was going to completely debunk what you had to say. The truth of it is that I have no good answer for what happened to Flight 93, which I have said repeatedly (there's where it might come in handy to read what I have written!). It very well could have been shot down.

But so what if it was? Wasn't the point of scrambling all of these airplanes to shoot down the hijacked airliners? Why would the government cover it up if they shot down Flight 93? We'd already witnessed horrific attacks committed by airplanes, and anybody in their right mind would know that it would be for the greater good if a hijacked plane were shot down. There really is no reason for the government to cover it up. You, me, and everyone we know would have understood the reason for it.

Do you see now why it's important to look into the motives? You can find my "motives" thread under the Flight 93 forum.

Terrorcell - September 19, 2006 05:57 AM (GMT)
Sure rallied America behind the idea that we have to destroy every Muslim on the planet and "free them", didn't it?





* Hosted for free by InvisionFree