9-11 Revisited

Introduction

I recently obtained some of the seismic data concerning UA 93 and that provides an opportunity to discuss an old issue about 9-11, the impact time..

Readers may recall that there was at one time some speculation that a study based on the seismic data suggested that UA 93 impacted at 10:06, three minutes later than all available primary source information indicated.  The Commission Staff treated that speculation seriously and ran the issue to ground. 

This article is the story of the data and of how the Staff dealt with one of the 9-11 family questions.

Data Source

The Incorporated Research Institution for Seismology (IRIS) has protocols for assisting educators, researchers, students, committees, and the public.  The link provided is to the protocol for researchers.  I found the IRIS staff helpful in obtaining the information available.

To run the data I used GEE, Global Earthquake Explorer, and an IRIS-provided link to AmaSeis. (Amateur Seismometer).  Readers with seismology experience will find additional programs available from IRIS at the same link.

My point of contact provided me the files I actually used.  He obtained them by submitting a Seismic Query to determine what data were available.  He then submitted a request via email using BREQ-FAST.  Finally, he converted the files to .SAC format via rdseed.

The Data

An undated report, “Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack,” concluded: “we infer that the Flight 93 crashed around  14:06:05 +/- 5 (UTC).”  The primary author, Won-Young Kim considered data from four seismographic stations.  From closest to Shanksville to the furtherest, the sites were: Mont Chateau, (MCWV); Standing Stone, (SSPA); Soldier’s Delight, (SDMD); and Millersville, (MVL)PA.

In his vertical component assessment, Kim initially considered all four seismic stations.  He assessed that the signal to noise ratio was too small for both the closest site (MCWV) and SDMD, on the order of 1:1.  Therefore, he reduced his analysis to the Standing Stone station where the ratio was 2.5:1.  He also established that the ratio at the most distance site, Millersville, was about 2:1.

Kim based his analysis on the Standing Stone station only, ignoring the fact that the data from the closest station was inconclusive.  Further he extrapolated only two minutes of data beginning with an estimated origin time of “14:06:05 (10:06:05)”  We have no evidence that Kim examined earlier times, specifically 10:03.

IRIS has available only the data from Mont Chateau and Standing Stone, the two stations closest to Shanksville. My contact provided 10 minutes of data, from 10:00 to 10:10.

I examined the data as far as my expertise would take me (undergraduate geophysics classes) and found nothing anomalous to support a time of 10:06 rather than 10:03.  I leave it to practicing seismologists that might be interested to provide a more definitive assessment.

Let’s now return to the issue raised to the Commission.

The Question Posed

A 9-11 Family Member told  me via e-mail that seismologists agreed that UA 93 crashed at 10:06, not 10:03 as NORAD said.  I took that request for action and we obtained a copy of the report.  It was not a U.S. Army document; the Army referred us to the Maryland Geological Survey website for a copy.

We found that the time in the study, 10:06, was at odds with all other primary source information, the convergence of which supported a crash time of 10:03.  Despite that convergence we took the time to fully consider an alternative time of 10:06, as requested.

Primary source information

Data from the UA 93 Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and Flight Data Recorder (FDR), air traffic control communications, FAA radar, and Air Force radar established a crash time of 10:03.

The seismic data was also primary source information; the study that inferred at time of 10:06 was not.  Statements that the seismic data show that UA 93 crashed at 10:06 are inaccurate.  Further, statements that leading seismologists and scientists concluded that UA 93 impacted at 10:06 are disingenuous.  The work was that of a single person, as it turned out.  Here is how we proceeded.

Steps taken

The study was sponsored by the Department of Natural Resources, State of Maryland under contract number SMGS/AG1-01-075.  The authors were Won-Young Kim, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, and Gerald R. Baum, Environmental Geology and Mineral Resources Program, Maryland Geological Survey.

Our first step was a request to the Maryland Geological Survey (MGS) asking them to validate and verify the study done by one of its employees. The MGS declined stating that the work was primarily that of Won-Young Kim and that we should address our request to him.  The MGS, literally, walked away from the issue.

The second step, then, was to contact Mr. Kim, which I personally did.  Over time, I exchanged a series of emails and phone calls with Mr. Kim.  I informed him that multiple other primary sources of information did not support his work.  His position was that, if so, he still had confidence in his work.  Ultimately Mr. Kim agreed to a statement that the seismic data was not conclusive concerning the crash of UA 93.

Given that statement, we reconfirmed that the preponderance of evidence supported a time of 10:03 and that became our position.  There was, however, another avenue we could explore.

Going the extra step

Even though we had a high degree of confidence in the 10:03 time, we decided to treat the two times as equal and sought and obtained additional primary source information, infra-red satellite data.  We asked the Defense Special Missile and Astronautics Center (DEFSMAC) for the times it had established for the impacts of all four hijacked planes.

We had noticed in the Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center (CMOC) logs that some “IR [infrared] event” times had been entered that morning and assumed that DEFSMAC had recorded all four “IR events.”  They had, and the data provided was consistent not only with the 10:03 time for UA 93 but for the other three impact times, as well.  The DEFSMAC response is in the classified Commission files held by NARA.

To put it another way, we gave the two disparate times–10:03 and 10:06– equal weight and went to a tie breaker, even though there was no compelling analytical reason to do so.

A comment on DEFSMAC

Accurately reporting “IR events” is vital to the defense of the nation.  Missile launches are serious business and DEFSMAC provides the earliest possible indications and warning of  such a potential threat.  The DEFSMAC times, alone, are sufficient to establish the impact times of the four hijacked aircraft.

In the end

We spent considerable time running the seismic issue to ground.  Yet the answer did not matter, it wasn’t the “right” answer.  During the reading of Staff Statement 17 at the final air defense hearing we presented the list of sources for 10:03 time of impact for UA 93.  Behind us, someone in the audience commented, what about the seismic data?

Questions answered that don’t provide the expected or wanted answer become…more questions.

The purpose of this brief article, published under the UA 93 category, is to document primary source information concerning the new flight plan for UA 93 with destination Washington National.

The audio file was recorded at Position 14C, Herndon Center, on a tape with the title: 5 DCC 1933 Ops Phone 5140, Position 14C 1315-1415 UTC.  That position received a call at 10:04:25 after UA 93 was down asking if the Command Center had the “strip” on UA 93.  The unidentified caller reported a call from New York Center that the plane departed Newark and was “inbound to Washington National.”

That call confirms that the new flight plan and destination for UA 93, as entered in the system by Cleveland Center, was available in the Traffic Display System.

The conversation can be heard on this clip. 100425 UA 93 Headed to Washington National

This short article provides an example of how the terms “airphone” and “cellphone” became conflated and confused right from the first reports of use.  The pertinent conversation was recorded at Operations Position 28, Herndon Center, a few minutes after 10:00.

Great Lakes Region security notified the FAA Tactical Net of a report from the Oak Brook, Illinois, police that they had received a 911 airphone call from a passenger aboard UA 93 reporting three hijackers with knives and making bomb threats.

Concurrently, in the background another individual passed the information to someone else and substituted the word “cellphone” for “airphone.”  That conflation occurred as the report was received by the Tactical Net.

The audio of those conversations can be heard here.  100310 Airphone Call UA 93

A report that the White House, Treasury and State are being evacuated can be heard in the background at the beginning of the audio clip.  The time was 10:03, so that was a delayed report.  BBC video footage from “Clear The Skies” established that the White House evacuation began sometime after the Pentagon was struck, but  before 10:00.

Addendum, December 1, 2009.

Here is a Google Earth plot of the final radar returns from UA 93 as received at The Plains radar site and provided by 84th RADES.

UA93 Final Radar Returns

The blue pins depict primary returns.  The green pin depicts the first recording of the transponder back on.  Green represents a reinforced return, radar and beacon (transponder).  The red pin depicts the second and final transponder return, beacon only.

This is the air traffic control story of UA 93, told in the primary source voices of the day, and we begin with part 2, the Herndon Command Center story.  The next two articles will tell the same story from the Cleveland Center (ZOB) perspective,  Part 1,   Then, in Part 3, we will the FAA’s Washington Operations Center story, as told to them by air traffic control.  There will be at least one additional article to tell the story after it leaves the domain of air traffic control.

First notice to Herndon

The story begins at 09:49 when Margaret at the Herndon Severe Weather position convenes a conference with Washington Center, ZDC, at the request of Cleveland and Chicago.  The purpose is to address the issue of the Attorney General’s return to Washington.  Cleveland breaks in to tell Chicago about Delta 1989.  That conversation is at this link. ZDC ZOB Herndon Chicago Teleconference

The conversation immediately continues and by 9:50 Cleveland Center has also put Washington Center on alert but about a different airplance, UA 93.  That continued conversation is at this link.  ZOB alerts ZDC about UA 93

After a short pause ZOB estimates a UA 93 arrival in 25 minutes to Dulles (approximately 9:16).  Concurrently, ZOB updates both Chicago and ZDC as to the status of both D 1989 and UA 93.  That continuation is at this link.  ZOB updates D 1989 and UA 93

Some researchers have speculated that FAA was treating one of the two aircraft but not the other as a hijack; that the two were somehow confused by air traffic control.  It is clear from the primary source information that the two situations were distinct and clearly separated by Cleveland Center in its reporting to adjacent centers and to Herndon.  There was no confusion within the system as to which was which.   The status of D 1989 was never conflated with UA 93 by FAA.

Conversation continues at 09:53

The situation continues as ZOB updates all participants on the status of both airplanes.  Margaret informs ZOB that Herndon knew about UA 93 but not about D 1989 and she will pass the word.  That update can be heard at this link.  ZOB Undates Participants at 0953

D 1989 apparently resolved

In a conversation at 9:56 Herndon determines that D 1989 is not a ‘trip,’ that he is fine and that he is going to Cleveland.  In this conversation we learn that the concern about D 1989 originated with Boston Center, ZBW.  That conversation can be heard at this link.  ZOB D 1989 Going to Clevelend

Real time updates on UA 93

By 9:58 ZOB enters a new flight plan for UA 93 to assist ZDC.  ZDC acknowledges and sees the airplane at their TMU desk.  ZOB is trying as best it can to associate tracking information with the data blocks.  They did not have an altitude.

The implication is that ZDC can see the plane on radar as long as it is flying and can track the flight plan on a TSD display.  The exchange of information between the TMU at ZOB and the TMUat ZDC can be heard at this link.  ZOB UA 93 new flight plan and alert to ZDC.  I should note here that when I observed the TSD playback of 9-11 at Herndon Center the icon for UA 93 visably jumped on the screen to its new location as determined by ZOB.

Shortly thereafter, in the 9:59 time frame,  ZOB did obtain altitude information on UA 93 from a VFR aircraft.  That information can be heard at this link.  ZOB reports altitude on UA 93 Whenever Ricky Bell at Severe Weather keeps the microphone open you can hear voices in the background.  We will cover that in Part 3 when we talk about Herndon continuously updating FAA Headquarters.

Next, ZOB provides altitude and heading information in real time to Herndon.  You can, again, hear voices in the background and you hear Ricky Bell repeating information as he hears it so that others at Herndon are aware.  This minute long conversation segment  begins approximately 10:00 and can be heard at this link.  ZOB provides location and heading for UA 93

From 10:01 to 10:02 the real time updates report erratic flying.  That near one minute conversation segment can be heard at this link.  ZOB reports erratic flying

UA 93 transponder back on

The UA 93 transponder did come back on, briefly for two sweeps just  before 10:03.  84th RADES radar lost coverage on the plane soon after 9:47, but reacquired the aircraft near the end of its flight.  Radar data from The Plains radar shows the transponder back on for just two radar returns.  Based on those two returns the aircraft dropped at a significant rate.  It was in extremis.  The last recorded RADES radar return is at 10:02:57 at 6100 feet altitude.  Location was 40 040 04N 78 55 02W.

ZOB describes the transponder event to Herndon as heard on this link.  ZOB Reports Transponder Back On.  The ZOB report is time consistent and altitude consistent with RADES radar.  ZOB reports an altitude of 8200 feet when the transponder came back on.  The RADES radar files show an altitude of 7800 feet at that time.

Here is a circa Summer 93 graphic I prepared concerning UA 93.  My complete set of UA 93 powerpoint slides has been uploaded to the History Commons Scribd site; I can’t find the link for now, and is available at this link.

UA 93 Final Radar Returns

UA 93 lost by ZOB

Just before 10:03 ZOB reports losing UA 93 on radar except for one primary return.  ZOB defers to ZDC as can be heard at this link.  ZOB losing UA 93 on radar

A few moments later Herndon reconnects with ZOB to ask about both UA 93 and D 1989.  Herndon learns that ZOB has lost UA 93; it was last headed toward Washington.  Herndon also learns at the same time that D 1989 is not a hijack.  That exchange can be heard at this link.  ZOB advises UA 93 lost D1989 not a hijack

And, to finish off part 2 of this trilogy, at 10:10 ZOB and Herndon have a concluding converstion that reaffirms that ZOB has lost UA 93 on radar and that D 1989 is not a hijack.  This conversation segment provides additional insight in how Herndon was operating and what it knew.  ZOB Herndon Discusses Both Planes

Observations in real time

First, at no time at the desk level, do air traffic control personnel speak to or even mention contacting the military.  That is to be expected, their job was to track and report.

Second, at no time did Herndon or ZOB conflate information concerning UA 93 and D 1989.  Both planes were monitored distinctly and separately and reported that way.  FAA up to the Herndon level had situation awareness in real time.  Researchers who argue differently are simply wrong.

Third, separately, ZOB is learning of the fate of UA 93 and we will discuss that in Part 1 of this trilogy.  For now, the embedded graphic provides useful data points.  Gofer 06 soon after turning north at ZOB direction reported shortly after 10:04 that the pilot saw smoke in the direction of UA 93.  The private jet, N20VF? on the graphic, was vectored by ZOB to the crash site.  The Falcon circled once and provided GPS coordinates around 10:14.

Finally, at the national level. Norman Mineta is arriving at the PEOC during the final moments of UA 93.  Subsequently he will receive information from Monte Belger about that aircraft, most likely as seen on a TSD display.  That track, terminating at Reagan National at 10:28 is a ghost and has been since shortly after 10:03.

That begs a question.  Given that Herndon had near real time information and was immediately passing that information to FAA Headquarters, how was that being passed, if at all, to the national level?  We will grapple with that in Part 3.  For now I would simply point out that the SVTS link was activated at 9:25 and Richard Clarke convened the conference soon after 9:40.  He wrote in Against All Enemies, “Okay, I began.  Let’s start with the facts.  FAA, FAA, go.”  Jane Garvey was at the FAA end.

What do we make of that?

I am separately publishing articles on the linear processes the government attempted to use that day.  So far I have spoken to NOIWON.  Once I get an Air Threat Conference article out I will then turn to SVTS.  Suffice it to say for now that, as I’ve elsewhere attributed to an NMCC staff officer, the SVTS process was counter-productive.

So, I will speak to SVTS, probably before I write Part 3 of this air traffic control trilogy concerning UA 93.

At some point, of course, we will ultimately need to address the Mineta story.