Have the flight 93 flight map, ETA, & F plan changes been explained on DU?

[philb]

Flight UA 93 flight map and time line inconsistencies
http://airgames.batcave.net/
(snipped)
there was a report about flight 93 filing a NEW
flight plan well after it made the turn, and was hijacked.
That is already known, what i found was that the estimated time of
arrival changes, radically, twice.
(once is understandable, beacause it filed a new flight plan)

The estimated arrival times starting at 2:15pm
then it changes SOUTH of Pitt, well after it was hijacked and a new
flight plan was filed to 10:28
it stays around that time, until the last blip which indicates 9:34 as the ETA, BUT it crashed much later than that.
How could the ETA show 9:34 when it was well after that at the time of the crash?

answer: it was reporting a different plane that had an ETA of 9:34 !
another plane had swapped transponder codes with it at this point.

the ETA was being reported by plane "X" then plane "Y" takes over
(swapped txponder codes and had a different ETA)

Operation 9-11: Rendezvous Points
http://www.the-movement.com/air%20operation/Journey.htm

Whoever was ultimately in control of the plane, Flight 93 made a number of odd maneuvers in midair before it finally plunged to Earth. "Halfway through its trip, around Weston, W.Va., it took some sharp turns, all within about two or three minutes," said Jeff Krawczyk, chief executive of Flight Explorer, a software firm that uses Federal Aviation Administration data to track flights.

"It was going west, then took a turn to the north, and then went west again," Krawczyk said. Then the plane headed toward Kentucky and took a sharp turn south toward Washington, and around that time the FAA center in Cleveland lost contact with the flight, apparently because someone aboard had turned off its transponder, he said.

Brad Clemenson, a spokesman for Murtha, said the doomed aircraft apparently made at least two other sharp turns during its last minutes -- swerves that are detectable in Flight Explorer's computerized reconstruction of the jet's path.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetnat3p3.asp

The Newark-to-San Francisco flight reportedly diverted its route near Pittsburgh and ignored calls from Pittsburgh International Airport controllers. Allegheny County Emergency Management Coordinator Bob Full said that Pittsburgh International Airport officials had knowledge of the plane headed for Pittsburgh and that it was taking precautionary action when the plane diverted its course. The plane actually reached the Cleveland area before turning around.
ABC News reported that a request to change the flight plan to Washington, D.C. was asked for by someone on the plane.
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/956356/detail.html


---------------------------------------------------------------------

why the confused official reports and no explainations to explain them?

[Woody Box]

1. answer

Important questions, philb. This is the state of my current knowledge:

The so-called "flight plan change" was probably done by an air controller who typed in the new destination airport (DCA).
This happened at 9:56 and was in all probability the reaction to Jarrah (?) who dialed in the VOR frequency of DCA at 9:55:11 (see the corresponding thread here). This was the "request" of Jarrah to change the flight path.

The ABC report that the change occurred when FLight 93 turned around over Cleveland (i.e. at 9:36) is surely wrong. Every other source has it happening after the plane passed Pittsburgh.

Careful with the post-gazette article! They're confusing Flight 93 with Flight 77!

Hope this helps a bit clarifying the stuff.

[philb]

2. what about the arrival time changes?

[Woody Box]

3. the flightexplorer graphic is manipulated, IMHO

so one can only speculate what these changes mean.

(note, f.i. that UA 93 turned off the transponder between Cleveland and Pittsburgh, but the altitude data are still featured).