America- In the age of no primary radar

[Non Believer]

Do any of you have any concerns over the fact that our top military officials are quoted as saying we really had no ability to track aircraft over the U.S once their transponders were turned off. Or how about the fact that Andrews was always quoted as responsible for our nations defense before 9-11, but after 9-11 its website was changed to claim this was not the case

[Brainache]

No concern here, but then I'm not American. So are you enjoying your school holidays?

[T.A.M.]

So go to college, get a degree, and fix it. Why just whine about it.

TAM:)

[bje]

They were always on normal radar, just not identified because the transponders were turned off.

[rwguinn]

Do any of you have any concerns over the fact that our top military officials are quoted as saying we really had no ability to track aircraft over the U.S once their transponders were turned off. Or how about the fact that Andrews was always quoted as responsible for our nations defense before 9-11, but after 9-11 its website was changed to claim this was not the case

I don't really have that much concern over in-country ability to skin track. Since most threats have in the past been most likely to come from outside, there is that ability along the borders, but any skin-track radar can be defeated by flying where it can't see--like behind hills, at low altitude, and all that sort of stuff. Additionally, stealth technology beats it. Apparently, the new home-builts that use a lot of composite materials are hard to track, and are becoming a favorite of smugglers, so the technology is rapidly becoming obsolete.
Additionall, skin-track cannot identify which aircraft that is--only that it is an aircraft.
What we need is a way to make sure the transponder cannot be turned off in flight-or that if it is, an emergency transponder comes on and broadcasts a problem...

[ZouPrime]

Do any of you have any concerns over the fact that our top military officials are quoted as saying we really had no ability to track aircraft over the U.S once their transponders were turned off.
It depends what you mean by concern. Should we be concerned? Is it a capability that the US millitary should be expected to have? Why? Why not? What are the technical difficulties involved in the implementation of this capability? Can these difficulties be surmounted? Does the cost of surmounting them justify the expected benefit?

Did you perform a ROI analysis of the cost of a nation-level radar monitoring and tracking capability versus it's usefulness?

Have you thought about all that or are you basing your concern on a "common sense" ultimately based on ignorance? Or maybe you think that it is not necessary, that complex and costly systems should always be implemented as long as someone somewhere is "concerned"?

Did you see the Simpsons episode with the Bear Patrol?

[gumboot]

Do any of you have any concerns over the fact that our top military officials are quoted as saying we really had no ability to track aircraft over the U.S once their transponders were turned off. Or how about the fact that Andrews was always quoted as responsible for our nations defense before 9-11, but after 9-11 its website was changed to claim this was not the case



Do you enjoy lying, or does it occur involuntarily?

-Gumboot

[Non Believer]

Pretty amazing. It's either no big deal, or it wouldn't help. You really think somebody could hide a 767 from a functioning radar over this country(and its nation capital no less) for 40 minutes. how many pilots on here think this is a question that should be "looked at". The nation obviously does have the capability to track airliners after the transponder is off, so the point is moot. the question is why did they lie about it.Oh, the military has not lied about 9-11, is just that virtually every claim they made turned out to be untrue. Anything, on Andrews, I should have said that it had benn tasked with the nation's capital air-defense.

[Undesired Walrus]

Do any of you have any concerns over the fact that our top military officials are quoted as saying we really had no ability to track aircraft over the U.S once their transponders were turned off. Or how about the fact that Andrews was always quoted as responsible for our nations defense before 9-11, but after 9-11 its website was changed to claim this was not the case

Take a look at this symbol:
?
It is a revolutionary new way of expression. Try and use it.

[ZouPrime]

Non Believer, are you concerned that US citizens did not received a mandatory week-long training in how they should react in case of a bioterrorist attack? I'm sure it would certainly help save many lives if such situation ends up happening. Why haven't the government implemented such a plan? Don't they want to save lives?

Would you care that much about the US military radar coverage had the 9/11 attacks never happened? Or are you simply a victim of the "think of the children" syndrome?

[gumboot]

Pretty amazing. It's either no big deal, or it wouldn't help. You really think somebody could hide a 767 from a functioning radar over this country(and its nation capital no less) for 40 minutes. how many pilots on here think this is a question that should be "looked at". The nation obviously does have the capability to track airliners after the transponder is off, so the point is moot. the question is why did they lie about it.Oh, the military has not lied about 9-11, is just that virtually every claim they made turned out to be untrue.


Why do you think a 767 with its transponder turned off would be lost for 40 minutes?




Anything, on Andrews, I should have said that it had benn tasked with the nation's capital air-defense.


After 9/11 the 121st Fighter Squadron's website changed to reflect its new role as the "Capital Guardians" (this nickname comes from the 113th Wing's motto "Custodes Pro Defensione" (Guardians for Defense) which came from the original 352nd Fighter Group of WWII (famous for their blue-nosed aircraft). The 352nd FG were redesignated the 113th FW at the end of the war).

Our mission is to be Capital Guardians who provide our nation fighter forces capable of global employment; to provide air sovereignty forces to defend the Nation’s Capital; to employ our forces with mastery and lethality, if required; and to enhance the community with support and good will.

District of Columbia Air National Guard Website (http://www.dcandr.ang.af.mil/units/113wg/121FS/index.htm)

This is because after 9/11 the number of NORAD alert bases was increased, and CAPs were established.

On 9/11 NORAD had seven alert bases, and they didn't include Andrews AFB.

-Gumboot

[Furcifer]

Do any of you have any concerns over the fact that our top military officials are quoted as saying we really had no ability to track aircraft over the U.S once their transponders were turned off. Or how about the fact that Andrews was always quoted as responsible for our nations defense before 9-11, but after 9-11 its website was changed to claim this was not the case

Prior to 9/11, I would have been more concerned if they did. A statement like "The US military monitors and tracks every single aircraft over the US for deviation from flight plan. In the event that a deviation is detected, multiple, armed, intercept, military aircraft will be scrambled at a moments notice, with permission to treat as hostile" etc. would have freaked me out. Would have done wonders for Greyhound. And Andrews is responsible for the nations defense against what? Canada? Sounds like a cushy job that would get eliminated at the first budget cut. That's the way I see these things.

[Non Believer]

[quote=gumboot;2702624]Why do you think a 767 with its transponder turned off would be lost for 40 minutes?



Because according to the latest version of the official story flight 77 was.

[CurtC]

Because according to the latest version of the official story flight 77 was.
Do you understand why? Do you understand that primary radar is available to controllers, but was not normally used, and why? Do you have any clue about how difficult a controller's job would be if he depended on primary radar?

[gumboot]

Why do you think a 767 with its transponder turned off would be lost for 40 minutes?



Because according to the latest version of the official story flight 77 was.



AA77 was a Boeing 757, not a Boeing 767. Your account also isn't entirely true. AA77's transponder was turned off at 0856EDT, and it crashed into the Pentagon at 0937EDT. That's 41 minutes. Looks good so far for you right?

Not quite. AA77's transponder was turned off in a part of the USA with no primary radar coverage. Yes, that right, there's gaps in the primary radar coverage. With simultaneous loss of communications and transponder, the ARTCC controller rightly assumed the aircraft had crashed.

Indianapolis Centre then followed correct procedure and notified surrounding ARTCCs so airspace along AA77's flightpath could be sterilised. Meanwhile, of course, AA77 had turned around and was heading east, not west. When it entered an area with primary coverage at 0905EDT, no one noticed because they were looking west.

At 0908EDT Indianapolis Centre activated the USAF's Search and Rescue units at Langley AFB, to commence a search for AA77's wreckage.

By 0920EDT, Indianapolis Centre staff had learned that there were multiple suspected hijackings in progress. At this moment they began to suspect AA77 may have not crashed, but been hijacked.

At 0921EDT the FAA began searching for AA77 on radar, and Dulles TRACON were notified of suspected hijackings. They were directed to check all unknown radar contacts.

At 0932EDT Dulles TRACON located AA77 (although they didn't know it was AA77).

At 0934EDT NORAD hear about the unknown contact being tracked by Dulles TRACON, and direct fighters to intercept it.

At 0936EDT an ANG C-130 departs Reagan, and Tower controllers direct the aircraft to follow the radar track located by Dulles TRACON.

At 0937EDT the ANG C-130 reports that the aircraft has hit the Pentagon.

Thus by my calculation AA77 was hijacked for 41 minutes, which comprised of:
24 minutes during which the aircraft was believed to have crashed
12 minutes during which the aircraft was missing and suspected of being hijacked
5 minutes during which the aircraft was a suspect hijack but being tracked on radar

-Gumboot

[beachnut]

Do any of you have any concerns over the fact that our top military officials are quoted as saying we really had no ability to track aircraft over the U.S once their transponders were turned off. Or how about the fact that Andrews was always quoted as responsible for our nations defense before 9-11, but after 9-11 its website was changed to claim this was not the case
But what about now.

9/11 the military did not track planes of the United States, there was no real network. However, there are plenty of radars that can track everything down to a bird, they belong to the FAA. I bet there is now a system that shares data, from radars.

In addition, we have AWACS we can track and target stuff. We have mobile systems to track objects.

This is a stupid question, since you did zero research to see where we are today. Zip. Please find some facts and have something before you make up statements with no value.

[jaydeehess]

Do any of you have any concerns over the fact that our top military officials are quoted as saying we really had no ability to track aircraft over the U.S once their transponders were turned off.

Enroute ATC uses secondary radar exclusively in its day-today activity. This is the radar that uses the aircraft transponder. They are uninterested in the primary radar returns as aircraft at the altitudes they are concernerd with must all have transponders. secondary radar then shows them only the aircraft they are concerned with pushing around the sky and not all the VFR traffic, ground clutter, flocks of birds and heavy clouds that show up on primary.

Civilian primary radar does not and never has covered the entire country, its cost vs. utility would have been too high.

NORAD and the US military was concerned with attacks originating from outside the country and thus military radar focused on what was coming accross the borders and over the north polar region.

When a transponder goes off the controller will, when he notices that his plane has gone off the screen will switch to primary in areas of the country in which primary radar is available and look along the expected flight path of the no-transponder aircraft. If the plane instituted a hard turn as soon as it went off secondary radar then the controller is now looking in the wrong place.

Radar is also line of sight. There is a radar installation both 125 miles west of here and another 90 miles east of here and both have primary capability. However due to topography and the earth's curvature the lowest that ATC can guide an aircraft to the local airport is to around 5000 asl(approx 4000 agl) so any aircraft below that level will not show up on any screen. This is a rural area and most of the air traffic around here is VFR and Flight Services keeps track of them and it is up to pilots to keep FSS and all other traffic informed as to where they are and to keep an eye out for each other. No one has hit each other for a long time.

NORAD however can see aircraft in this zone though. They utilize an over the horizon radar (and as Beachnut says, there is also AWACS)that follows the curvature of the earth and we just happen to reside NORTH of the USA/Canada border. In fact I have been witness to civilian aircraft being intercepted by an F-4 out of Minnesota. (in the mid 1980's) This occurs when an aircraft is approaching the US border without having filed a flight plan or checking in with FSS. It occurs because an American pilot who has been fishing or hunting north of here is returning to the states and has never had to file a plan before because this is his first time north of the border. In trips within the US borders this simply is not a problem.

For such a pilot it comes as a bit of a shock to have a fighter suddenly appear on his wing.

[Non Believer]

So what was my lie, that it went untracked for 36 minutes instead of 40. I don't know if I can give you credit for the 5 minutes of tracking since the military believed it was tracking flight 11(that sure is believable). as for your claims for a dead zone, prove it. The military ran drills that assumed hijacked planes as weapons, so dom't tell me they had no reason to consider a hijacked plane mioght turn off its transponder. God you guys have nothing on this

[Non Believer]

[quote=gumboot;2702750]
. Yes, that right, there's gaps in the primary radar coverage. With simultaneous loss of communications and transponder, the ARTCC controller rightly assumed the aircraft had crashed.

Right even though he was wrong ? Give me a break they knew of at least two other hijackings, and they would assume this one had crashed. Beyond belief that you guys actualy believe you don't sound ridiculous with this stuff

[stateofgrace]

So what was my lie, that it went untracked for 36 minutes instead of 40. I don't know if I can give you credit for the 5 minutes of tracking since the military believed it was tracking flight 11(that sure is believable). as for your claims for a dead zone, prove it. The military ran drills that assumed hijacked planes as weapons, so dom't tell me they had no reason to consider a hijacked plane mioght turn off its transponder. God you guys have nothing on this

Are you accusing the US military of being involved in mass murder of 3000 people on 911?

[rwguinn]

. Yes, that right, there's gaps in the primary radar coverage. With simultaneous loss of communications and transponder, the ARTCC controller rightly assumed the aircraft had crashed.

Right even though he was wrong ? Give me a break they knew of at least two other hijackings, and they would assume this one had crashed. Beyond belief that you guys actualy believe you don't sound ridiculous with this stuff

And where did the 2 known hijackings land safely?
Oh--that's right--they CRASHED into a couple of big buildings.
Assuming a crash means looking for what it crashed in to--mother Earth, or some part of it sticking up?
He could not possibly know he was wrong until afterwards. That is the usual case, although your postings make a lie of that statement. You know you are wrong, but go ahead anyway.
Don't pose stupid questions just for the sake of it.

[Non Believer]

You guys love to try to go to other subjects, when you are caught. Stay on track. I don't have to answer every aspect of 9-11 when I point that one part does not make sense.

[Non Believer]

So J.D we can only track planes that continue in the same direction. Not very helpfull. I guess we need anothe 5 trillion to secure our airspace.

[rwguinn]

You guys love to try to go to other subjects, when you are caught. Stay on track. I don't have to answer every aspect of 9-11 when I point that one part does not make sense.
"Caught"?
How?
I caught you in a couple of lies--see previous post by me--and you change the subject. Nice weasel attempt.
Respond, please. Where did those 2 known hijackings at the time of AA77's disappearance land safely?
C'mon, now--you can do it....

[Shrinker]

Do any of you have any concerns over the fact that our top military officials are quoted as saying we really had no ability to track aircraft over the U.S once their transponders were turned off. Or how about the fact that Andrews was always quoted as responsible for our nations defense before 9-11, but after 9-11 its website was changed to claim this was not the case

Do you want the goverment to be able to track the movements of every civilian vehicle that could potentially be used by terrorists? Somehow I suspect you don't.

[DGM]

So J.D we can only track planes that continue in the same direction. Not very helpfull. I guess we need anothe 5 trillion to secure our airspace.
The system works extremely well for what it was designed to do, Air traffic control. You don't see planes flying into each other do you? The problem wasn't with radar it was that they hijacked the planes in the first place. Steps have been taken to solve THAT security problem.

[bje]

You guys love to try to go to other subjects, when you are caught. Stay on track. I don't have to answer every aspect of 9-11 when I point that one part does not make sense.

I am afraid I caught you, Non Believer, right in this post:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2702547&postcount=16

Let me repeat, since you dodged the point and can now address it here:

Originally Posted by Non Believer http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2702459#post2702459)
You know the part where he is in the bunker with Shooter at 9.25 and a kid is coming in with reports that the plane is 50 miles out, 40 miles out, etc, and asks your hero do the orders still stand.
...

NB, how does "the plane is 50 miles out, 40 miles out, etc," square with your belief that the flights were not tracked because the transponders were off?

[fezzic]

Do any of you have any concerns over the fact that our top military officials are quoted as saying we really had no ability to track aircraft over the U.S once their transponders were turned off.

No.

The FAA ATC system was not designed to handle large numbers of commercial aircraft without the transponder. Pity the poor controller having to use primary radar to track and control his charges. How would he know who he was telling to "turn left to 270" since it would just be a dot on the primary screen.

To convert this into an Air Defense system, which would not be concerned with aircraft separation, approach or departures from airports, and stacking or unstacking aircraft waiting to land, after all that's the ATController's problem not Air Defense, the air defense coordination center would be concerned with tracking all airborne objects such as aircraft. It wouldn't care whether there was a transponder on the aircraft for any aircraft could be hostile or become hostile. This activity would have to go on 7x24 and be ready to ramp up during off-peak periods in case of sudden emergencies. This is all very intensive and very expensive.

Pre-9/11, it would be near unthinkable to have that kind of air defense setup within the continental US. After all, the "threat" was outside presumably inbound not from hijacked commercial aircraft.

Certainly the environment has changed, as it does in the aftermath of a bad situation, though the military and FAA might not be able to do all that much more (lay on more fighters, add more radars, maybe setup CICs for critical areas) the mindset and perceptions will be different.

Or how about the fact that Andrews was always quoted as responsible for our nations defense before 9-11, but after 9-11 its website was changed to claim this was not the case

Fact? And how would this "fact" change anything?

[TellyKNeasuss]

Or how about the fact that Andrews was always quoted as responsible for our nations defense before 9-11, but after 9-11 its website was changed to claim this was not the case

You presumably did research what units are stationed at Andrews AFB and what their functions were in 2001, so could you explain to the rest of us what role Andrews AFB should have played on 9/11?

[jsiv]

Right even though he was wrong ? Give me a break they knew of at least two other hijackings, and they would assume this one had crashed. Beyond belief that you guys actualy believe you don't sound ridiculous with this stuff

Have you read this? (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608?printable=true&currentPage=all) It might help shed a little light on what the military was doing.

[Alareth]

Non Believer, have you ever used a radar system?

It's not as simple as you seem to think.

[Comsat Angel]

So what was my lie, that it went untracked for 36 minutes instead of 40. I don't know if I can give you credit for the 5 minutes of tracking since the military believed it was tracking flight 11(that sure is believable). as for your claims for a dead zone, prove it. The military ran drills that assumed hijacked planes as weapons, so dom't tell me they had no reason to consider a hijacked plane mioght turn off its transponder. God you guys have nothing on this

Prove it.

[Comsat Angel]

So what was my lie, that it went untracked for 36 minutes instead of 40. I don't know if I can give you credit for the 5 minutes of tracking since the military believed it was tracking flight 11(that sure is believable). as for your claims for a dead zone, prove it. The military ran drills that assumed hijacked planes as weapons, so dom't tell me they had no reason to consider a hijacked plane mioght turn off its transponder. God you guys have nothing on this

Prove it.

("mioght"?)

[beachnut]

You guys love to try to go to other subjects, when you are caught. Stay on track. I don't have to answer every aspect of 9-11 when I point that one part does not make sense.
You have made no point your statement was wrong, incomplete and had nothing to say. A do over thing.

[beachnut]

So what was my lie, that it went untracked for 36 minutes instead of 40. I don't know if I can give you credit for the 5 minutes of tracking since the military believed it was tracking flight 11(that sure is believable). as for your claims for a dead zone, prove it. The military ran drills that assumed hijacked planes as weapons, so dom't tell me they had no reason to consider a hijacked plane mioght turn off its transponder. God you guys have nothing on this
Hijacked planes usually did not turn off their transponders, cause they needed the pilots, and the box was the pilots. Are you not even trying to get background before you make statements with no value? It is impossible to figure out what a primary target is, since the primary target does not have any information. How would they know what primary blip was 77 since they were not following 77 for the whole time? Why not stop and collect some information before making a fool of yourself and unable to recognize it since you have zero understanding of radar, the military, and reality.

[twinstead]

Non believer do you think this forum is filled with idiots? You'd better do your homework if you want to come here and arrogantly proclaim that you've 'figured it all out'.

[PhantomWolf]

To discover the difference between Primary and secondary radar, read this page in HMTL

[PhantomWolf]

Oh, and they never believed that the flight they were tracking was 11, although originally NORAD was told that 11 had turned and was heading for DC (after it had crashed into WTC 1) by the time 77 was located, it was known that 11 was down.

[Alareth]

Non believer do you think this forum is filled with idiots? You'd better do your homework if you want to come here and arrogantly proclaim that you've 'figured it all out'.

Arrogance and bluster are all he seems to have. Why do you want to take his only weapon away?

[SpitfireIX]

. . . Give me a break they knew of at least two other hijackings, and they would assume this one had crashed. Beyond belief that you guys actualy believe you don't sound ridiculous with this stuff


The Indianapolis Center controllers were not aware that any planes had been hijacked until 22 minutes after contact with American 77 had been lost.

From a Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A32597-2001Nov2&notFound=true):

An alert to controllers to watch for planes disappearing from radar or changing to unauthorized courses did not go out until 22 minutes after Flight 77 disappeared, when it was at least halfway back to Washington.


Do you imagine that when a plane disappears from radar, the controller immediately has someone call FAA headquarters?? The first thing the controller does is attempt to establish radio contact with the aircraft. If that is unsuccessful, the controller may contact other aircraft and ask if they have seen the missing plane, or any evidence of a crash. The controller may also contact other controllers handling adjacent sectors and ask if they can observe the aircraft. Once the controller suspects a crash, the next priority is to alert search-and-rescue units. Then, and only then, will anyone take time to alert FAA headquarters. And even if that had happened, whoever took the report of the suspected crash might not have been aware of the known hijackings.

Frankly, Non Believer, you are the one who sounds ridiculous with your breathtaking displays of ignorance and wishful thinking in your attempts to provide "evidence" of a conspiracy.

[Gravy]

God you guys have nothing on thisNothing except explaining to you exactly what happened and why. Your rebuttal? Did anyone's detailed explanation get anything important wrong?

[gumboot]

So what was my lie, that it went untracked for 36 minutes instead of 40. I don't know if I can give you credit for the 5 minutes of tracking since the military believed it was tracking flight 11(that sure is believable).


The military wasn't tracking anyone. Dulles TRACON was. They didn't know who it was. They didn't believe it was AA11.

You're wrong because your claim is that the FAA failed to find a hijacked aircraft for 40 minutes. This is false. They were only looking for a missing hijacked aircraft for 12 minutes.




as for your claims for a dead zone, prove it. The military ran drills that assumed hijacked planes as weapons, so dom't tell me they had no reason to consider a hijacked plane mioght turn off its transponder. God you guys have nothing on this


False. The military have never run a drill involving domestic airliners used as weapons. Local exercise planners had in the past proposed international flights being used as weapons, but these proposals were rejected as too unrealistic.

If you had done any research whatsoever into the matter you would be well aware that there are many gaps in primary radar coverage.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Right even though he was wrong ?


Based on the information available to him, he made the correct assumption.



Give me a break they knew of at least two other hijackings, and they would assume this one had crashed.



False. Indianapolis Centre did not learn of any other hijackings until about 0920EDT. At this time they revised their conclusion on the fate of AA77.

-Gumboot

[Brainster]

Pretty amazing. It's either no big deal, or it wouldn't help. You really think somebody could hide a 767 from a functioning radar over this country(and its nation capital no less) for 40 minutes. how many pilots on here think this is a question that should be "looked at". The nation obviously does have the capability to track airliners after the transponder is off, so the point is moot. the question is why did they lie about it.Oh, the military has not lied about 9-11, is just that virtually every claim they made turned out to be untrue. Anything, on Andrews, I should have said that it had benn tasked with the nation's capital air-defense.

A 767 over the nation's capital? Are you talking about Flight 77? That was not a 767.

[jaydeehess]

So J.D we can only track planes that continue in the same direction. Not very helpfull. I guess we need anothe 5 trillion to secure our airspace.


That is not what I said. Try again.


I stated quite clearly that when an ATC controller discovers that a plane has lost its transponder the first place he will look for it on primary radar is along the intended flight path.

Would you have had them looking elsewhere first N.B., and if so , why?

[Non Believer]

Well at least you guys make it easy to respond, since no one has said anything true that might be a challenge. Robin Hordon (former air traffic controller, and Colin Scoggins (currently at Boston) have gone in depth about how the claims about the impossibilty of tracking an aircraft by primary radar is total hogwash. Scoggins goes into detail on the procedures he uses to track locations on primary systms. So pleas present some testimony from some air traffic controllers, and not the pretend experts you guys claim to be.

One person said there is no military radar system. Give me a break. Hordon has the mentioned the PAVE PAWS system, which (according to the military) can monitor a great number of targets simultaneously, and does not miss anything occuring in North American airspace.

As for Andrews, here is a quote by a National guard spokesmen the day after 9-11 " air defense around Washington is provided primarily by Andrews air force base". Yes and if you want to hear the fighter squadrons that were there if we need to go there. But do you guys really believe that Andrews was not tasked with provig air defense for the Withe House, the Pentagon, Air Foirce One, etc. I mean even average citizens used to know that

[Gravy]

Non Believer, please contact NORAD (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/norad%2Cfaa%2Cntsb%2Caircraftcapabilities%2Cpilo). They will disabuse you of the notion that on 9/11 Andrews AFB was one of the 7 alert bases in the U.S. with fighters tasked to be ready to scramble.

Now, please tell us specifically what facts are incorrect in these posts:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2702624&postcount=11
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2702750&postcount=15
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2702826&postcount=17
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2703947&postcount=40

Or do you not believe that these posts exist at all?

[Gravy]

As for Andrews, here is a quote by a National guard spokesmen the day after 9-11 " air defense around Washington is provided primarily by Andrews air force base". Please provide a source for this quote. Are you sure it isn't referring to air defense after the attacks?

[Non Believer]

Gravy- Please contact reality, and it well let you know NORAD is full of it.

[Alareth]

Gravy- Please contact reality, and it well let you know NORAD is full of it.

Be honest, you really don't give a damn about the truth do you? This is simply a sick little game you like to amuse yourself with.

[Gravy]

One person said there is no military radar system.Who?

Give me a break. Hordon has the mentioned the PAVE PAWS system, which (according to the military) can monitor a great number of targets simultaneously, and does not miss anything occuring in North American airspace.Sorry, you don't get a break. Ever hear of fact-checking?

(http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/track/pavepaws.htm)PAVE PAWS (http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/track/pavepaws.htm) is an Air Force Space Command radar system operated by 21st Space Wing squadrons for missile warning and space surveillance.

...The mission of the PAVE PAWS radar installations involves two activities. The first activity, surveillance, is to detect and determine attack characteristics of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles and Sea Launched Ballistic Missiles that might penetrate the PAVE PAWS field of view. Once detected, the launched object is continuously tracked and its trajectory estimated. Any object that separates from a booster is also tracked as it approaches. The second activity, tracking, supports the USSPACECOM Space Surveillance Network, which involves the surveillance and tracking of earth satellites and identification of other space objects.

[Gravy]

Gravy- Please contact reality, and it well let you know NORAD is full of it.Is that your final answer, and your standard of research? I won't hold my breath waiting for you to source that quote, then.

How sad.

[SpitfireIX]

Well at least you guys make it easy to respond, since no one has said anything true that might be a challenge. Robin Hordon (former air traffic controller, and Colin Scoggins (currently at Boston) have gone in depth about how the claims about the impossibilty of tracking an aircraft by primary radar is total hogwash. Scoggins goes into detail on the procedures he uses to track locations on primary systms. So pleas present some testimony from some air traffic controllers, and not the pretend experts you guys claim to be


It is impossible to track a target on primary radar if there is no primary radar coverage in the area where it turns off its transponder. That is a fact.

One person said there is no military radar system. Give me a break. Hordon has the mentioned the PAVE PAWS system, which (according to the military) can monitor a great number of targets simultaneously, and does not miss anything occuring in North American airspace.


No, you give us a break. PAVE PAWS is designed to track submarine-launched ballistic missiles and (secondarily) satellites. There are only three sites. If you understood anything about radar you would realize the complete impossibility of tracking any meaningful amount of US civilian air traffic from only three ground sites. See here (http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/track/pavepaws.htm) for more information. Further, each site only covers a 240-degree arc; very little of the 48 contiguous states falls within these arcs. Clearly Hordon does not know what he is talking about, and neither do you.

Direct question, Non Believer. With about five minutes of Googling, you could have determined that PAVE PAWS is not intended to track aircraft of any sort, and does not cover the areas where the hijackings occurred. What does that say about your ability to think for yourself, rather than merely parrot conspiracist factoids? Given the obvious answer, why should anyone take you or your claims at all seriously?

As for Andrews, here is a quote by a National guard spokesmen the day after 9-11 " air defense around Washington is provided primarily by Andrews air force base". Yes and if you want to hear the fighter squadrons that were there if we need to go there. But do you guys really believe that Andrews was not tasked with provig air defense for the Withe House, the Pentagon, Air Foirce One, etc. I mean even average citizens used to know that


The fact that Andrews AFB was tasked with defending Washington does not imply that it had armed aircraft on 15 minute alert 24/7 before September 11.

[CurtC]

In addition to what's already been said, I'll add that PAVE PAWS is a giant honkin' phased array radar, which means that instead of having one radar pulse emitter and its beam steered by an antenna, they have thousands of smaller transmit/receive modules whose phase can be controlled to steer the beam, pretty much like a hologram, without any moving parts, therefore the beam can be steered very fast.

But since it's mounted on the side of a big building that points outwards, away from the middle of the US, there's no way to turn that baby around and provide any coverage at all inside the US.

[gumboot]

Robin Hordon (former air traffic controller, and Colin Scoggins (currently at Boston) have gone in depth about how the claims about the impossibilty of tracking an aircraft by primary radar is total hogwash.


Who said it was impossible to track an aircraft by primary radar?




One person said there is no military radar system. Give me a break. Hordon has the mentioned the PAVE PAWS system, which (according to the military) can monitor a great number of targets simultaneously, and does not miss anything occuring in North American airspace.


Prior to 9/11, the military did not monitor domestic US Airspace. This is a fact. The FAA were the sole authority responsible for monitoring US Airspace. Indeed, on 9/11 the FAA on a number of occasions prohibited the scrambled fighters from going certain places.




As for Andrews, here is a quote by a National guard spokesmen the day after 9-11 " air defense around Washington is provided primarily by Andrews air force base". Yes and if you want to hear the fighter squadrons that were there if we need to go there. But do you guys really believe that Andrews was not tasked with provig air defense for the Withe House, the Pentagon, Air Foirce One, etc. I mean even average citizens used to know that



you have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. There was no air defense for the White House or Pentagon. The only standing military air defense was against foreign penetration of North American airspace. This mission has been the sole responsibility of NORAD for nearly half a century. NORAD is allocated units from the 1st Air Force, Air Combat Command, to carry out this mission.

The 113th Fighter Wing, DC ANG (which is the unit stationed at Andrews AFB) was not even part of the Air Combat Command, let alone the 1st Air Force.

In May 1994 the Congressional Armed Services Committee, NORAD, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff collectively decided to significantly reduce NORAD's air sovereignty mission by decreasing the number of alert bases with armed aircraft ready to scramble.

This intention is explained in detail in the 3rd May report entitled Continental Air Defense: A Dedicated Force is No Longer Needed (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GOVPUBS/gao/gao19.htm).

It states:

NORAD plans to reduce the number of alert sites in the continental United States to 14 and provide 28 aircraft for the day-to-day peacetime air sovereignty mission. Each alert site will have two fighters, and their crews will be on 24-hour duty and ready to scramble within 5 minutes.

For the report, a study of the operations of the existing alert bases was undertaken, including visits to those units. At the time there were a total of 28 continental alert sites, which are listed:

Atlantic City, NJ.
Burlington, VT.
Langley AFB, VA.
Duluth, MN.
Tyndall AFB, FL.
Ellington, TX.
Holloman AFB, NM.
Fargo, ND.
Kingsley AFB, OR.
Fresno, CA.
Castle AFB, CA.
George AFB, CA.
March AFB, CA.
Great Falls, MT.
Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ.
Jacksonville, FL.
Homestead AFB, FL.
Key West, FL.
Niagara Falls, NY.
Charleston, SC.
Otis, MA.
Bangor, ME.
Loring AFB, ME.
New Orleans, LA.
Portland, OR.
McChord AFB, WA.
Selfridge, MI.
Seymour Johnson AFB, NC.

You'll note that even as early as 1994, Andrews AFB was not part of the air defense mission. When this list of 28 became 14 as per the report, the 14 were taken from this list. When that 14 became 7, guess what? They came from this list. And they were:

Otis ANGB, MA.
Langley AFB, VA.
Tyndall AFB, FL.
Ellington Field, TX.
Homestead AFB, FL.
March AFB, CA.
Portland International Airport, OR.

Hmmm. No Andrews AFB. Doh.

-Gumboot

[Travis]

Well at least you guys make it easy to respond, since no one has said anything true that might be a challenge.

Uh, right.:rolleyes: No one has said anything true, or no one has said anything you wish to be true?

Robin Hordon (former air traffic controller, and Colin Scoggins (currently at Boston) have gone in depth about how the claims about the impossibilty of tracking an aircraft by primary radar is total hogwash. Scoggins goes into detail on the procedures he uses to track locations on primary systms. So pleas present some testimony from some air traffic controllers, and not the pretend experts you guys claim to be.

Nobody has claimed it is impossible to track aircraft on primary radar, just that it is harder to track aircraft that way. There aren't clear identification tags, there are gaps in primary radar and it takes vigilence to keep on it. If you can find an ATC that says it's just as easy to track aircraft in a crowded sky with primary as it is with secondary then please present it.

One person said there is no military radar system.

Who said the milirary has no radar systems? Someone on here?

Give me a break. Hordon has the mentioned the PAVE PAWS system, which (according to the military) can monitor a great number of targets simultaneously, and does not miss anything occuring in North American airspace.

This is too funny. PAVE PAWS is a missile tracker. There are bases for it in Cape Cod pointing out to sea and to the north, one at Beale AFB in California that is also pointing out to sea and to the north and two inactive bases in Texas and Georgia. This system is neither designed to track aircraft all over North America nor is it positioned and aligned to do so.

As for Andrews, here is a quote by a National guard spokesmen the day after 9-11 " air defense around Washington is provided primarily by Andrews air force base".

Simply having fighters on the base does not mean they are ready to fly at a moments notice, nor that the pilots are even there and ready to fly themselves. By the day after they had operations running full time but that means nothing in relation to what happened the day before.

Yes and if you want to hear the fighter squadrons that were there if we need to go there. But do you guys really believe that Andrews was not tasked with provig air defense for the Withe House, the Pentagon, Air Force One, etc. I mean even average citizens used to know that

Common knowledge is not always right. Andrews was then and is now primarily a logistics base. It's one of the bases for Air Mobility Command not Air Combat Command like Langley is. It does have one Air National Guard Wing, the 113th, which has one squadron of F-16's.

[TellyKNeasuss]

As for Andrews, here is a quote by a National guard spokesmen the day after 9-11 " air defense around Washington is provided primarily by Andrews air force base". Yes and if you want to hear the fighter squadrons that were there if we need to go there. But do you guys really believe that Andrews was not tasked with provig air defense for the Withe House, the Pentagon, Air Foirce One, etc. I mean even average citizens used to know that


I ask again: what units were stationed at Andrews AFB in 2001 and what were their roles? You claim to know everything, so this should be trivial for you.

[Non Believer]

Still waiting for a quote from any authority regarding the supposed inability oif the U.S to track airliners with primary radar. Talk about problems with fact checking. The information on Pave Paws is completely consistent with the claim. Theyfocus is on misssles since we already knew we have an ability to track aircraft. Where is your substantiation for the claim that there are pockets over the country that have no primary radar. In particular a quote that says this pre 9-11, would be in order. Not to mention that others here have already claimed here that the primary radar tracking focused on the direction the plane had been heading. How would that be possible with no primary radar. Gravy thanks for the links to things I have already read.

As for NORAD and Andrews, get me a quote that says Andrews was not taskable by NORAD, and then I will at least listen. And Beachnut said that the military has no radar for the planes of the U.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_MASCAL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_MASCAL) There is your link for the pentagon drill. Where are your citayions, I know hypocrisy dose'ny bother you , but come on

[gumboot]

Still waiting for a quote from any authority regarding the supposed inability oif the U.S to track airliners with primary radar.


No one thinks it's impossible to track an airliner with primary radar.



The information on Pave Paws is completely consistent with the claim.


No it isn't. It totally refutes the claim.






Where is your substantiation for the claim that there are pockets over the country that have no primary radar.


Map of CONUS Radar Coverage (http://www.team8plus.org/the-movement/radar/images/radar_coverage.jpg)

FAA Primary Radar coverage is in yellow. NORAD Radar coverage is in maroon.





Not to mention that others here have already claimed here that the primary radar tracking focused on the direction the plane had been heading. How would that be possible with no primary radar.


That's not at all what anyone said. What we said was that the HUMAN OPERATOR, bereft of primary radar, would be looking for an unknown radar contact entering primary coverage along the aircraft's flight route.





As for NORAD and Andrews, get me a quote that says Andrews was not taskable by NORAD, and then I will at least listen.


I've provided you with a Congressional Report. Read it.




And Beachnut said that the military has no radar for the planes of the U.S.


No radar for planes flying over the continental USA. He's right. Look at the map I provided you. Notice anything interesting about the location of NORAD's radar?




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_MASCAL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_MASCAL) There is your link for the pentagon drill. Where are your citayions, I know hypocrisy dose'ny bother you , but come on


MASCAL involved an airliner accidentally crashing into the Pentagon on departure from Reagan International Airport. It was not a terrorist incident, it was not a hijacking, and it was not an attack.

The objective of the exercise was to prepare Pentagon staff for any sort of disaster involving large numbers of wounded; hence the exercise type MASCAL (Mass Casualty).

You have no idea what you're talking about. Again.

-Gumboot

[TellyKNeasuss]

Still waiting for a quote from any authority regarding the supposed inability oif the U.S to track airliners with primary radar. Talk about problems with fact checking.

Talk about problems with strawmen. The claim isn't that it is impossible, only that it takes some time to pick out a specific plane out of the hundreds on a radar scope.

Where is your substantiation for the claim that there are pockets over the country that have no primary radar. In particular a quote that says this pre 9-11, would be in order.Where is your substantiation for the claim that the entire airspace over the US can be monitored? You're the one making charges, so the burden is on you to provide proof.

Not to mention that others here have already claimed here that the primary radar tracking focused on the direction the plane had been heading. How would that be possible with no primary radar.Strawman.

As for NORAD and Andrews, get me a quote that says Andrews was not taskable by NORAD, and then I will at least listen. And Beachnut said that the military has no radar for the planes of the U.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_MASCAL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_MASCAL) There is your link for the pentagon drill. Where are your citayions, I know hypocrisy dose'ny bother you , but come onWhere's the answer to my question: WHAT UNITS WERE BASED AT ANDREWS AFB IN 2001 AND WHAT WERE THEIR ROLES?

[bje]

Still waiting for a quote from any authority regarding the supposed inability oif the U.S to track airliners with primary radar. Talk about problems with fact checking. The information on Pave Paws is completely consistent with the claim. Theyfocus is on misssles since we already knew we have an ability to track aircraft. Where is your substantiation for the claim that there are pockets over the country that have no primary radar. In particular a quote that says this pre 9-11, would be in order. Not to mention that others here have already claimed here that the primary radar tracking focused on the direction the plane had been heading. How would that be possible with no primary radar. Gravy thanks for the links to things I have already read.

As for NORAD and Andrews, get me a quote that says Andrews was not taskable by NORAD, and then I will at least listen. And Beachnut said that the military has no radar for the planes of the U.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_MASCAL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_MASCAL) There is your link for the pentagon drill. Where are your citayions, I know hypocrisy dose'ny bother you , but come on


Enough of the trolling, NB. Address your contradictions.

[gumboot]

Oh by the way, that map of FAA radar coverage is from This Report (PDF) (http://spacecom.grc.nasa.gov/icnsconf/docs/2002/11/Session_E2-4_Bussolari.pdf) produced for the FAA by Dr Steven R Bussolari of MIT Lincoln Laboratory.

-Gumboot

[Gravy]

Oh by the way, that map of FAA radar coverage is from This Report (PDF) (http://spacecom.grc.nasa.gov/icnsconf/docs/2002/11/Session_E2-4_Bussolari.pdf) produced for the FAA by Dr Steven R Bussolari of MIT Lincoln Laboratory.

-GumbootThanks. Hadn't seen that before.

[Travis]

Boy this is tedious.

Troll Clone: I declare that the Smurfs did it! Show me, using only smell based evidence, that Smurfs did not do it.

Us: Here's loads of smell based evidence that Smurfs did not do it.

Troll Clone: I love that no one here has produced evidence that the Smurfs didn't do it.

Us: Ummm yes we did. Plus here's a bunch more.

Troll Clone: Why won't anyone here address my claim? Is everyone scared of me and my Smurf evidence?

Us: But we did! Twice! Using only smell based evidence.

Troll Clone: But the smell based evidence was not from the exact moment after the conclusion of the act. Anything else, even from a second before or after, does not count!

Us: You didn't specify that! Besides that's stupid! But okay, here it is.

Troll Clone: No one here has said a true thing yet. Amazing that no one has any evidence to back up their claims!

Us: But we just did provide the evidence, again!

Troll Clone: But that evidence does not prove that the sky is blue because of panda's mating.

Us: But.... what does that have to do with anything?

Troll Clone: If you cannot prove that the sky is blue because of panda's mating with smell based evidence at the conclusion of the act then it is obvious that I am right and the Smurfs did it.

Us: Bu... wh.... uh........... what!?!

Troll Clone: I love how easy it is for me to pwn you sorry people!

[Non Believer]

Still no quotes from experts. I am not going to read whole reports to get at the answers you cannot provide directly. As for the maps, fair enough I will take a look, but were they created before 9-11? Buteither way you lose. If there iswas not an extensive radar system that crazy, and if there was your wrong. Why are proffesional like Scoggins and Hordon, so far off if everything you say is true?

[gumboot]

Still no quotes from experts. I am not going to read whole reports to get at the answers you cannot provide directly. As for the maps, fair enough I will take a look, but were they created before 9-11? Buteither way you lose. If there iswas not an extensive radar system that crazy, and if there was your wrong. Why are proffesional like Scoggins and Hordon, so far off if everything you say is true?



Aw, poor little energizer bunny's batteries are running low.

-Gumboot

[Non Believer]

Oh ya- On Andrews I ma sure you know the squadrons I am going to quote, and then you are going to use. McEntee's statements. I am ready for that if that is the case, but qquit playing games

[DGM]

Still no quotes from experts. I am not going to read whole reports to get at the answers you cannot provide directly. As for the maps, fair enough I will take a look, but were they created before 9-11? Buteither way you lose. If there iswas not an extensive radar system that crazy, and if there was your wrong. Why are proffesional like Scoggins and Hordon, so far off if everything you say is true?
But what you fail to realize, radar is like playdoh. You form a ball it stays like that.:D

[Non Believer]

That map looks like there was plenty of primary radar. Thanks for the help in making my case, and I certainly could take you guys on , low batteies or not

[gumboot]

Oh ya- On Andrews I ma sure you know the squadrons I am going to quote, and then you are going to use. McEntee's statements. I am ready for that if that is the case, but qquit playing games



I'm very well versed on the units at Andrews AFB, and indeed on their activities on 9/11. Bring it on.

-Gumboot

[CurtC]

Talk about problems with fact checking. The information on Pave Paws is completely consistent with the claim. Theyfocus is on misssles since we already knew we have an ability to track aircraft.
I just have to stand back and appreciate the level of incompetence that is NB. He claims PAVE PAWS was able to provide primary radar coverage over the US, then when it's pointed out that not only does it not point inwards, but it's for tracking missiles, NB thinks this supports his claim, because, well, because surely we wouldn't have a system that tracks missiles unless we already have a system in place to track aircraft, right?

It's just... stunning.

[TellyKNeasuss]

Oh ya- On Andrews I ma sure you know the squadrons I am going to quote

Correct.

, and then you are going to use. McEntee's statements.Incorrect.

I am ready for that if that is the case, but qquit playing gamesYou 1) Make claims; 2) Provide no evidence to support them; 3) Arbitrarily dismiss all the counter evidence; 4) Claim that because no one has debunked your claims except by presenting evidence that you arbitrarily dismissed your claims must be true. Which one of us is playing games?

[gumboot]

That map looks like there was plenty of primary radar. Thanks for the help in making my case, and I certainly could take you guys on , low batteies or not



I take it you also noticed Primary coverage isn't 100%, yes?

-Gumboot

[jaydeehess]

Well at least you guys make it easy to respond, since no one has said anything true that might be a challenge.

..............

You can't be refering to me as you have not even bothered to comprehend what I have written.

It is impossible to track anything with primary radar where there is no primary radar coverage. That includes not only the lat/long position of an aircraft but also the height agl.

I gave the example of the radar that covers the area where I live and that radar coverage does indeed overlap between the installation 120 miles west and the one 90 miles east BUT anything below about 4000 agl in this area will not show up on any radar.

However, that only is relevant to "tracking" an object. Identifying one object from everything on the primary screen is another quite separtate task. That is the raison d'etre for secondary radar.

When ATC switches from secondary to primary in order to attempt to locate an aircraft that has lost its transponder where would you have them look first? I believe I asked you this question before but somehow you haven't deemed it worthy of a reply. Would that be because you don't desire to admit that the logical thing for an ATC controller to do would be to look for it along the original flight path, given that the controller at this time knows nothing about the other hijackings?

IF the aircraft is in an area that has no primary coverage OR the plane desends below primary radar coverage it will not show up on any screens and in many areas desending below civilian radar coverage is a fairly easy task.

In military radar anything that is coming at you that you have not been informed will be doing so is seen as a possible threat. NOTE that I said "coming at you" which is exactly what NORAD was concerned with, objects coming TOWARDS but still outside the borders.

Other objects seen as threats would be those that enter orbit, those that separate from a booster stage.

[Non Believer]

You have not disputed that PAVE PAWS says it can track any object over the U.S correct ? Where are your FAA controllers saying that it is nearly impossible to track planes by secondary radar? Also don't think it is lost on me that your map is produced post 9-11. Please provide something that made this claim pre 9-11. McEntee's statement was that operation noble eagle existed only after 9-11, but did not specifically say that 113th wing at Andrews was not tasked in the defense of the nations capital

[jaydeehess]

You 1) Make claims; 2) Provide no evidence to support them; 3) Arbitrarily dismiss all the counter evidence; 4) Claim that because no one has debunked your claims except by presenting evidence that you arbitrarily dismissed your claims must be true. Which one of us is playing games?

[ironic sarcasm] Oh, I know the answer! Can I answer that , can I , huh?[/ironic sarcasm]

[jaydeehess]

You have not disputed that PAVE PAWS says it can track any object over the U.S correct ? Where are your FAA controllers saying that it is nearly impossible to track planes by secondary radar? Also don't think it is lost on me that your map is produced post 9-11. Please provide something that made this claim pre 9-11. McEntee's statement was that operation noble eagle existed only after 9-11, but did not specifically say that 113th wing at Andrews was not tasked in the defense of the nations capital

N.B., it is common to identify who you are speaking to unless by "you" , you refer to all of us.

Even IF PAVE/PAWS can track objects within the US borders , first the military has to be informed by ATC where the aircraft to be tracked is expected to be. That requires that first the military be contacted and that will not occur until ATC sees a reason to. So first off ATC will be looking for the aircraft themselves, and only when they fail to locate it will the military be called. On a normal day one could expect a 30 minute ATC search before they contact SARS. In the case of 9/11 of course, ATC would have skipped search and rescue but ONLY after they were informed of possible multiple hijackings.


,,,, and once again
When ATC switches from secondary to primary in order to attempt to locate an aircraft that has lost its transponder where would you have them look first?

[jaydeehess]

I take it you also noticed Primary coverage isn't 100%, yes?

-Gumboot

I trust he noticed that the image is that of radar coverage above 5000 feet agl as well.

[jaydeehess]

So J.D we can only track planes that continue in the same direction. Not very helpfull. I guess we need anothe 5 trillion to secure our airspace.

If by "secure our airspace" you mean to increase the primary radar coverage over the contiguous USA to complete coverage down to 2000 feet then $300 - 500 billion might do it. It would be just as useful a way to spend money as sending troops to overthrow dictators.

[gumboot]

You have not disputed that PAVE PAWS says it can track any object over the U.S correct ?


Map of PAVE PAW Coverage (Blue) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/NuclearWarningSystemMap.png). It doesn't cover CONUS.




Where are your FAA controllers saying that it is nearly impossible to track planes by secondary radar?


You mean primary? No one thinks it's impossible or nearly impossible to track planes by primary radar. We're not talking about tracking. We're talking about FINDING. Explain how one goes about finding an aircraft using primary radar in an area that does not have primary radar, please.




Also don't think it is lost on me that your map is produced post 9-11. Please provide something that made this claim pre 9-11.



You missed the fact that the map was regarding the 9/11 situation. It was specifically a study of how to improve coverage to prevent another 9/11. One of the recommendations was DoD access to FAA radar coverage.





McEntee's statement was that operation noble eagle existed only after 9-11, but did not specifically say that 113th wing at Andrews was not tasked in the defense of the nations capital


The Congressional Report I posted to you some time ago specifically says that Andrews AFB was not an air defense site.

Further:

The Andrews-based 121st Fighter Sqdn. was not standing alert on Sept. 11, because the District of Columbia Air National Guard (DCANG) unit was not assigned to the North American Aerospace Defense Command air defense force. Norad had already scrambled three F-16s from their alert base at Langley AFB, Va., but they were about 12 min. from Washington when the Pentagon was struck at 9:37 a.m. (AW&ST June 3, p. 48).

...

"We really didn't know the intricacies of Norad's mission--how it works," Thompson [Lt. Col. Phil "Dog" Thompson] explained. "We've never been an air defense unit. We practice scrambles, we know how to do intercepts and other things, but there's a lot of protocol in the air defense business. We obviously didn't have that expertise, but it worked out fine. For the first three days, everybody seemed to be reasonably happy with our orchestrating the D.C. CAP. By day-four, we'd pretty much turned into a national asset" as Norad assumed control of CAPs nationwide.

F-16 Pilots Considered Ramming Flight 93 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/747496/posts), by William B Scott
Aviation Now, September 9, 2002

Lt Col Phil Thompson was acting Supervisor of Flying at Andrews AFB on 9/11. He explicitly states that the 121st Fighter Squadron had never been an air defence unit.

-Gumboot

[SpitfireIX]

That map looks like there was plenty of primary radar. Thanks for the help in making my case, and I certainly could take you guys on , low batteies or not


You remind me of my friend's three-year-old daughter Abby. One day Abby was playing with a hand-held video game, and every so often she would throw up her hands and say, "Yay! I won!" My friend's wife asked Abby how she knew she had won, and she replied, "I say, 'Yay! I won!'" :rolleyes:

If you will notice, on the map there is a large gap in primary radar coverage over West Virginia, which is where Flight 77 disappeared. And in case you decide to try splitting hairs (or pixels), the range circles on the map represent approximate maximum ranges, which vary with, among other factors, the target's radar cross-section, aspect it is presenting to the antenna, altitude, and local atmospheric conditions.

[Non Believer]

[quote=gumboot;2705827]Map of PAVE PAW Coverage (Blue) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/NuclearWarningSystemMap.png). It doesn't cover CONUS.

So the quote from their website is incorrect with the statement I refrenced?




You mean primary? No one thinks it's impossible or nearly impossible to track planes by primary radar. We're not talking about tracking. We're talking about FINDING. Explain how one goes about finding an aircraft using primary radar in an area that does not have primary radar, please.

I di mean primary radar. I would suggest looking between where the flight was and our nation's capital. We had two hijacked planes into the towers, would we not expect another hijacked plane as likely to head towards the population centers.







You missed the fact that the map was regarding the 9/11 situation. It was specifically a study of how to improve coverage to prevent another 9/11. One of the recommendations was DoD access to FAA radar coverage.


If I could believe they had not already considered this I might.




The Congressional Report I posted to you some time ago specifically says that Andrews AFB was not an air defense site.

Could you show your quotes from your reports. Some how , I don't think I could just tell you that there is a statement in a report and go read it. The fact that the American public has always understand Andrews as the heart of our nations air defense over the capital has some bearing here sir. If it was not the case, we have been lied to.




Lt Col Phil Thompson was acting Supervisor of Flying at Andrews AFB on 9/11. He explicitly states that the 121st Fighter Squadron had never been an air defence unit.

Same as above.

Finally you need to present some evidence that shows the expectations of Andrews in term of air defense for the capital before 9-11. One reason is that individuals in a position of authority (for a variety of reasons) may not want to be completely transparent in the way they deliver information regarding these events. Secondarily the public needs to have reliable information on the existing protocls before an event, not just explanations after.


-

[bje]

Finally you need to present some evidence that shows the expectations of Andrews in term of air defense for the capital before 9-11. One reason is that individuals in a position of authority (for a variety of reasons) may not want to be completely transparent in the way they deliver information regarding these events.


In other words it's ok for you to broadcast sensitive information.

Secondarily the public needs to have reliable information on the existing protocls before an event, not just explanations after. -
Under what directive or law does the "public" have a need to know?

[beachnut]

You have not disputed that PAVE PAWS says it can track any object over the U.S correct ? Where are your FAA controllers saying that it is nearly impossible to track planes by secondary radar? Also don't think it is lost on me that your map is produced post 9-11. Please provide something that made this claim pre 9-11. McEntee's statement was that operation noble eagle existed only after 9-11, but did not specifically say that 113th wing at Andrews was not tasked in the defense of the nations capital
PAVE PAWS tracks space stuff and is there to track an ICBM attack on the United States and Canada. PAVE PAWS points out. PAVE PAWS does not track stuff over the US. How can you get every single fact about 9/11 wrong or messed up beyond recognition?

[Non Believer]

bje- Yes the directive would be under the "we the people "part in the constitution. You want to suggest that the government right to secrecy presupposes the people's right to know then go for it.

[CurtC]

Even IF PAVE/PAWS can track objects within the US borders
But it can't. To get PAVE PAWS to cover the interior of the US, you'd have to physically pick up a large building, turn it around 180 degrees, and set it back down.

[beachnut]

bje- Yes the directive would be under the "we the people "part in the constitution. You want to suggest that the government right to secrecy presupposes the people's right to know then go for it.
Do you have any more 9/11 truth movement lies to present? How does the 9/11 truth movement mess up everything? Wrong bases, no knowledge of radar, bad info, messed up PAVE PAWS stuff, no idea about the military, and so much more. Why is it so easy to see that the 9/11 truth movement has false information, and why are you unable to see the same?

[SpitfireIX]

bje- Yes the directive would be under the "we the people "part in the constitution. You want to suggest that the government right to secrecy presupposes the people's right to know then go for it. [emphasis added]


First, the word you are looking for is "preempts" (or possibly "trumps"). "Presupposes" means "implies as a precondition."

Second, the US Congress has repeatedly passed laws (which the courts have repeatedly upheld) that allow the US Government to keep certain information classified for reasons of national security.

Third, nothing in the Preamble to the Constitution implies that every citizen has a right to know all state secrets; in fact, keeping such secrets in this case clearly falls under the heading of "providin[ing] for the common defense."

[Non Believer]

It's a theoretical position that guides our constitution. I know its one you guys don't like because you don't believe in the general public's ability to comprehend the events that shape their lives. But, if you want get down to specifics of what we are talking about, apparently your taking the position that we did not have the legal right to know whether Andrews was involved in the air defense of the capital. If so,as I said before, go for it.

[Alareth]

Insipid

Pronunciation: in-'si-p&d
Function: adjective
Etymology: French & Late Latin; French insipide, from Late Latin insipidus, from Latin in- + sapidus savory, from sapere to taste -- more at SAGE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sage)
1 : lacking taste or savor : TASTELESS (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/tasteless) <insipid food>
2 : lacking in qualities that interest, stimulate, or challenge : DULL (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/dull), FLAT (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/flat) <insipid prose>
- in·si·pid·i·ty /"in-s&-'pi-d&-tE/ noun
- in·sip·id·ly /in-'si-p&d-lE/ adverb
synonyms INSIPID (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/insipid), VAPID (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/vapid), FLAT (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/flat), JEJUNE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/jejune), BANAL (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/banal), INANE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/inane) mean devoid of qualities that make for spirit and character. INSIPID (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/insipid) implies a lack of sufficient taste or savor to please or interest <an insipid romance with platitudes on every page>. VAPID (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/vapid) suggests a lack of liveliness, force, or spirit <an exciting story given a vapid treatment>. FLAT (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/flat) applies to things that have lost their sparkle or zest <although well-regarded in its day, the novel now seems flat>. JEJUNE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/jejune) suggests a lack of rewarding or satisfying substance <a jejune and gassy speech>. BANAL (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/banal) stresses the complete absence of freshness, novelty, or immediacy <a banal tale of unrequited love>. INANE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/inane) implies a lack of any significant or convincing quality <an inane interpretation of the play>.

[Anti-sophist]

It's a theoretical position that guides our constitution.

There is no such theoretical position anywhere in the Constitution. You've failed to quote the necessary passage, as best as I can tell, instead preferring to read whatever you want to read in whichever particular passage you pretend means what you think it means.

Do you know what the Constitution -does- say, though? That the Judicial branch is given the unique and exclusive authority to interpret the Constitution. It doesn't say "Non Believer" has that power. Furthermore, the judicial branch has made quite clear the government's right to keep information classified. Since you seem to be in disagreement with them, and they (not you) have the only legal authority, I'd say it's fairly conclusive that you are, in fact, wrong.

[Non Believer]

Sure Anti, why don't you review the first paragraph get back to me.

[rwguinn]

.... I know its one you guys don't like because you don't believe in the general public's ability to comprehend the events that shape their lives ...

may I point out that you are a case study in why this is true?

[Anti-sophist]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Nowhere in there do I see the people's right to know everything.

Is that the first paragraph you were referring to? Maybe you can point it out, for us.

[Non Believer]

Let me help you -It says the people form the union, not the other way around.

[Anti-sophist]

Let me help you -It says the people form the union, not the other way around.

So? That doesn't say what you claim it says. Allow me to repeat myself.

There is no such theoretical position anywhere in the Constitution. You've failed to quote the necessary passage, as best as I can tell, instead preferring to read whatever you want to read in whichever particular passage you pretend means what you think it means.

[Non Believer]

What are you guinn , some guy that has nothing to say, and waits for his litlle chance to sound clever

[DGM]

It's a theoretical position that guides our constitution. I know its one you guys don't like because you don't believe in the general public's ability to comprehend the events that shape their lives. But, if you want get down to specifics of what we are talking about, apparently your taking the position that we did not have the legal right to know whether Andrews was involved in the air defense of the capital. If so,as I said before, go for it.

This information WAS available before 9/11 if you cared to look it up (then).

[gumboot]

So the quote from their website is incorrect with the statement I refrenced?



The quote from some random air traffic controller? Yes. Why would an FAA air traffic controller know anything about ballistic missile defence?




I di mean primary radar. I would suggest looking between where the flight was and our nation's capital.


Why?




We had two hijacked planes into the towers, would we not expect another hijacked plane as likely to head towards the population centers.



Well, for starters, UA175 hadn't hit WTC2 when AA77 went missing, so that's false. Secondly, as we've already told you, Indianapolis Center didn't know that any aircraft had been hijacked.




If I could believe they had not already considered this I might.


What you believe has no place in this discussion. We're talking about facts. I couldn't care less what you believe.




Could you show your quotes from your reports. Some how , I don't think I could just tell you that there is a statement in a report and go read it.


I quoted for you a list of all 28 CONUS alert bases as operational in 1994, from one of the tables in the report. Andrews AFB is not amongst them. Stop playing these stupid BS games and start reading what we're saying. This is not funny.



The fact that the American public has always understand Andrews as the heart of our nations air defense over the capital has some bearing here sir. If it was not the case, we have been lied to.


Garbage. The opinion of the American public has no bearing whatsoever. We're dealing with facts. In addition, you have provided no evidence whatsoever that any Americans other than you thought Andrews AFB was an alert site.




Same as above.

Finally you need to present some evidence that shows the expectations of Andrews in term of air defense for the capital before 9-11. One reason is that individuals in a position of authority (for a variety of reasons) may not want to be completely transparent in the way they deliver information regarding these events. Secondarily the public needs to have reliable information on the existing protocls before an event, not just explanations after.


Do you have reading comprehension trouble? A senior officer at Andrews AFB stated clearly that they did not have an air defence mission. Now you dismiss it completely? You are a total fraud.

-Gumboot

[Cylinder]

Garbage. The opinion of the American public has no bearing whatsoever. We're dealing with facts. In addition, you have provided no evidence whatsoever that any Americans other than you thought Andrews AFB was an alert site.

I think the previous poster is referring to the 133th Air National Guard Wing (nickname: Capitol Guardians.) The 133th DCANG is indeed tasked with providing air superiority over the National Capital Region but (as its ANG designation should tell you) has never been an alert site.

[gumboot]

I think the previous poster is referring to the 133th Air National Guard Wing (nickname: Capitol Guardians.) The 133th DCANG is indeed tasked with providing air superiority over the National Capital Region but (as its ANG designation should tell you) has never been an alert site.



No he's referring to the 113th Wing, whom are the Capital Guardians. The officer I quoted who stated that the 121st Fighter Squadron (the fighter component of the 113th Wing) has never been an air defense unit is from this unit.

What he doesn't seem to understand is that air superiority missions and air defense missions are very different. Lt Col Thompson made this clear. So did Capt. Brandon (Igor) Rasmussen, one of the pilots from the 121st FS who scrambled on 9/11:

"The FAA controllers were doing their best to get us information [about unidentified aircraft], but we were used to working with AWACS and their weapons directors and controllers," Rasmussen said. Eventually, Washington Reagan National Airport was designated "Bullseye," and fighters were given range and bearing to targets from there.

-Gumboot

[Cylinder]

Yup - funny that I made the same typo twice but retained the th. Weird how the mind works at times...

[gumboot]

Yup - funny that I made the same typo twice but retained the th. Weird how the mind works at times...



Heh. :)

That NB doesn't seem to appreciate is that the air superiority mission - which many fighter squadrons all across the USA are tasked with - is a wartime mission. During times of peace these units are not operational. They train, and they do exercises, to prepare for the day when there's a war and they are needed to fulfill the mission.

In contrast the air defense mission is a peacetime mission. Units are operational all the time.

The difference between war and peace is enormous, and as such the two missions, although serving the same function, are vastly different. During war, operations are far more aggressive. Intercepts involve shoot downs. AWACS aircraft track and allocate targets with a great degree of precision. Air refuelers allow for maintaining constant CAPs. That's the environment the 121st FS is trained for.

In contrast, during peace, the operations are very passive. Intercepts involve investigating and potentially escorting targets, not shooting them down. There is no AWACS, and the military is reliant on the FAA, who are in charge of airspace during peace time. There's no CAP, and missions are expected to be brief. Peacetime operations are essentially law enforcement, not military action. There's a host of specific protocols for how to act. This is the environment NORAD alert units are trained for.

-Gumboot

[Cylinder]

Peacetime operations are essentially law enforcement, not military action. There's a host of specific protocols for how to act. This is the environment NORAD alert units are trained for.

-Gumboot

Or rather, the real-world mission routine. I don't think that played a great role in the failure of US air defenses on 9-11. The problem was how the infrastructure was built and the defense posture. Given pre-existing political clearance, an alert AWACs and probably 3 more two-ship alert teams none of the hijacked aircraft would have made it to target.

[Comsat Angel]

I think NB only uncovers his eyes long enough to post - if he kept looking he might see responses on the forum. What a peculiar mindset! Ignore, lie and ad hom as methodology. Imagine him and his neighbour:
FRED: Hey, take a look at my new car!
NB: It's a bus.
FRED: Eh? No, it's a car.
NB: It's a bus.
FRED: No, it's a car. Look, it's only got four seats.
NB: So, you admit it's a bus?
FRED [Annoyed]: It's a car, not a bus!
NB: The salesman says it's a bus.
FRED:What? No he didn't. Hey, I was going to offer you a ride -
NB: Will I have to pay? After all, it's a bus.
FRED [Loudly]: IT'S NOT A BUS!
NB: Ha! Totally pwned you, NWO shill!
[Fred moves to Alaska]

[Comsat Angel]

Originally Posted by Non Believer http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2702915#post2702915)
So what was my lie, that it went untracked for 36 minutes instead of 40. I don't know if I can give you credit for the 5 minutes of tracking since the military believed it was tracking flight 11(that sure is believable). as for your claims for a dead zone, prove it. The military ran drills that assumed hijacked planes as weapons, so dom't tell me they had no reason to consider a hijacked plane mioght turn off its transponder. God you guys have nothing on this

Prove it.
Originally Posted by Non Believer http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2702915#post2702915)
So what was my lie, that it went untracked for 36 minutes instead of 40. I don't know if I can give you credit for the 5 minutes of tracking since the military believed it was tracking flight 11(that sure is believable). as for your claims for a dead zone, prove it. The military ran drills that assumed hijacked planes as weapons, so dom't tell me they had no reason to consider a hijacked plane mioght turn off its transponder. God you guys have nothing on this

Prove it.

Still waiting for a response to the above.

[bje]

bje- Yes the directive would be under the "we the people "part in the constitution. You want to suggest that the government right to secrecy presupposes the people's right to know then go for it.

Try again, NB. Try not to evade the question this time.

Your statement: "Secondarily the public needs to have reliable information on the existing protocls before an event, not just explanations after. -"

Tell us why.

[MRC_Hans]

Boy this is tedious.

Troll Clone: I declare that the Smurfs did it! Show me, using only smell based evidence, that Smurfs did not do it.

Us: Here's loads of smell based evidence that Smurfs did not do it.

Troll Clone: I love that no one here has produced evidence that the Smurfs didn't do it.

Us: Ummm yes we did. Plus here's a bunch more.

Troll Clone: Why won't anyone here address my claim? Is everyone scared of me and my Smurf evidence?

Us: But we did! Twice! Using only smell based evidence.

Troll Clone: But the smell based evidence was not from the exact moment after the conclusion of the act. Anything else, even from a second before or after, does not count!

Us: You didn't specify that! Besides that's stupid! But okay, here it is.

Troll Clone: No one here has said a true thing yet. Amazing that no one has any evidence to back up their claims!

Us: But we just did provide the evidence, again!

Troll Clone: But that evidence does not prove that the sky is blue because of panda's mating.

Us: But.... what does that have to do with anything?

Troll Clone: If you cannot prove that the sky is blue because of panda's mating with smell based evidence at the conclusion of the act then it is obvious that I am right and the Smurfs did it.

Us: Bu... wh.... uh........... what!?!

Troll Clone: I love how easy it is for me to pwn you sorry people!

:dl:

Very good!

I wonder if people like that really really imagine that they are conducting a debate and making a good image of themselves.

Hans

[jaydeehess]

So J.D we can only track planes that continue in the same direction. Not very helpfull. I guess we need anothe 5 trillion to secure our airspace.

I have addressed this statement several times now N.B. but you refuse to acknowledge it.

When ATC switches from secondary to primary in order to attempt to locate an aircraft that has lost its transponder where would you have them look first? I believe I asked you this question before but somehow you haven't deemed it worthy of a reply. Would that be because you don't desire to admit that the logical thing for an ATC controller to do would be to look for it along the original flight path, given that the controller at this time knows nothing about the other hijackings?


This does not mean that they have the ability only to track aircraft along the path that the plane was originally taking. Once the controller switchs to primary he/she must first identify which radar return is the one he/she is concerned with and the best place to start looking would be along the original flight path.

If you believe that this is not what should be the standard operating practice then by all means let's get your version of what should occur when an aircraft goes off secondary radar.

If by "secure our airspace" you mean to increase the primary radar coverage over the contiguous USA to complete coverage down to 2000 feet then $300 - 500 billion might do it. It would be just as useful a way to spend money as sending troops to overthrow dictators.

So how about it N.B.? You made a statement about spending money to increase the primary radar coverage over the contiguous USA. Do you truly want to see radar coverage over every square foot and if so then down to what altitude?

Is it really that easy to get you to hide under the bed N.B.? Will you peek out and admit that looking for an aircraft along its original flight path is the logical thing to do. Will you give me an answer as to whether or not you would want to spend vast sums of money on a civilian primary radar system that covers every square foot of the country down to a few thousand feet agl (min)?

[jaydeehess]

But it can't. To get PAVE PAWS to cover the interior of the US, you'd have to physically pick up a large building, turn it around 180 degrees, and set it back down.


As I thought but was not sure.

N.B. probably pictures Pave/Paws istallations as having a large radar sail that rotates through 360 degrees.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/PAVE_PAWS_Radar_Clear_AFS_Alaska.jpg/180px-PAVE_PAWS_Radar_Clear_AFS_Alaska.jpg

[Calcas]

Where are your FAA controllers saying that it is nearly impossible to track planes by secondary radar?

I'm an FAA controller. While my area of specialty is within the Terminal (Control Tower) option, I have received significant radar training both at the FAA academy (in OKC) and the Air force ATC school at Keesler AFB.

After reading through this thread, Gumboot, Jaydeehess, Travis and a couple of others have given very astute and accurate explanations for your misconceptions.

In short, tracking and finding an A/C via primary radar are two seperate questions. And, as noted, the first place you look is where you would expect to find it...on the projected (or filed) flight path.

Airliners fly from point to point via Jet routes, much like a highway in the sky. If you lose the transponder (secondary radar) on someone, you would look along the route he was cleared to locate him. If he has veered off his flight plan considerably (perhaps turned around) it would be very difficult to locate and positively identify a primary as a particular A/C.


And for Gumboot. I must have been absent that day at the FAA academy when they taught ballastic missile defence. :cool:

[gumboot]

I'm an FAA controller. While my area of specialty is within the Terminal (Control Tower) option, I have received significant radar training both at the FAA academy (in OKC) and the Air force ATC school at Keesler AFB.

After reading through this thread, Gumboot, Jaydeehess, Travis and a couple of others have given very astute and accurate explanations for your misconceptions.

In short, tracking and finding an A/C via primary radar are two seperate questions. And, as noted, the first place you look is where you would expect to find it...on the projected (or filed) flight path.

Airliners fly from point to point via Jet routes, much like a highway in the sky. If you lose the transponder (secondary radar) on someone, you would look along the route he was cleared to locate him. If he has veered off his flight plan considerably (perhaps turned around) it would be very difficult to locate and positively identify a primary as a particular A/C.


And for Gumboot. I must have been absent that day at the FAA academy when they taught ballastic missile defence. :cool:



I was hoping you would drop in Calcas and offer up your expert opinion. The NWO has ensured that the specialists here at the JREF disinfo site have every single angle of 9/11 covered. :D

I can understand that you missed the FAA's ballistic missile defence lectures, they are on Friday afternoons, and we all know that's your drinking night. :p

-Gumboot

[jaydeehess]

I predict that NB will hide under his bed and not return to this discussion.

(which does not preclude him coming back to this thread and changing the subject)

[Calcas]

I was hoping you would drop in Calcas and offer up your expert opinion. The NWO has ensured that the specialists here at the JREF disinfo site have every single angle of 9/11 covered. :D

I can understand that you missed the FAA's ballistic missile defence lectures, they are on Friday afternoons, and we all know that's your drinking night. :p

-Gumboot

Fridays were definitely drinking night. And, I need to stop hanging around here so much...I just noticed you guys have even got me spelling "defense" as "defence.":eek:

[gumboot]

Fridays were definitely drinking night. And, I need to stop hanging around here so much...I just noticed you guys have even got me spelling "defense" as "defence.":eek:


Funnily enough I have the same (opposite) problem. It's hard work, because if I'm quoting, or citing an American title (such as North American Aerospace Defense Command or Pearl Harbor) the spelling is one way, but if I'm using the word generally, it's the other spelling.

So we get "The North American Aerospace Defense Command are responsible for air defence", and the American carriers were not in the harbour at Pearl Harbor at the time of the attack"... :faint:

-Gumboot

[A-Train]

In short, tracking and finding an A/C via primary radar are two seperate questions. And, as noted, the first place you look is where you would expect to find it...on the projected (or filed) flight path.


Really, Mr. Controller? On a day when two hijacked airplanes have already been flown into buildings, and the image of one of those two burning buildings is being shown on every TV set in the land, you're saying that the Indy Center controllers-- after witnessing the two of the three classic signs of a hijacking:

1. Planes go NORDO
2. Transponder turns off

that it never occurred to these controllers, or anyone else, that the plane may have been hijacked and turned a different direction?

[Calcas]

Where did I say "it never occurred to these controllers, or anyone else, that the plane may have been hijacked and turned a different direction?"

You have NO idea how difficult a controllers job is. Add to that the pressure and anxiety of 9-11 and I don't find what happened ususual in the least.

What are you implying? That the controller(s) working that particular sector didn't actively try to "find" and identify the A/C in question? Were these controllers paid off or somehow part of a conspiracy?

Or were they merely incompetent?

Get a grip on reality.

[tsig]

Gravy- Please contact reality, and it well let you know NORAD is full of it.

Reach down between your legs. Grab and pull.

That's your contact with reality.

[PhantomWolf]

Really, Mr. Controller? On a day when two hijacked airplanes have already been flown into buildings, and the image of one of those two burning buildings is being shown on every TV set in the land, you're saying that the Indy Center controllers-- after witnessing the two of the three classic signs of a hijacking:

1. Planes go NORDO
2. Transponder turns off

that it never occurred to these controllers, or anyone else, that the plane may have been hijacked and turned a different direction?

Do you actually bother to read the thread first, or do you just pull things out of your butt to make yourself look stupid?

It has already been pointed out, twice, in this very thread, that Flight 77 was hijacked BEFORE Flight 175 hit WTC 2 and BEFORE Indy Control had been informed that Flight 11 and Flight 175 were hijacked. The only information they would likely have known was that a plane had hit WTC 1 by accident, just like the rest of the world (etc for a select group sitting in a house in Afghanistan glued to the radio.) Given that information, why would they suspect a hijacking when the plane simply vanished off the secondarty radar and no longer responded to radio communications? Surely the most likely explaination is it crashed. If it had been hijacked the expectations are that the pilots would have given a mayday or the transponder would have been switched over to alert them, not turned off.

[TellyKNeasuss]

Really, Mr. Controller? On a day when two hijacked airplanes have already been flown into buildings, and the image of one of those two burning buildings is being shown on every TV set in the land, you're saying that the Indy Center controllers-- after witnessing the two of the three classic signs of a hijacking:

1. Planes go NORDO
2. Transponder turns off

that it never occurred to these controllers, or anyone else, that the plane may have been hijacked and turned a different direction?

Did it occur to you that some people can't watch TV, or even listen to the radio, when they're at work?

[TellyKNeasuss]

That NB doesn't seem to appreciate is that the air superiority mission - which many fighter squadrons all across the USA are tasked with - is a wartime mission. During times of peace these units are not operational. They train, and they do exercises, to prepare for the day when there's a war and they are needed to fulfill the mission.

I wonder if NB understands that the "ANG" in "DCANG" stands for Air National Guard. As in reserves. As in units normally staffed by people who have other, non-military jobs. I'm guessing that he does understand, which is why he refuses to discuss what units were stationed at Andrews AFB.

[gumboot]

Really, Mr. Controller? On a day when two hijacked airplanes have already been flown into buildings, and the image of one of those two burning buildings is being shown on every TV set in the land, you're saying that the Indy Center controllers-- after witnessing the two of the three classic signs of a hijacking:

1. Planes go NORDO
2. Transponder turns off

that it never occurred to these controllers, or anyone else, that the plane may have been hijacked and turned a different direction?




You don't know what you're talking about.

1) Only AA11 had hit its target when AA77 was hijacked.
2) Air Traffic Controllers don't have the television going while they're concentrating on keeping air traffic carry millions of people smooth, safe, and on time.
3) The only "classic sign of hijacking" is a code 7500 squawk. Having a simultaneous total loss of transponder and radio communication is a classic sign of an aircraft crash.
4) Indianapolis Center did not know that other flights had been hijacked and their transponders turned off.

-Gumboot

[DGM]

This is an interesting link to show how crowded the skies can get. This is an airport monitor of Logan Boston. Check it out at 9 am some time.

http://www4.passur.com/bos.html

[jaydeehess]

Really, Mr. Controller? On a day when two hijacked airplanes have already been flown into buildings, and the image of one of those two burning buildings is being shown on every TV set in the land, you're saying that the Indy Center controllers-- after witnessing the two of the three classic signs of a hijacking:

1. Planes go NORDO
2. Transponder turns off

that it never occurred to these controllers, or anyone else, that the plane may have been hijacked and turned a different direction?


Typical uninformed, Monday-morning-quaterback style of a 9/11 CTist.

Get your timeline and facts down correctly and pull your head out of that dark, moist place and you might just see how utterly ignorant your post was.

Since when has a transponder loss ever been a classic indication of hijack, or for that matter NORDO?

[MortFurd]

This is an interesting link to show how crowded the skies can get. This is an airport monitor of Logan Boston. Check it out at 9 am some time.

http://www4.passur.com/bos.html

List of sites with the Passur airport monitor. (http://www.passur.com/sites.htm)
:boggled: Gads what a lot of traffic.

[A-Train]

1) Only AA11 had hit its target when AA77 was hijacked.
2) Air Traffic Controllers don't have the television going while they're concentrating on keeping air traffic carry millions of people smooth, safe, and on time.
3) The only "classic sign of hijacking" is a code 7500 squawk. Having a simultaneous total loss of transponder and radio communication is a classic sign of an aircraft crash.
4) Indianapolis Center did not know that other flights had been hijacked and their transponders turned off.



I stand corrected on point #1. UAL175 had been hijacked, and was thought to be hijacked by the controllers handling it, when AAL77 turned off its transponder. But it had not hit the South Tower yet.

Nordo and loss of transponder are indeed classic signs of a hijacking, especially if the controller can plainly see there are no other airplanes around to crash into! Here is an excerpt from the ATC "bible."

10-2-6. HIJACKED AIRCRAFT
When you observe a Mode 3/A Code 7500, an unexplained loss of beacon code, change in direction of flight or altitude, and/or a loss of communications, notify supervisory personnel immediately. As it relates to observing a Code 7500, do the following:
NOTE-
Military facilities will notify the appropriate FAA ARTCC, or the host nation agency responsible for en route control, of any indication that an aircraft is being hijacked. They will also provide full cooperation with the civil agencies in the control of such aircraft.

EN ROUTE. During narrowband radar operations, Code 7500 causes HIJK to blink in the data block.
NOTE-
Only nondiscrete Code 7500 will be decoded as the hijack code.
a. Acknowledge and confirm receipt of Code 7500 by asking the pilot to verify it. If the aircraft is not being subjected to unlawful interference, the pilot should respond to the query by broadcasting in the clear that he/she is not being subjected to unlawful interference. If the reply is in the affirmative or if no reply is received, do not question the pilot further but be responsive to the aircraft requests.
PHRASEOLOGY-
(Identification) (name of facility) VERIFY SQUAWKING 7500.
NOTE-
Code 7500 is only assigned upon notification from the pilot that his/her aircraft is being subjected to unlawful interference. Therefore, pilots have been requested to refuse the assignment of Code 7500 in any other situation and to inform the controller accordingly.
b. Notify supervisory personnel of the situation.
c. Flight follow aircraft and use normal handoff procedures without requiring transmissions or responses by aircraft unless communications have been established by the aircraft.
d. If aircraft are dispatched to escort the hijacked aircraft, provide all possible assistance to the escort aircraft to aid in placing them in a position behind the hijacked aircraft.



-FAA 7110.65


It is the official story that the Indy controllers didn't know about the first two flights. Common sense dictates otherwise. The reality is that controllers handling all four flights suspected a hijacking almost immediately, and undoubtedly contacted the proper authorities in the military. That no military fighters were successfully scrambled to any hijacked aircraft during the entire episode can only be explained by a deliberate stand down, perhaps accomplished by a very small number of traitorous officers within the NORAD command structure who were working for the conspiracy.

[Dave Rogers]

Nordo and loss of transponder are indeed classic signs of a hijacking, especially if the controller can plainly see there are no other airplanes around to crash into! Here is an excerpt from the ATC "bible."

Note that your own excerpt shows that everything other than "notify supervisory personnel immediately" is qualified by "As it relates to a code 7500", i.e. no other action is mandated in the absence of a 7500 code. Excellent self-debunking.

Dave

[DGM]

A-train are you saying that the hi-jackers squawked 7500?

[A-Train]

It's pretty clear what is meant.

When you observe a Mode 3/A Code 7500, an unexplained loss of beacon code, change in direction of flight or altitude, and/or a loss of communications, notify supervisory personnel immediately. As it relates to observing a Code 7500, do the following

Notice the "and/or." The Indy Center controllers witnessed at least two of the four events-- and probably three, since we know somebody informed American Airlines that the plane had turned around.

Common sense informs a controller that when a plane goes NORDO and turns off its transponder, something very unusual is happening, and could be a hijack. Common sense also dictates that in a hijacking, the crew is not always going to be able to squawk 7500-- like, for example, if someone has put a bullet in their heads.

[Matthew Best]

So do you have any evidence that supervisory personnel were not informed?

Because that's all those guidelines instruct ATCs to do.

[8den]

It is the official story that the Indy controllers didn't know about the first two flights. Common sense dictates otherwise. The reality is that controllers handling all four flights suspected a hijacking almost immediately, and undoubtedly contacted the proper authorities in the military. That no military fighters were successfully scrambled to any hijacked aircraft during the entire episode can only be explained by a deliberate stand down, perhaps accomplished by a very small number of traitorous officers within the NORAD command structure who were working for the conspiracy.

Ding! Conspiracy bingo! Full house.

[SpitfireIX]

Nordo and loss of transponder are indeed classic signs of a hijacking, especially if the controller can plainly see there are no other airplanes around to crash into! Here is an excerpt from the ATC "bible."


Brilliant, A-Train; you've unmasked the entire conspiracy. I suppose all of us paid disinformation agents are out of a job now. :rolleyes:

The procedures you quote are the procedures in place today. Here (http://web.archive.org/web/20010820151925/www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html#10-2-6) are the procedures that were in place on September 11, 2001:


10-2-6. HIJACKED AIRCRAFT

When you observe a Mode 3/A Code 7500, do the following:

NOTE-
Military facilities will notify the appropriate FAA ARTCC, or the host nation agency responsible for en route control, of any indication that an aircraft is being hijacked. They will also provide full cooperation with the civil agencies in the control of such aircraft.

EN ROUTE. During narrowband radar operations, Code 7500 causes HIJK to blink in the data block.

NOTE-
Only nondiscrete CODE 7500 will be decoded as the hijack code.

a. Acknowledge and confirm receipt of Code 7500 by asking the pilot to verify it. If the aircraft is not being subjected to unlawful interference, the pilot should respond to the query by broadcasting in the clear that he/she is not being subjected to unlawful interference. If the reply is in the affirmative or if no reply is received, do not question the pilot further but be responsive to the aircraft requests.

PHRASEOLOGY-
(Identification) (name of facility) VERIFY SQUAWKING 7500.

NOTE-
Code 7500 is only assigned upon notification from the pilot that his/her aircraft is being subjected to unlawful interference. Therefore, pilots have been requested to refuse the assignment of Code 7500 in any other situation and to inform the controller accordingly.

b. Notify supervisory personnel of the situation.

c. Flight follow aircraft and use normal handoff procedures without requiring transmissions or responses by aircraft unless communications have been established by the aircraft.

d. If aircraft are dispatched to escort the hijacked aircraft, provide all possible assistance to the escort aircraft to aid in placing them in a position behind the hijacked aircraft.

NOTE-
Escort procedures are contained in FAAO 7610.4, Special Military Operations, Chapter 7, Escort of Hijacked Aircraft.

e. To the extent possible, afford the same control service to the aircraft operating VFR observed on the hijack code.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Code Monitor, Para 5-2-13. [emphasis added]


No mention whatsoever of loss of radio contact, transponder changes other than 7500, or unauthorized heading, speed, or altitude changes in hijack procedures.

It is the official story that the Indy controllers didn't know about the first two flights. Common sense dictates otherwise. The reality is that controllers handling all four flights suspected a hijacking almost immediately, and undoubtedly contacted the proper authorities in the military. That no military fighters were successfully scrambled to any hijacked aircraft during the entire episode can only be explained by a deliberate stand down, perhaps accomplished by a very small number of traitorous officers within the NORAD command structure who were working for the conspiracy.


If the lack of successful interception of any of the hijacked aircraft can only have been due to a "NORAD stand-down," then please explain why in 1999 the Air Force needed over an hour to intercept Payne Stewart's Learjet, using an unarmed F-16 that was already airborne when the plane was initially reported to have been in distress. Please also explain why it took more than an additional hour for fighters scrambled for the purpose to intercept the aircraft. From the NTSB report (http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2000/AAB0001.pdf):

At 0933:38 EDT . . . the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.

About 0952 CDT, a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA. . . .

About 1113 CDT, two Oklahoma ANG F-16s with the identification “TULSA 13 flight” were vectored to intercept the accident airplane by the Minneapolis ARTCC. . . . [citations omitted]


Note also that Stewart's aircraft was traveling in a straight line and squawking its proper transponder code, and was being continuously tracked by ATC.

Now, A-Train, I specifically request that you withdraw your claims about hijack procedures and a "NORAD stand-down," which are demonstrably erroneous.

[Dave Rogers]

Common sense also dictates that in a hijacking, the crew is not always going to be able to squawk 7500-- like, for example, if someone has put a bullet in their heads.

Post-911 common sense dictates that. Pre-911, common sense dictated that the hijackers were unlikely to put a bullet through the pilots' heads because that would leave them six miles in the air with no safe means of getting back down.

But by all means continue treating us to the benefit of your 20-20 hindsight.

Dave

[Calcas]

Common sense informs a controller that when a plane goes NORDO and turns off its transponder, something very unusual is happening, and could be a hijack. Common sense also dictates that in a hijacking, the crew is not always going to be able to squawk 7500-- like, for example, if someone has put a bullet in their heads.

So, what's your point? This thread is about being able to track, find, and positively identify an A/C after it's transponder has been turned off and it has deviated from it's flight plan or last clearance.

If you want to play the "NORAD stood down" card start another thread. It's been debunked a dozen times already but I'm sure you'll still find some here willing to do it again.

[gumboot]

Nordo and loss of transponder are indeed classic signs of a hijacking, especially if the controller can plainly see there are no other airplanes around to crash into! Here is an excerpt from the ATC "bible."

You really should research a bit harder.

You've quoted the currently standing FAA order 7110.65P. It was changed shortly after 9/11.

What was in place on 9/11? FAA order 7110.65M (http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/FAAprotocol.htm).

You might be interested in one particular difference:

10-2-6. HIJACKED AIRCRAFT

When you observe a Mode 3/A Code 7500, do the following:

NOTE-
Military facilities will notify the appropriate FAA ARTCC, or the host nation agency responsible for en route control, of any indication that an aircraft is being hijacked. They will also provide full cooperation with the civil agencies in the control of such aircraft.

EN ROUTE. During narrowband radar operations, Code 7500 causes HIJK to blink in the data block.

NOTE-
Only nondiscrete CODE 7500 will be decoded as the hijack code.

FAA Order 7110.65M
Chapter 10 - Emergencies
Section 2 - Emergency Assistance
10-2-6 - Hijacked Aircraft (http://web.archive.org/web/20010820151925/www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html#10-2-6)


Hmm... looks like something is missing. I wonder what possibly could have happened on 9/11 to change the FAA's protocol for determining an aircraft is hijacked...




It is the official story that the Indy controllers didn't know about the first two flights. Common sense dictates otherwise. The reality is that controllers handling all four flights suspected a hijacking almost immediately, and undoubtedly contacted the proper authorities in the military.


It's not the reality at all. And it is certainly not protocol for ATC controllers to contact the military. The procedure is very clear, as set out in FAA order 7610.4J (being the version current on 9/11)

7-1-2. REQUESTS FOR SERVICE

The escort service will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC).


FAA order 7610.4J - Special Military Operations (http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/FAA7610_4.htm)
Chapter 7 - Escort of Hijacked Aircraft
Section 1 - General
7-1-2 - Requests for Service

The FAA procedure is very clear:

1. ATC controller notifies Center Supervisor
2. ATC Center Supervisor notifies National ATC Center at Herndon
3. Herndon notifies FAA Headquarters in Washington DC
4. FAA Headquarters makes decision on request for military assistance
5. Hijack Coordinator at FAA Headquarters requests assistance from National Military Command Center at the Pentagon
6. NMCC issues orders to NORAD Cheyenne Mountain
7. NORAD Cheyenne Mountain passes orders to relevant Air Defense Region (Contiguous USA, Alaska, or Canada)
8. In event of Contiguous USA (CONR - Tyndall AFB, Florida) scramble, CONR passes scramble orders to relevant Air Defense Sector (North East - NEADS, South East - SEADS, West - WADS).
9. In event of NEADS (Griffiss AFB, Rome NY) scramble, NEADS issues scramble orders to chosen alert station (either Otis ANGB MA or Langley AFB, VA).



That no military fighters were successfully scrambled to any hijacked aircraft during the entire episode can only be explained by a deliberate stand down, perhaps accomplished by a very small number of traitorous officers within the NORAD command structure who were working for the conspiracy.


Garbage. You don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about.

-Gumboot

ETA. Spitfire IX beat me to it.

[DGM]

Are you under the assumption that the military had some sort of procedure to shoot down a commercial airliner? Have you researched the Payne Stewart intercept at all?

[CurtC]

That seems to happen a lot - a CT comes in with a wild claim, and actually posts the information himself that disproves his own claim. Thanks for saving us the effort, A-Train. Now that it's demonstrated conclusively that losing the transponder does not trigger a hijack response from the controllers, what else ya got?

[Non Believer]

Don't forget to mention that many of the new procedures were put in only monts before 9-11 at Rumsfields request. Also you should be quoting the emrgengcy protocol not the hijacking protocol. Details , details. Any word about some FAA controllers coroborating your opinions on this

[gumboot]

Don't forget to mention that many of the new procedures were put in only monts before 9-11 at Rumsfields request.


No they weren't. One protocol was changed specifically in regards to the Secretary of Defense - the destruction of derelict airbourne objects such as AWOL weather balloons.

The FAA answers to the Secretary of Transportation, not the Secretary of Defense.




Also you should be quoting the emrgengcy protocol not the hijacking protocol. Details , details. Any word about some FAA controllers coroborating your opinions on this


Try reading a bit closer. Hijacking is a particular subsection of of the emergency protocol orders. It's irrelevant what FAA controllers claim (although they do collaborate). We have the actual orders themselves, in black and white. Any controller who failed to follow the orders would be breaking protocol (which, incidentally, is exactly what Boston ARTCC did when they called NEADS directly).

-Gumboot

[Non Believer]

“Rumsfeld put a third party in between the ATC and the Air Defense Controller responsible for scrambling interceptors —the Pentagon.” - Robin Hordon. Pardon me if I believe Robin Hordon before you Gumboot. Also it seems to be a guiding principle of JREFers to believe authorities over average citizens. Yes, hijackings are a subsection, so why are you refering to a subsection that should not be in play when 93's transponder went off?

[Belz...]

Pretty amazing. It's either no big deal, or it wouldn't help. You really think somebody could hide a 767 from a functioning radar over this country(and its nation capital no less) for 40 minutes.

Hey! Look at that blip on the radar. Well, even if its transponder is turned off, I can identify it with my eyes closed!

The nation obviously does have the capability to track airliners after the transponder is off, so the point is moot.

Yeah, it just can't identify it.

the question is why did they lie about it.

Non sequitur.

as for your claims for a dead zone, prove it.

Incredulity noted.

The military ran drills that assumed hijacked planes as weapons

Prove it.

, so dom't tell me they had no reason to consider a hijacked plane mioght turn off its transponder.

Of course they would. It's just that crashes happen more often that hijacks.

God you guys have nothing on this

Yeah, yeah. You're hot.

You guys love to try to go to other subjects, when you are caught.

Pot...kettle.

Gravy- Please contact reality, and it well let you know NORAD is full of it.

So you don't intend to find out their version because you've already decided it'll be a lie ? Interesting how you cherry-pick your sources.

[Belz...]

Still waiting for a quote from any authority regarding the supposed inability oif the U.S to track airliners with primary radar.

No one said this. Are you reading the responses ?

Talk about problems with fact checking.

Yes, indeed. Talk about it.

The information on Pave Paws is completely consistent with the claim.

Since the damn thing can't track aircraft within the US, how is it consistent ?

Still no quotes from experts. I am not going to read whole reports to get at the answers you cannot provide directly.

Is reading difficult for you ? Aw, how cute.

That map looks like there was plenty of primary radar. Thanks for the help in making my case

So you can't see the gaps, and didn't notice where the NORAD stuff was ?

You have not disputed that PAVE PAWS says it can track any object over the U.S correct ?

:jaw-dropp

Reading difficulty, indeed.

Yes the directive would be under the "we the people "part in the constitution.

Gosh, you twoofers are annoying with this.

[Belz...]

I know its one you guys don't like because you don't believe in the general public's ability to comprehend the events that shape their lives.

No, I think YOU don't have the ability to comprehend the events that shape our lives.

[Belz...]

It is the official story that the Indy controllers didn't know about the first two flights. Common sense dictates otherwise.

Common sense tells you the Earth is flat. Reality dictates otherwise.

That no military fighters were successfully scrambled to any hijacked aircraft during the entire episode can only be explained by a deliberate stand down, perhaps accomplished by a very small number of traitorous officers within the NORAD command structure who were working for the conspiracy.

You have a very poor imagination.

[Non Believer]

Ya -we had primary radar we just didn't know how to use it.

[SpitfireIX]

Don't forget to mention that many of the new procedures were put in only monts before 9-11 at Rumsfields request.


Are you seriously suggesting that Rumsfeld requested that the FAA change the criteria air-traffic controllers use to decide whether a hijacking is potentially in progress??

:dl:


Also you should be quoting the emrgengcy protocol not the hijacking protocol. Details , details.


Red herring. The Indianapolis controllers did determine that American 77 had an emergency; they just didn't realize at the time that the emergency was a hijacking.

Any word about some FAA controllers coroborating your opinions on this


Quoting directly from the manual isn't good enough??


http://sithoughts.mu.nu/archives/Goalposts.jpg

[gumboot]

“Rumsfeld put a third party in between the ATC and the Air Defense Controller responsible for scrambling interceptors —the Pentagon.” - Robin Hordon.


The Pentagon has always been responsible for scrambling interceptors. The NMCC issues the orders.

Robin Hordon stopped being an ATC controller in 1981. In the 1970's and 80's the Cold War was still going and NORAD had hundreds of alert aircraft all over the country.

Robin Hordon clearly has absolutely no idea what he is talking about - just as you don't. He, for example, claims that when there is an incident, B-52's are scrambled. B-52's are long range strategic bombers. They play no role in air defense.

His information is two decades out of date, and he fails to take into account that the threat NORAD was set up to address no longer exists.


Yes, hijackings are a subsection, so why are you refering to a subsection that should not be in play when 93's transponder went off?


Well let's have a look...

d. Because of the infinite variety of possible emergency situations, specific procedures cannot be prescribed. However, when you believe an emergency exists or is imminent, select and pursue a course of action which appears to be most appropriate under the circumstances and which most nearly conforms to the instructions in this manual.

FAA Order 7110.65M
Chapter 10 - Emergencies
Section 1 - General
10-1-1 - Emergency Determinations


So let's have a look at the situation specifically for UA93:

0926: - The Cleveland Controller handling UA93 discusses the situation in New York with numerous air crews

0928:16 - UAL93 - *** (mayday) *** (hey get out of here) ***.
0928:48 - UAL93 - *** (get out of here) *** (get out of here).
***
0931:55 - UAL93 - *** please sit down. Keep remaining seating. We have a bomb on board so ***.

0932: - Cleveland Center notifies Herndon that UA93 may have a bomb on board.

0934: - Herndon relays to FAA HQ that UA93 may have a bomb on board.

0935: - the Cleveland controller asks UA93 to confirm hijacking with a 7500 code.

0936: - Cleveland asks Herndon if a request for military intercept has been made, and offers to contact air bases itself. Herndon tells them that others above them in the FAA chain of command must make that decision.

0939:10 - UAL93 - Ah this is the captain uh would like to all remain seated there is a bomb aboard and we go back to the airport and to have our demands so please remain quiet.

0941: - UA93's transponder is turned off. The Cleveland controller immediately locates it using primary, and cross references the primary return with visual sightings from other aircraft to track UA93 as it turns south and then east.

Around this time the Nationwide ATC Zero order is issued by Norman Mineta, thus suddenly the FAA has the additional task of safely landing thousands of aircraft immediately.

0946: - Herndon notifies FAA HQ that UA93 is 29 minutes from Washington DC.

0949: - Herndon suggests to FAA HQ that someone needs to make a decision about military assistance.

0953: - FAA HQ notifies Herndon that Deputy Dir for Air Traffic Services is discussing a scramble request with the Deputy Administrator

0957: - The Passengers on UA93 commence their attempt to regain control of the aircraft.

1003: - The hijackers crash UA93 into a field near Shanksville, PA.

1007: - Cleveland Center, unaware that UA93 has crashed because it has left their airspace (now being handled by Washington Center), notifies NEADS that UA93 is a suspected hijacking with a bomb on board, and provides their last known position. NEADS cannot locate the aircraft because it has crashed. They begin trying to locate aircraft to scramble to intercept UA93, and two fighters armed only with guns are offered from a base in Syracuse, NY.

1010: - Two F-16s from Langley AFB arrive over Washington DC and establish a CAP.

1015: - NEADS contact Washington Center for an update on UA93 and learn that it has crashed.

Please identify where in the timeline you think a "stand down" or act of criminal negligence occurred.

-Gumboot

[SpitfireIX]

“Rumsfeld put a third party in between the ATC and the Air Defense Controller responsible for scrambling interceptors —the Pentagon.” - Robin Hordon. Pardon me if I believe Robin Hordon before you Gumboot.


Robin Hordon was one of the striking air-traffic controllers fired by Ronald Reagan in 1981--he had been away from ATC for 20 years before the September 11 attacks. He is clearly potentially biased and his knowledge was far from current; therefore, his opinions cannot be accepted without substantial corroboration.

Also it seems to be a guiding principle of JREFers to believe authorities over average citizens.


"Average citizens" includes people who are biased and/or have agendas; misperceive or misremember things; overestimate their own knowledge, misunderstand complex subjects, or are simply detached from reality. Much as you and your fellow "truthers" might wish otherwise, the fact that there are a handful of air-traffic controllers (or engineers, or airline pilots, etc.) who question the accepted version of the September 11 attacks does not create some sort of presumption that that version is incorrect, or even that a new investigation is warranted. Mr. Hordon's claims are not supported by the overwhelming weight of other evidence--deal with it.

Yes, hijackings are a subsection, so why are you refering to a subsection that should not be in play when 93's transponder went off?


"I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

[VespaGuy]

Yes, hijackings are a subsection, so why are you refering to a subsection that should not be in play when 93's transponder went off?

Are you really this thick? Have you not been reading the thread at all?

I'll feed it to you in bite size pieces.

A-Trian made a claim, specifically referencing th hijacking subsection. It's the post above that begins like this:

I stand corrected on point #1.
[snip]

You can click the little arrow right near A-Train's name above and you will be taken directly to A-Train's post.

Do you see his claim? Do you see what he quoted?


A little bit further down the page, both Gumboot and Spitfire corrected A-Train. They showed him that the subsection he quoted was post 9/11. So when A-Train said "Nordo and loss of transponder are indeed classic signs of a hijacking", he used the NEWER, POST 9/11 subsection to validate his argument.

Although the ARE signs of a hi-jacking now, they were not classic signs PRE-9/11.

Does this make sense to you?

A-Train was wrong. He has been corrected. He will not return to this thread to admit he was incorrect.

That is why the subsection was quoted here.

[Non Believer]

[quote=VespaGuy;2712074]Are you really this thick? Have you not been reading the thread at all?

I'll feed it to you in bite size pieces.

A-Trian made a claim, specifically referencing th hijacking subsection. It's the post above that begins like this:



You can click the little arrow right near A-Train's name above and you will be taken directly to A-Train's post.

Do you see his claim? Do you see what he quoted?

All very nice, how about addressing what the appropriate protocol was?

[DGM]

All very nice, how about addressing what the appropriate protocol was?

Post # 135

[Non Believer]

Post # 135

Wrong, Try again

[DGM]

Wrong, Try again
Prove it!

[Non Believer]

Emergency scramble protocol. Stated by Horton. Unless you want to claim that the changes in the protocol made by Rumsfeld changed it. It does seem that there was uncertainty over this because of the changes, and that is why Boston called Herndon instead of NMCC that was trequired under the pre existing protocol. Now you prove something?

[SpitfireIX]

Emergency scramble protocol. Stated by Horton. Unless you want to claim that the changes in the protocol made by Rumsfeld changed it. It does seem that there was uncertainty over this because of the changes, and that is why Boston called Herndon instead of NMCC that was trequired under the pre existing protocol. Now you prove something?


What part of "Hordon (not "Horton") hadn't been an air-traffic controller for 20 years before the September 11 attacks" did you not understand??

Now, please tell us exactly what you think the procedure that was in effect on September 11, 2001, was, your source for this, and your evidence that it wasn't properly followed.

[Non Believer]

Well lets mention that Hordon did work at Boston first off. Second show where his account is incorrect? Was there no confusion over protocol at Boston on 9-11? If so, what were the two different protocols at question? And its not Horndon, its Hordon and Herndon. If your going to try to correct spelling please be right

[DGM]

The FAA procedure is very clear:

1. ATC controller notifies Center Supervisor
2. ATC Center Supervisor notifies National ATC Center at Herndon
3. Herndon notifies FAA Headquarters in Washington DC
4. FAA Headquarters makes decision on request for military assistance
5. Hijack Coordinator at FAA Headquarters requests assistance from National Military Command Center at the Pentagon
6. NMCC issues orders to NORAD Cheyenne Mountain
7. NORAD Cheyenne Mountain passes orders to relevant Air Defense Region (Contiguous USA, Alaska, or Canada)
8. In event of Contiguous USA (CONR - Tyndall AFB, Florida) scramble, CONR passes scramble orders to relevant Air Defense Sector (North East - NEADS, South East - SEADS, West - WADS).
9. In event of NEADS (Griffiss AFB, Rome NY) scramble, NEADS issues scramble orders to chosen alert station (either Otis ANGB MA or Langley AFB, VA).

I don't see Emergency scramble protocol. Care to find any reference to what Horton said. I don't believe you have backed up anything he said.

[Non Believer]

Could that be because you are reading from the hijacjing protocol?

[DGM]

This is very simple. You introducted this "Fact" now you have to back it up. We're calling you on it.

[Non Believer]

I have quoted a staement from an expert which you have not refuted. Your only refutation is to quote the incorrect protocol, I need something to disprove please.

[SpitfireIX]

Well lets mention that Hordon did work at Boston first off.


Irrelevant. Emergency and abnormal operating procedures are the same for all FAA facilities. Further, as noted, he hadn't worked there for 20 years.

Second show where his account is incorrect?


Why don't you give us a source for "his account?" All you've done so far is claim that he contradicts the "official version."

Was there no confusion over protocol at Boston on 9-11? If so, what were the two different protocols at question?


Your favorite logical fallacy again--the false dilemma. Why does the confusion have to be between two protocols? Why can't someone be mistaken about a single protocol? Why can't there be more than two protocols?

And its not Horndon, its Hordon and Herndon. If your going to try to correct spelling please be right


Fixed. However, a) he's your source--I'd only vaguely heard of him before now, and b) I would contend that you butchered his name worse than I did. But by all means give yourself points for a rhetorical triumph if you feel you deserve them.

In any case, why don't you tell us exactly what Hordon is claiming.

[jaydeehess]

from post 109 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2708677&postcount=109)



So how about it N.B.? You made a statement about spending money to increase the primary radar coverage over the contiguous USA. Do you truly want to see radar coverage over every square foot and if so then down to what altitude?

Is it really that easy to get you to hide under the bed N.B.? Will you peek out and admit that looking for an aircraft along its original flight path is the logical thing to do. Will you give me an answer as to whether or not you would want to spend vast sums of money on a civilian primary radar system that covers every square foot of the country down to a few thousand feet agl (min)?

[Non Believer]

Your guys thesis? Less air security in U.S airspace = more public saftey

[DGM]

I have quoted a staement from an expert which you have not refuted. Your only refutation is to quote the incorrect protocol, I need something to disprove please.
Your expert is no such thing. An expert would be able to back up this story. Where is this proof.

[Non Believer]

[quote=DGM;2712538]. An expert would be able to back up this story.


Man it would be great if any of your experts would. Back up as in willing to discuss? Please explain?

[beachnut]

Well lets mention that Hordon did work at Boston first off. Second show where his account is incorrect? Was there no confusion over protocol at Boston on 9-11? If so, what were the two different protocols at question? And its not Horndon, its Hordon and Herndon. If your going to try to correct spelling please be right
Hordon, when did he work last class? When did he control an aircraft last? Dates please?

Robin Hordon – Former FAA Air Traffic Controller at the Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center, located in Nashua, NH, 1970 - 1981. I looked it up for you, you may not be able to find real information. Your PrisonPlanet trash stuff, is only acceptable to real dumb white guys, as in idiots.

Why is he upset with Reagan? What has he done for the past many years? So, got any current ATC guys who can blow the 9/11 story wide open like Hordon did?

I did not think so. Next expert please.

[Belz...]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2711800&postcount=142

Any time you're ready, NonBeliever.

[Belz...]

Man it would be great if any of your experts would. Back up as in willing to discuss? Please explain?

Well, they do. So it's great, isn't it ?

[SpitfireIX]

. . . Why is he upset with Reagan? What has he done for the past many years? So, got any current ATC guys who can blow the 9/11 story wide open like Hordon did?

I did not think so. Next expert charlatan please.


Fixed that for you. :)

[DGM]

Robin Hordon- Truther
http://patriotsquestion911.com/Statement%20Hordon.html

Robin Hordon – Former FAA Air Traffic Controller at the Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center, located in Nashua, NH, 1970 - 1981. Former Certified Commercial Pilot for light aircraft holding multiple category ratings. Former Certified Flight Instructor and Certified Ground Instructor. After leaving the FAA, he had a 12-year career in the field of comedy ending up as artistic coordinator for "Catch A Rising Star" in Harvard Square in Cambridge, MA. In that capacity, he chose to support comic talent that spoke truth to power, truth to hatred, truth to racism, truth to sexism, truth to xenophobia, and truth to militarism, not knowing where the young talent would go, but knowing that they would say something somewhere for the good of the country and for the good of the world. When Air America Radio launched in 2004, a "Catch" vet was on air or writing for four of the five shows making up the daytime schedule. Currently he lives in Kingston, WA, where he continues his four decades of activism on behalf of peace and justice in the world.

No where does he provide links or verification of his opinion.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Are you seriously suggesting that Rumsfeld requested that the FAA change the criteria air-traffic controllers use to decide whether a hijacking is potentially in progress??

:dl:


...just before the deadliest hijackings in history, so that when the ATCs failed to follow these new orders, a bunch of investigooglers would realize something was fishy.

Rumsfeld was working for the truthers! :eek:

[gumboot]

Well lets mention that Hordon did work at Boston first off. Second show where his account is incorrect? Was there no confusion over protocol at Boston on 9-11? If so, what were the two different protocols at question? And its not Horndon, its Hordon and Herndon. If your going to try to correct spelling please be right


Oh for F's sake this is getting ridiculous. NO ONE EVER SAID HIS NAME WAS HORNDON!!!!


YOU CALLED HIM HORTON, AND SPITFIRE IX CORRECTED YOU!

YOU CAN'T EVEN GET YOUR WITNESS'S FRIKKEN NAME RIGHT!!!

-Gumboot

[Non Believer]

If you have statements about Hordon , why don't you state them explicitly?

[Calcas]

If you have statements about Hordon , why don't you state them explicitly?
Are you on drugs or something?

[gumboot]

Emergency scramble protocol. Stated by Horton. Unless you want to claim that the changes in the protocol made by Rumsfeld changed it. It does seem that there was uncertainty over this because of the changes, and that is why Boston called Herndon instead of NMCC that was trequired under the pre existing protocol. Now you prove something?



You're being utterly ridiculously ignorant. FAA protocol clearly states that the National Hijack Coordinator is responsible for all FAA requests for military scrambles. What is so hard to understand about that?

Your pet "expert" was not an FAA director, or even a Center Supervisor. He was only an ATC controller. His sole job was to tell his supervisor what is happening. His information is TWENTY YEARS out of date. We happen to have ANOTHER Air Traffic Controller on this board - Calcas - and they are a CURRENT controller, thus their perspective trumps Hordon's by a long shot.

Hordon's statements clearly show he is full of garbage and doesn't know what he's talking about.

Finally, you have provided no evidence whatsoever that Hordon actually made the statement you quoted. And given your utter dishonesty and refusal to read anything on this thread, I have absolutely no intention of taking your word for ANYTHING.

-Gumboot

[Non Believer]

Why don't your air traffic controlers make some public statements then.

[gumboot]

Why don't your air traffic controlers make some public statements then.


:confused:

-Gumboot

[Cl1mh4224rd]

If you read this thread from the perspective that JREF regulars are merely giving NB fodder to make a fool out of himself, it's actually quite amusing...

[beachnut]

Why don't your air traffic controlers make some public statements then.The only people challenged enough to agree with anything you say are at LCF. Maybe Roxdog can give you some facts. Oops, maybe not. I bet there are some who are at LCF who could give you some facts, but they would be banned. oops

[Mashuna]

And given your utter dishonesty and refusal to read anything on this thread, I have absolutely no intention of taking your word for ANYTHING.

-Gumboot

Why don't your air traffic controlers make some public statements then.

Isn't it great when someone proves your point with their very next post?

[Brainache]

Why don't your air traffic controlers make some public statements then.


I'm curious about your username Non Believer. What is it that you don't believe?

Coz it looks to me like you believe everything you read on the loony CT websites.

Is it just the rational stuff that you refuse to believe, or are there some crazy CTs which you also don't believe in?

[Non Believer]

Let me know if you answer any of the questions I have posed, otherwise let the puerile pig s--t continue.

[Brainache]

Let me know if you answer any of the questions I have posed, otherwise let the puerile pig s--t continue.

Well actually, if you read the thread, you'll find that every one of your questions has been answered.

[DGM]

Hey how are you coming with the "Emergency scramble protocol"?

[twinstead]

Let me know if you answer any of the questions I have posed, otherwise let the puerile pig s--t continue.


Every single question you have posted has been answered.

Oh, and there's nothing puerile about blindly believing every conspiracy site you read and accusing innocent people of mass murder on the slimmest of evidence, huh?

I'm just as cavalier towards my 5 year-old when she insists something totally ludicrous is true and stomps her feet in anger when she is told she is wrong.

Nothing wrong with sticking to your guns, NB, but if you are going to be a spittle-spewing ideologue you should have a thick skin.

[Corsair 115]

Perhaps there ought to be a reworking of that old saying, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." When dealing with the CT-minded, it could be: "You can lead a CTer to facts but you can't make him accept them."

[Belz...]

Why don't your air traffic controlers make some public statements then.

:faint:

[CurtC]

When dealing with the CT-minded, it could be: "You can lead a CTer to facts but you can't make him accept them think."

Fixed.

[Comsat Angel]

I just came up with a killer algorithm - is that the right word? - for NB's behaviour. He has the entire membership of JREF set to "Ignore". This explains so much about him, and his responses. Could probably apply to a few other Twoofers who post here too!

[twinstead]

I just came up with a killer algorithm - is that the right word? - for NB's behaviour. He has the entire membership of JREF set to "Ignore". This explains so much about him, and his responses. Could probably apply to a few other Twoofers who post here too!

I suspect that even if he does read the responses to his posts, they are probably the visual equivalent of what Charlie Brown's parents sound like.

Wah, wah, wah wah wah, wah wah, wah, wah wah wah wah. Wah.

[PhantomWolf]

I just came up with a killer algorithm - is that the right word? - for NB's behaviour. He has the entire membership of JREF set to "Ignore". This explains so much about him, and his responses. Could probably apply to a few other Twoofers who post here too!

Well in the Moderated thread that Malcolm started, I came to the conclusion that after any break he would just read the last page of the thread and so ignore anything between his last post and the first one on the last page.

[CurtC]

I just came up with a killer algorithm - is that the right word? - for NB's behaviour.
"Algorithm" isn't the right word.

I take it you meant something like "explanation."

[Comsat Angel]

I wur tryin to be clevur.:confused:
That'll teach me!

[PhantomWolf]

http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/X/3.jpg

[MRC_Hans]

"Algorithm" isn't the right word.

I take it you meant something like "explanation."Actually, algorithm could be very appropriate. I have not noticed anything from NB indicating it could pass a Turing test.

Hans

[MortFurd]

Actually, algorithm could be very appropriate. I have not noticed anything from NB indicating it could pass a Turing test.

Hans
Geek insults. Gotta love 'em.:)

[SpitfireIX]

Actually, algorithm could be very appropriate. I have not noticed anything from NB indicating it could pass a Turing test.

Hans


I think it would be relatively easy to write a computer program that could fool someone into thinking it was a conspiracist.


PERSON: Who was responsible for [any bad event in past 100 years]?

COMPUTER: The US Government.

PERSON: But what about [any evidence against government conspiracy]?

COMPUTER: Just read this web site: [insert appropriate conspiracy site URL]

PERSON: That web site has a lot of misinformation.

COMPUTER: You're obviously either a sherson or a government shill.

PERSON: Do you have a wife or a girlfriend?

COMPUTER: No.

PERSON: Do you live in your parents' basement?

COMPUTER: Yes.

etc.

[Darth Rotor]

Why is he upset with Reagan?
I'll guess PATCO strike, and strike busting.

I flew with a guy who was a Navy Air Controller, an AC2, got out, became a PATCO guy, got tossed after the strike. With his new college degree (he'd gone to school) he applied for flight school and got it, with a commission. (Think Reagan era defense budgets, inflating the Navy to 15 Carrier Groups and 600 ships, massive increase in pilot training/demand.)

He was a great flight instructor, a solid pilot, and an all around great guy.

He had no love for Ronny Ray Gun's PATCO strike busting. I'll guess Hordon feels similarly.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

It's a theoretical position that guides our constitution. I know its one you guys don't like because you don't believe in the general public's ability to comprehend the events that shape their lives. But, if you want get down to specifics of what we are talking about, apparently your taking the position that we did not have the legal right to know whether Andrews was involved in the air defense of the capital. If so,as I said before, go for it.
The more concrete than theoretical framework is explicitly spelled out in the last paragraph of Section 8, Article I.

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

The Constitutional Republic known as the United States of America uses a method of representation that sends people, voted in by citizens, to do The People's business, the business of We The People. The risk in a republic is that the people send idiots, or chralatans, to do their business, or perhaps don't vote and thus let other people send idiots or charlatans to do The People's business. This is why freedom of the press is so important, to make sure The People find out when idiots and charlatans are up to no good.

The enumerated powers often require laws to implement, spelling out in detail what is generally referred to by the language of the Preamble, and the Articles.

Security and classified info statutes are included in that implementation.

If you wish to cite the Constitution, please know what is in it first, and how a republic works, and when it works badly.

Thanks.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Ya -we had primary radar we just didn't know how to use it.
No, YOU don't know how to use it.

A-Train, please pay attention as well.

I have spent a few dozen hours on radar scopes in the Navy, on Navy warships, that use both IFF and primary return with SPS 49 and SPS 48 radars, among others.

Tracking an air contact via IFF is rather easy, and easier when your radar suite has a track while scan, and/or an auto track capability.

Drop the IFF, and put a high density of radar contacts on the scope and your job gets exponentially harder. Again, MTI and autotrack features are very handy.

Lucky for me, I flew as a pilot far more than I worked radar scopes. Of course, I tracked a lot of radar contacts, air and surface, with the APS-124 radar on the SH-60B, but that's beside the point.

Let me tell you what happens when an FAA controller loses your IFF signal in a radar environment. (Calcas, feel free to pile on.)

The typical flight goes thusly.

Take off
Check in with FAA controller
Get a good IFF identification with controller
Fly, talk as needed for routing and safety of flight

Get handed off to another controller at certain hand off points

*Oh, sheet, the controller loses your squawk.
Radio call within seconds from the controller.*

"Navy 4D 735, Houston Center, squawk ident." (That means use the Ident function of the Transponder to trigger an IFF identification signal to his radar.)
If he gets it, good. If not, he will typically ask you to check your transponder.

Typical pilot respons: Cycle between standby and Mode 3/C. Cycle the codes. Turn off, on. Reset circuit breakers. Very frequently, one of these fixes the problem. Other times, not so cool. The whole time, you keep talking to him, with position reports as needed (from your Nav system) so he can match (manually) you skin and location on his scope.

Once fixed, all goes back to sweetness and light.

If not fixed, use non radar contact procedures if the controller has trouble with remote radars keeping your skin linked up with his track symbology.

In low traffic environment, if Mode 3/C does not come back on, what you end up doing is more voice reporting to ensure that you and the controller keep your skin, primary, in synch with what his track expects.

If you enter Class A airspace without an operable Mode 3/C, there are some serious issues that may cause the controller to deny your entry into a Class A environment, like La Guardia's Class A. You may have to divert, or go VFR to get where you are going, conditions permitting. A key way to keep the controller on your side is to maintain crisp, professional two way radio communication. Without IFF, but with good voice comms, there is ample opportunity to get where you need to go.

Once on the ground, get the IFF fixed if need be, rinse and repeat.

Note: two way radio comms mitigates most of the problem with IFF going out. Lack of comms adds to the controller's burden in handling the track of your flight. Depending on where you are flying, you may be asked, or directed, to divert to VFR conditions and land until the avionics problems are fixed. If it is his radar that is acting up, your two way comms and defaulting to non radar procedures usually suffices.

Flt 77 was a lost IFF track, and a lost comm, combined problem. Calcas and others have more than adequately described the process one goes through to deal with that.

DR

[jaydeehess]

Let me know if you answer any of the questions I have posed, otherwise let the puerile pig s--t continue.

Such as this?
Your guys thesis? Less air security in U.S airspace = more public saftey

,,, and was that supposed to be some sort of answer to my question?

from post 109


Originally Posted by jaydeehess

So how about it N.B.? You made a statement about spending money to increase the primary radar coverage over the contiguous USA. Do you truly want to see radar coverage over every square foot and if so then down to what altitude?

Is it really that easy to get you to hide under the bed N.B.? Will you peek out and admit that looking for an aircraft along its original flight path is the logical thing to do. Will you give me an answer as to whether or not you would want to spend vast sums of money on a civilian primary radar system that covers every square foot of the country down to a few thousand feet agl (min)?

So far you simply refuse to answer these very simple questions. Do you or do you not advocate the spending of a very large amount of money to ensure complete primary radar coverage of the contiguous(for that matter would you include Hawaii and Alaska) and if so then down to what level above ground level.

Do you or do you not agree that when a plane loses its transponder, the ATC controller's logical recourse in attempting to regain a track on the aircraft by switching to primary would be to look first along the original flight path of the aircraft?

Instead of answering the questions you seem to prefer purile sniping.

[jaydeehess]

Non Believer seems to have stopped believing in this thread.

[The Atheist]

No concern here, but then I'm not American. So are you enjoying your school holidays?

<<apologies for taking a moment out of this valuable thread>>

Mate! Haven't seen you around much and I'm not often in here, but the mention of Reginald Perrin brought me in and I have a quick squirt around and see this gem!

Classic.

And what an outstanding sig line you found on YouTube! Copied immediately.

Cheers.

<<normal transmission resumed>>

[Brainache]

<<apologies for taking a moment out of this valuable thread>>

Mate! Haven't seen you around much and I'm not often in here, but the mention of Reginald Perrin brought me in and I have a quick squirt around and see this gem!

Classic.

And what an outstanding sig line you found on YouTube! Copied immediately.

Cheers.

<<normal transmission resumed>>

Lately I've been lurking in R&P and Community, but the stupid CTs keep dragging me back here.

[Cheap Shot]

AAL11 had been issued an extended radar vector for his requested climb. When the transponder was turned off. The controller immediatelly switched on his primary radar. It is not that evident the target in the data block turns from a right slash to with a diamond over it to a diamond with no slash until the primary is switched on in which case if you do it early enough the diamond will continue on the present heading and should now be somewhere near a small plus sign. These slahses and diamonds are like a 6 Font size and no bells or whistles go off. If you catch it early enough which the ZBW controller did, you can try to retrack the aircraft to the primary target, if it does track up, the plus sign goes to an x. In Indy Center I don't beleive they caught this early enough and the Data Block probably went into coast track, before they realized it was missing. If your busy this is not the first thing you are looking for, that is why some controllers turn thier target brightness up more than the Data block, you have a better chance of knowing if something is wrong with the target. I'm guessing on the Indy Center thing I do not know what happened there.

As far as the military they were using old equipment, but they have the ability to track primary targets that is all they normally do, even for the cold war, does someone really beleive that if the Russina ever attacked they would be nice enough to squawk Mode 3/C for the US military. NEADS was given the exact Lat/Long of AAL11 when the aircraft was grounding over 600 Knots. Why they didn't see it is beyond me. If someone wants to investigate something that is where they should start. I beleive it was a training issue, and they either didn't scale down there range or they were not filtering there targets properly. They were using the exact same radar the FAA was using at that time.

The fighters were delayed because they didn't see the target. They normally will not launch unless they have the target ID'd.

Just some additional infor those that are interested....

[SpitfireIX]

Welcome, Cheap Shot.

AAL11 had been issued an extended radar vector for his requested climb. When the transponder was turned off. The controller immediatelly switched on his primary radar. It is not that evident the target in the data block turns from a right slash to with a diamond over it to a diamond with no slash until the primary is switched on in which case if you do it early enough the diamond will continue on the present heading and should now be somewhere near a small plus sign. These slahses and diamonds are like a 6 Font size and no bells or whistles go off. If you catch it early enough which the ZBW controller did, you can try to retrack the aircraft to the primary target, if it does track up, the plus sign goes to an x.


It sounds from what you're saying as though the radar normally operates only in passive mode, and switches to active mode only if a controller turns it on. Is that the case?

In Indy Center I don't beleive they caught this early enough and the Data Block probably went into coast track, before they realized it was missing. If your busy this is not the first thing you are looking for, that is why some controllers turn thier target brightness up more than the Data block, you have a better chance of knowing if something is wrong with the target. I'm guessing on the Indy Center thing I do not know what happened there.


This is possible; however, as noted earlier in this thread, American 77 was just at the limit of Indianapolis Center's primary radar range, so they could also simply have been unable to track the aircraft.

As far as the military they were using old equipment, but they have the ability to track primary targets that is all they normally do, even for the cold war, does someone really beleive that if the Russina ever attacked they would be nice enough to squawk Mode 3/C for the US military. NEADS was given the exact Lat/Long of AAL11 when the aircraft was grounding over 600 Knots. Why they didn't see it is beyond me. If someone wants to investigate something that is where they should start. I beleive it was a training issue, and they either didn't scale down there range or they were not filtering there targets properly. They were using the exact same radar the FAA was using at that time.


How much time did the military radar operators have to search for American 11?

The fighters were delayed because they didn't see the target. They normally will not launch unless they have the target ID'd.


Are you sure about this? From what I've read they just didn't get close enough in time.

Just some additional infor those that are interested....


Thank you. Are you/were you an air-traffic controller? We have a controller who posts here regularly, plus a couple of pilots and a mechanic.

[PhantomWolf]

The fighters were delayed because they didn't see the target. They normally will not launch unless they have the target ID'd.

certainly not true on 9/11

The first fighters were scrambled in 8 mins, usually it'd be 15 mins from alert to launch, so they did it twice as fast as expected, that is certainly not delayed. The trouble was that by the time NEADS got the information about what was happening, it had already happened.

The third set of fighters was launched and told to head for their standard ADIZ with a breifing on the way because at that point in time they had no target (Flight 77) and it wasn't until NEADS realised and demanded to take over their control directly, that they were reheaded and given a target, again too late to prevent the attack.

[gumboot]

certainly not true on 9/11
The third set of fighters was launched and told to head for their standard ADIZ with a breifing on the way because at that point in time they had no target (Flight 77) and it wasn't until NEADS realised and demanded to take over their control directly, that they were reheaded and given a target, again too late to prevent the attack.


NEADS only scramble two sets of fighters. The second set (which is who you are talking about above) were scrambled in response to the phantom AA11, at 0922EDT. They incorrectly headed out on a standard scramble heading because there was confusion between the lead pilot and the Navy ATC handling the fighters.

At 0934 NEADS noticed the error, and turned the fighters back towards their correct destination, which was over Baltimore.

Then at 0935 NEADS received word of an unidentified aircraft near the White House (AA77), and the fighters were instead directed to head for Washington DC.

-Gumboot

[Cheap Shot]

Reply to Spitfire,

1st, If you are working a high altitude sector you normally have your primary or araw radar switched to off. If and when you notice a correlated target missing, then you would switch to primary, it is always there you just don't have it turned on. A low altitude sector you always have your primary on.

2nd, I'm not sure of where AAL77 was in Indy Centers airspace, but Centers have enough sort boxes adapted outside of thier airspace and each one uses the same adjacent radars. So range wouldn't have been a problem.

3rd, Can't be exact here, but definitely enough time, the first call went out when AAL11 was over Albany and had turned southbound along the Hudson River, the second call was made 20 NM South of Albany, a third call was made 50 Nm south of Albany with the exact Lat/Longs, the next call was 30 north of JFK, another call at 16 NM north of JFK, and the final call with radar lost 8 NM North of JFK.

Appx. Fifteen years ago the military and the FAA went different directions in how they identified targets. They both used to use a set of known points noramlly VORS or TACANS. The FAA would give a radial/distnace from the fix. The military went to Lat/Longs, up until 9-11 I think the FAA beleived they were still using both. For an FAA Controller to identify a Lat/Long is a three step process, and it is considered time consuming. In the above calls only the one call I identified was issued with an exact Lat/Long. At that time the target had been up to 600 Knots Ground spped, but had started to slow down. With out any altitude readout this was interpreted as the aircraft was descending. In the FAA we are constantly trying to remaove ground clutter with our primary on, this is called MTI, we turn this down so we see less targets. On the military side of the house they want to see all of these targets so they turn there system up. More targets. But they should be able to spot one chugging along at 600 knots. With the exact location they should have been able to range down to lets say a 30 or 50 NM range and spot the target and rather quickly.

4th Yes, the fighters were cleared to Battle Stations where they waited, it has been reported that they were waiting for a clearance from the FAA. Scrambles don't require a clearance, they just go, the FAA just gets a heads up that they are coming. They also won't normally launch on any target without knowing where it is, that is probably why they were cleared to battle stations. I used to think that battle stations was at the end of the runway, but I learned it was in the cockpit hot and ready to go. With out a target they were not going to launch Numerous other calls were made to NEADS and to Otis Tower asking when they were getting off. The answer was always soon, this went on for a bout 6 to 8 minutes. They eventually launched.

5th Yes I am a controller or was one. (medically disqualified at the time)

[Gravy]

Welcome to the forums, Cheap Shot.

Here are some excerpts from the Vanity Fair article (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608) (and tape recording excerpts)

NEADS received the first notice from Boston Center of a possible hijacking at 8:37:52. Flight 11 hit the north tower nine minutes later.


08:39:58
WATSON: It's the inbound to J.F.K.?
BOSTON CENTER: We—we don't know.
WATSON: You don't know where he is at all?
BOSTON CENTER: He's being hijacked. The pilot's having a hard time talking to the—I mean, we don't know. We don't know where he's goin'. He's heading towards Kennedy. He's—like I said, he's like 35 miles north of Kennedy now at 367 knots. We have no idea where he's goin' or what his intentions are.

...At Otis Air National Guard Base, the pilots are in their jets, straining at the reins. ("When the horn goes off, it definitely gets your heart," F-15 pilot Major Dan Nash later told me, thumping his chest with his hand.) But at neads, Nasypany's "tracker techs" in the Surveillance section still can't find American 11 on their scopes. As it turns out, this is just as the hijackers intended.

Radar is the neads controllers' most vital piece of equipment, but by 9/11 the scopes were so old, among other factors, that controllers were ultimately unable to find any of the hijacked planes in enough time to react. Known collectively as the Green Eye for the glow the radar rings give off, the scopes looked like something out of Dr. Strangelove and were strikingly anachronistic compared with the equipment at civilian air-traffic sites. (After 9/11, neads was equipped with state-of-the-art equipment.)

In order to find a hijacked airliner—or any airplane—military controllers need either the plane's beacon code (broadcast from an electronic transponder on board) or the plane's exact coordinates. When the hijackers on American 11 turned the beacon off, intentionally losing themselves in the dense sea of airplanes already flying over the U.S. that morning (a tactic that would be repeated, with some variations, on all the hijacked flights), the neads controllers were at a loss.

"You would see thousands of green blips on your scope," Nasypany told me, "and now you have to pick and choose. Which is the bad guy out there? Which is the hijacked aircraft? And without that information from F.A.A., it's a needle in a haystack."

At this point in the morning, more than 3,000 jetliners are already in the air over the continental United States, and the Boston controller's direction—"35 miles north of Kennedy"—doesn't help the neads controllers at all.


...Less than two minutes later, frustrated that the controllers still can't pinpoint American 11 on radar, Nasypany orders Fox to launch the Otis fighters anyway.

08:44:59
FOX: M.C.C. [Mission Crew Commander], I don't know where I'm scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination—
NASYPANY: O.K., I'm gonna give you the Z point [coordinate]. It's just north of—New York City.
FOX: I got this lat long, 41-15, 74-36, or 73-46.
NASYPANY: Head 'em in that direction.
FOX: Copy that.

...08:46:36
NASYPANY: Hi, sir. O.K., what—what we're doing, we're tryin' to locate this guy. We can't find him via I.F.F. [the Identification Friend or Foe system]. What we're gonna do, we're gonna hit up every track within a 25-mile radius of this Z-point [coordinate] that we put on the scope. Twenty-nine thousand [feet] heading 1-9-0 [east]. We're just gonna do—we're gonna try to find this guy. They can't find him. There's supposedly been threats to the cockpit. So we're just doing the thing … [off-mic conversation] True. And probably right now with what's going on in the cockpit it's probably really crazy. So, it probably needs to—that will simmer down and we'll probably get some better information.

...American 11 slammed into the north tower of the World Trade Center four seconds into this transmission.

More than 150 miles from Manhattan, within the same minute as American 11 hits the tower, the stoplight in the Alert Barn at Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod turns from red to green, Colonel Marr and General Arnold having approved Nasypany's order to scramble the fighters. The pilots taxi out and fire the afterburners as the planes swing onto the runway. neads has no indication yet that American 11 has crashed.

Five minutes later, Rountree, at the ID station, gets the first report of the crash from Boston Center (as her colleagues Watson and Dooley overhear).


...08:56:31
MALE neads TECH: I never heard them say American Airlines Flight 11 hit the World Trade Center. I heard it was a civilian aircraft.

Dooley, the ID desk's master sergeant, takes the phone from Rountree to confirm for herself, and the story veers off course …

DOOLEY (to Boston): Master Sergeant Dooley here. We need to have—are you giving confirmation that American 11 was the one—
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): No, we're not gonna confirm that at this time. We just know an aircraft crashed in and …
DOOLEY: You—are you—can you say—is anyone up there tracking primary on this guy still?
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): No. The last [radar sighting] we have was about 15 miles east of J.F.K., or eight miles east of J.F.K. was our last primary hit. He did slow down in speed. The primary that we had, it slowed down below—around to 300 knots.
DOOLEY: And then you lost 'em?
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Yeah, and then we lost 'em.


The problem, Scoggins told me later, was that American Airlines refused to confirm for several hours that its plane had hit the tower. This lack of confirmation caused uncertainty that would be compounded in a very big way as the attack continued. (Though airlines have their own means of monitoring the location of their planes and communicating with their pilots, they routinely go into information lockdown in a crisis.)


08:57:11
NASYPANY: Think we put the exercise on the hold. What do you think? [Laughter.]

Just at that moment, in one of the dark, U-shaped air-traffic-control areas at New York Center, on Long Island, a half-dozen civilian controllers are watching a second plane that's turned off course: United 175, also scheduled from Boston to Los Angeles. As the controllers try to hail the pilots, a manager comes running in and confirms that the plane that hit the first tower was, indeed, a commercial airliner, rather than a small Cessna. It's just at that moment that United 175, 38 minutes into its flight and now near Allentown, Pennsylvania, moving southwest farther and farther off course, makes a sudden swing northeast toward Manhattan. Suddenly—instinctively—the civilian controllers know: it's another hijacking, and it's not going to land.

The controllers start speculating what the hijacker is aiming at—one guesses the Statue of Liberty—and the room erupts in profanity and horror. One controller is looking at his scope, calling out the rate of descent every 12 seconds as he watches the radar refresh. It is not until the last second, literally, that anyone from New York Center thinks to update neads. ID tech Rountree fields the call.

09:03:17
ROUNTREE: They have a second possible hijack!

Almost simultaneously, United 175 slams into the south tower of the World Trade Center, something several neads personnel witness live on CNN, including Colonel Marr, the commanding officer. (Dooley told me she remembers looking up toward the Battle Cab and, for a long moment, seeing Marr's jaw drop and everyone around him frozen.)

On the ops floor, there is considerable confusion as to whether the second hijacking New York Center just called in is the same plane that hit the second tower, or whether there are now three missing planes.

[Cheap Shot]

Very familiar with it, the Vanity Fair article covered about 10 phone calls between Boston Center and NEADS, there were up to 40 phone calls that morning, about 20 of them were recored, the other 20 were probably not.

Third paragraph, NEADS needs the beacon code or the exact coordinates, to identify the target, which the exact coordinates were given.

Don't get to get on much I'll try to answer more questions later.

[gumboot]

2nd, I'm not sure of where AAL77 was in Indy Centers airspace, but Centers have enough sort boxes adapted outside of thier airspace and each one uses the same adjacent radars. So range wouldn't have been a problem.


The area where AA77 went missing had no Primary coverage. The ATC controller assumed the aircraft had crashed, and a SAR mission was initiated from the USAF Search and Rescue squadron at Langley AFB.

At 0921, when Indianapolis Center learned of the other hijackings, they reassessed their previous assumption, and concluded AA77 was also a hijack. By this time, of course, AA77 was well and truly gone.




3rd, Can't be exact here, but definitely enough time, the first call went out when AAL11 was over Albany and had turned southbound along the Hudson River, the second call was made 20 NM South of Albany, a third call was made 50 Nm south of Albany with the exact Lat/Longs, the next call was 30 north of JFK, another call at 16 NM north of JFK, and the final call with radar lost 8 NM North of JFK.


The first notification the military had of a hijacking was when Boston Center called NEADS at 0837EDT.






4th Yes, the fighters were cleared to Battle Stations where they waited, it has been reported that they were waiting for a clearance from the FAA.


I'm not sure what you mean here. "Battle Stations" is a level of readiness, at which the pilots are sitting in their aircraft, pre-flight complete, ready to takeoff.



Scrambles don't require a clearance, they just go, the FAA just gets a heads up that they are coming. They also won't normally launch on any target without knowing where it is, that is probably why they were cleared to battle stations.


Scrambles require a scramble order from the NMCC. As no intercept request had reached the NMCC, the NORAD CONR Commander approved a scramble without it.

Due to a lack of location for the target, NEADS allocated a Z-point north of New York. However to get there, the fighters travelled down the eastern seaboard to Long Island, where they would cross inland to the Z-point. But the FAA would not allow the fighters to enter FAA airspace (due to fear of a collision) so they entered a holding pattern in military airspace.




I used to think that battle stations was at the end of the runway, but I learned it was in the cockpit hot and ready to go. With out a target they were not going to launch Numerous other calls were made to NEADS and to Otis Tower asking when they were getting off. The answer was always soon, this went on for a bout 6 to 8 minutes. They eventually launched.


I see what you mean. The fighters were not prevented from scrambling by the FAA. As you said, they weren't scrambled immediately because there was no target. The timeline for the Otis fighters was:

0837 - Boston ARTCC notifies NEADS that AA11 has been hijacked.
0838 - Otis ordered to Battle Stations
0844 - Otis are issued a scramble order to a Z-point north of NYC
0846 - AA11 hits WTC1
0852 - NEADS decide to send the Otis fighters to NYC anyway
0903 - NEADS are informed of the hijacking of UA175 as it hits WTC2
0905 - The Otis fighters arrive off Long Island. They are refused entry into FAA airspace
0907 - The Otis fighters enter a holding pattern in the ADIZ off Long Island
0921 - NEADS are incorrectly informed that AA11 is headed for Washington DC. The Otis fighters are directed to intercept it.

-Gumboot

[Cheap Shot]

Gumboat, like your posts started reading them the ohter day, don't have the time tonight but I will go ever more with you later on some of those events, the timeline looks pretty good though.

Cheap Shot

[gumboot]

Third paragraph, NEADS needs the beacon code or the exact coordinates, to identify the target, which the exact coordinates were given.


The final Primary return on AA11 was when it was about 8mi east of JFK Airport, travelling at 600KT.

DOOLEY (to Boston): Master Sergeant Dooley here. We need to have—are you giving confirmation that American 11 was the one—
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): No, we’re not gonna confirm that at this time. We just know an aircraft crashed in and …
DOOLEY: You—are you—can you say—is anyone up there tracking primary on this guy still?
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): No. The last [radar sighting] we have was about 15 miles east of J.F.K., or eight miles east of J.F.K. was our last primary hit. He did slow down in speed. The primary that we had, it slowed down below—around to 300 knots.
DOOLEY: And then you lost ‘em?
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Yeah, and then we lost ‘em.

-Gumboot

ETA. Incidentally, obviously AA11 was never 8mi east of JFK airport. I suspect they mean 8mi north or NW. If we look at the NTSB flight path, at 0843 the aircraft was about 20mi north of JFK airport.

[Calcas]

Gumboat, like your posts started reading them the ohter day, don't have the time tonight but I will go ever more with you later on some of those events, the timeline looks pretty good though.

Cheap Shot

Welcome Cheap Shot.

I'm the other FAA ATC guy here but I've always been a Control Tower/Terminal guy.

Your Center insight is excellent...hope to read more.

[Gravy]

Very familiar with it, the Vanity Fair article covered about 10 phone calls between Boston Center and NEADS, there were up to 40 phone calls that morning, about 20 of them were recored, the other 20 were probably not.

Third paragraph, NEADS needs the beacon code or the exact coordinates, to identify the target, which the exact coordinates were given.

Don't get to get on much I'll try to answer more questions later.You're not claiming that NEADS was informed before 9:37:52, are you? Because they sure are surprised when the call comes in from Boston Center. How do you know when the exact coordinates were given? (Not that it matters in the case of flight 11: even if they'd had time to get on its tail they weren't going to shoot it down.)

[Gravy]

The final Primary return on AA11 was when it was about 8mi east of JFK Airport, travelling at 600KT.300 according to Scoggins. 600KT would be screaming: 690 mph/1111 km/h!

[gumboot]

300 according to Scoggins. 600KT would be screaming: 690 mph/1111 km/h!


Yes! Hah! Typo.

-Gumboot

[Cheap Shot]

You guys (or gals) are all to quick for me, yes the aircraft was at 600 knots grounding that morning, and may have been up to 620. when he was about 50 NM out the aircraft began slowing dramatically. When he reached the city he was about 320, we had figured the aircraft had descended, and at that time we were assuming the aircraft was going to land not crash. One of the original intents to call NEADS was that the aircraft was hijacked but to also get a confirmation on the aircrafts altitude. We knew that NEADS had height finding, however we didn't know the accuracy at that time, not sure if I can say what that is, so I won't. But we called for the altitude with this aircraft flying into one fo the busiest corridors in the world and an unknown altitude.

More later, Calcas hi, nice to know thier is an ATC presence, Gravy one wierd Avatar.

[Cheap Shot]

You're not claiming that NEADS was informed before 9:37:52, are you? Because they sure are surprised when the call comes in from Boston Center. How do you know when the exact coordinates were given? (Not that it matters in the case of flight 11: even if they'd had time to get on its tail they weren't going to shoot it down.)


Nope NEADS first call was at that time, by a TMu specilaist, prior to that a first call was made directly to Otis around 7:34 by the TMU Supervisor.

Coordinates were issued at least twice, around Alabny or at 20 South of Albany.

On the other call I issued them, so I know they were issued.

But your right it really didn't matter unless if they did get thier in time maybe the Hijackers would get nervous and crash of course that would have killed many as well, not as many as the Towers.

[A-Train]

The fighters were delayed because they didn't see the target. They normally will not launch unless they have the target ID'd.

Just some additional infor those that are interested....


Just one minute, Cheap Shot. How, as a Center controller, do you know why the fighters were delayed? Or are you just reiterating the official story on an aspect that is out of your specialty?

I would also like someone to explain to me why fighters would need exact coordinates, or any kind of precise location, before getting up in the air. If you call the cops and report a robbery in your neighborhood, are they going to sit in their cars until you can tell them precisely where the robbers are at the present time? Of course not, they will jump in their cars and speed to your neighborhood, and try to pinpoint the robbers on the way there.

The point is, ATC had the planes (AAL11 and UAL175) on primary all the way to Manhattan. The process should have been breathtakingly simple. Fighters scramble and speed toward the general location of the suspect aircraft. The fighters then check on to the frequency of the controller whose airspace contains the suspect craft's primary. Then, the controller can provide vectors to the fighter to intercept the plane.

It's as simple as that. The reason it didn't happen, though, has nothing to do with civilian ATC. It is because the conspirators had a few operatives within the command structure of NORAD, who were able to make sure proper orders were not issued to the fighter pilots waiting on the ground.

But what about the prior claim- that Nasypany could not get the fighters airborne before learning exactly where AA11 was? After all, he knew approximately where it was and that it was headed south. Why did he not have the pilots- who were, Bronner tells us, "in their jets, straining at the reins"- get airborne and headed in that general direction, then give them the more exact information when it became available? [Robin] Hordon supports this point, saying:

"Where does it say in any regulations or protocols that the NORAD personnel need to observe the target first?..... If there is trouble, you go to where a trusted professional says the trouble is, and you begin to 'snoop, intercept or search" for that trouble on the way there, then you get real close after you find the target"Debunking 9/11 Debunking, by D.R. Griffin p.48Those are some good points raised by Mr. Hordon. Do you have any response to them, Cheap Shot?

[A-Train]

(Not that it matters in the case of flight 11: even if they'd had time to get on its tail they weren't going to shoot it down.)

How can you state so unequivocally that they weren't going to shoot it down? If the plane was observed speeding toward the skyline of Manhattan, it could have been assumed it was going to be used as a missile, and the shooting of it down would have been the proper procedure. Even if the plane had been shot down seconds before impact into the buildings, and above the crowded streets of Manhattan, many thousands of lives still would have been saved.

Of course, whoever had control of the ignition switches for the controlled demolition of the buildings might still have chosen to throw it. The thousands in the WTC buildings still would have died. But at least the lie that this was an Al-Qaeda attack would be even more difficult to maintain than it is now.

[DGM]

Would that be the Robin Hordon who hasn't worked in ATC since 1981? Hardly an authority on procedures on 9/11.

Hordon as a source is old hat try again.

[Cheap Shot]

Just one minute, Cheap Shot. How, as a Center controller, do you know why the fighters were delayed? Or are you just reiterating the official story on an aspect that is out of your specialty?


The point is, ATC had the planes (AAL11 and UAL175) on primary all the way to Manhattan. The process should have been breathtakingly simple. Fighters scramble and speed toward the general location of the suspect aircraft. The fighters then check on to the frequency of the controller whose airspace contains the suspect craft's primary. Then, the controller can provide vectors to the fighter to intercept the plane.

Do you have any response to them, Cheap Shot?

Yeap, Didn't know at the time why, but they were delayed, found out later they were held down at Battle Stations waiting for authorization. Second part up until 9-11 controllers never provided radar vectors for interceptors unless it was requested by them. Prior to 9-11 99% of all intercepts were based on targets that NEADS saw, so they had location, they would request scramble then launch. In 1995 appx the FAA/Canada/Military conducted a Hijack exercise, involving an American Airlines Flight. It was a big "todo". The AAL flight came up from Dulles and was going to Gander NF. The fighters were scheduled to get of on a 250 Heading for the intercept, they were delayed we advised NEADS then that a 250 heading would never work, they had the new location, we advised that a 310 heading might work, they got off on the 250 heading. To make matters worse on that day the F-15s were only going to follow AAL flight to the border, where Boggotville Fighters were going to take over the intercept to Gander. it was the day after the closest vote in Canadian history for Quebec trying to split from Canada. The government in Canada decided not to launch fighters thinking that the public might interpret it as some kind of a coup. I'm not making this up. The F-15s had to continue all the way to Gander, so since they could never go AB, they never caught the plane they landed 20 minutes behind the AAL.

On 9-11 they didn't want to launch the Langley fighters right away either, with only two sets of assets they held out for a while until the call that Ghost AAL 11 was still in the air.

They have to take fuel considerations in effect so I beleive that is why they wait for target information. I don't know their exact procedure why or what military order they go by, a military controller could tell you more, but some of that stuff is FOUO.

[Gravy]

How can you state so unequivocally that they weren't going to shoot it down?Because it wasn't policy to shoot down suspected hijacked airliners. If you'll recall, the shoot down order wasn't given until after the towers and Pentagon were hit.


Of course, whoever had control of the ignition switches for the controlled demolition of the buildings might still have chosen to throw it. Of course. That goes without saying.

[beachnut]

How can you state so unequivocally that they weren't going to shoot it down? If the plane was observed speeding toward the skyline of Manhattan, it could have been assumed it was going to be used as a missile, and the shooting of it down would have been the proper procedure. Even if the plane had been shot down seconds before impact into the buildings, and above the crowded streets of Manhattan, many thousands of lives still would have been saved.

Of course, whoever had control of the ignition switches for the controlled demolition of the buildings might still have chosen to throw it. The thousands in the WTC buildings still would have died. But at least the lie that this was an Al-Qaeda attack would be even more difficult to maintain than it is now.No one would have shot down flight 11, no one knew it was going to hit a building. How could they. Only in the last 20 seconds would anyone even suspect it was going to hit the WTC. You must get better at this stuff.

If flight 11 and 175 missed the WTC no one would have died in the WTC. What are you talking about? I bet if you had a fact you would include it, therefore your ideas on 9/11 are false. Find some facts and try again.

[beachnut]

300 according to Scoggins. 600KT would be screaming: 690 mph/1111 km/h!300 knots sounds good. At altitude all the flights on 9/11 could be doing 500 KTAS, the indicated would be around 300 KIAS. Air density and temperature are needed. The plane would not do well over 350 KCAS, and I doubt the planes exceeded that speed for more than several seconds until the terrorist pushed up the throttles in the last 20 seconds.

When the planes got below 10,000 feet they would not be going 600 mph, the planes would start to have problems past 350 KCAS. 350 KCAS would be near 350 knots at 1,000 feet, but over 500 knots at 35,000 feet. You need a whole course on what airspeeds mean. If you look at the FDRs, you can see when the plane went over the max speed, for 77 it was at the end and a few times our rookie terrorist pilots descended and went too fast. You have to ask what the person stating the speed means, and how they know the speed, and what the heck the speed is in/ knots/mph/KTAS/KCAS/KIAS etc.

I never saw a lot of data about flight 11, but it was one of the slowest when it hit at 470 mph.

[A-Train]

Only in the last 20 seconds would anyone even suspect it was going to hit the WTC.

That's the whole point of my post. The planes could have been shot down in the last 20 seconds or so of their flights-- resulting in a bloody mess on the ground but nonetheless saving hundreds or thousands of lives.

Trying to suggest that "it didn't matter anyway" because the fighters wouldn't have shot anything down is a cop out to avoid the obvious evidence of a stand down.

[Corsair 115]

You have to ask what the person stating the speed means, and how they know the speed, and what the heck the speed is in/ knots/mph/KTAS/KCAS/KIAS etc.I know IAS is indicated air speed, and TAS is true air speed; what's CAS?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Even if the plane had been shot down seconds before impact into the buildings, and above the crowded streets of Manhattan, many thousands of lives still would have been saved.


How so? A lot of the building in lower Manhattan had been evacuated by the time Flight 93 would have reached the since (assuming it would have been heading that direction anyway). It would have likely impacted an empty building...

So, how would shooting it down over crowded streets lessen the death toll. I'm really curious to see how you warp your mind around this...

[PhantomWolf]

I really have trouble believing that A-Train is anywhere near reality, what the heck are you smoking man? Go and look at the damage done in Lockerby when PamAm 103 crashed into it. It was blown up at 40,000 feet, not 1,000 feet. Go and look at the damage caused by AM 587 when it crashed into a residential area from 2,800 feet, nearly nose first, and yet you are advocating that a fighter pilot not only break the chain of command, disobey orders, but deliberatley shot down a civilian airliner and cause a large aircraft to crash into downtown Manhatten all without absolute evidence that such action was appropriate. If you ever somehow get in charge of anything more important that a paper bag, remind me to get off the planet.

[Cheap Shot]

Phnatomwolf has it right, prior to 9-11 the only FAA requirement was that the hijacked aircraft be escorted. That was it. I did a get a chance to talk to some of the 102nd FW pilots at Otis unforutnately not the two that went up, but if they knew what the intentions were and unless they had specific orders they would not shoot it down. If they did have the authority then they would probably only shoot it down if they thought they had a chance to put it in the Hudson River. I did talk to an x-pilot who works in NORAD on an annual visit to Boston Center and he said he would have shot down UAL175 if he knew the intentions of AAL11 were that of a suicide fanatic even without orders. But that was a gungho x -fighter pilot.

[Cheap Shot]

I know IAS is indicated air speed, and TAS is true air speed; what's CAS?

Calibrated Airspeed, takes in corrections for instruments, or something like that, we use True for flightplanning purposes, but on the radar displays we base everything on ground speed, but issue restrctions in Indicated airspeed.

[Darth Rotor]

300 according to Scoggins. 600KT would be screaming: 690 mph/1111 km/h!

Gravy, depending on winds aloft, ground speed can be as much as 100 knots greater than True Air Speed. Depends on your altitude, winds, tempurature, etc, per beechut's post. FWIW, airline pilots try and get Jet Stream tail winds where they can: saves gas, speeds arrival, etc. Beechnut is more familiar with the intricate details of that flight regime than I am.

Air Speed is measured relative to the fluid/air mass you are flying in, ground speed is time and distance track over points on the ground. With a tail wind, you might be doing 300 knots. and be doing 380 knots over the ground. A tail wind of that magnitude isn't typically found below 20, 000 feet, of course, unless a hurricane is blowing. :p IIRC, the Jet Stream, which is where you get massive tail winds, tends to be found up above 25,000 feet. It varies.

Beechnut covered the rest of it.

Cheap Shot's reference to ground speed is important to consider in his remarks, since as a controller time/distance relative to the ground is how one sequences planes to land on the ground, at the air ports, or avoid having two planes occupy the same spot in a column of air over the ground.

Airspeed is what you see on you instruments, though most modern aircraft have nav systems that convert that via simple math into ground speed. You, the pilot, also want to know your time distance situation. You want to be on time, of course. :)

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I really have trouble believing that A-Train is anywhere near reality, what the heck are you smoking man? Go and look at the damage done in Lockerby when PamAm 103 crashed into it. It was blown up at 40,000 feet, not 1,000 feet. Go and look at the damage caused by AM 587 when it crashed into a residential area from 2,800 feet, nearly nose first, and yet you are advocating that a fighter pilot not only break the chain of command, disobey orders, but deliberatley shot down a civilian airliner and cause a large aircraft to crash into downtown Manhatten all without absolute evidence that such action was appropriate. If you ever somehow get in charge of anything more important that a paper bag, remind me to get off the planet.
:)

Well said.

DR

[jaydeehess]

How can you state so unequivocally that they weren't going to shoot it down? If the plane was observed speeding toward the skyline of Manhattan, it could have been assumed it was going to be used as a missile, and the shooting of it down would have been the proper procedure. Even if the plane had been shot down seconds before impact into the buildings, and above the crowded streets of Manhattan, many thousands of lives still would have been saved.

Monday morning , 20-20 hindsight quaterbacking is always so very insightful.

Of course, whoever had control of the ignition switches for the controlled demolition of the buildings might still have chosen to throw it. The thousands in the WTC buildings still would have died. But at least the lie that this was an Al-Qaeda attack would be even more difficult to maintain than it is now.


:rolleyes:

Holding onto your beliefs with your fingernails are you? You, oh so much, WANT to believe that there was a giant, complicated, complex and irrational conspiracy implicating TPTB.

[Alferd_Packer]

I skipped past the middle pages of this thread. Did anyone bring up Payne Stewart yet? LOL

[DGM]

I skipped past the middle pages of this thread. Did anyone bring up Payne Stewart yet? LOL
Truthers don't like that story since they found out about the time zone error.

[SpitfireIX]

Brilliant, A-Train; you've unmasked the entire conspiracy. I suppose all of us paid disinformation agents are out of a job now. :rolleyes:

The procedures you quote are the procedures in place today. Here (http://web.archive.org/web/20010820151925/www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html#10-2-6) are the procedures that were in place on September 11, 2001:


10-2-6. HIJACKED AIRCRAFT

When you observe a Mode 3/A Code 7500, do the following:

NOTE-
Military facilities will notify the appropriate FAA ARTCC, or the host nation agency responsible for en route control, of any indication that an aircraft is being hijacked. They will also provide full cooperation with the civil agencies in the control of such aircraft.

EN ROUTE. During narrowband radar operations, Code 7500 causes HIJK to blink in the data block.

NOTE-
Only nondiscrete CODE 7500 will be decoded as the hijack code.

a. Acknowledge and confirm receipt of Code 7500 by asking the pilot to verify it. If the aircraft is not being subjected to unlawful interference, the pilot should respond to the query by broadcasting in the clear that he/she is not being subjected to unlawful interference. If the reply is in the affirmative or if no reply is received, do not question the pilot further but be responsive to the aircraft requests.

PHRASEOLOGY-
(Identification) (name of facility) VERIFY SQUAWKING 7500.

NOTE-
Code 7500 is only assigned upon notification from the pilot that his/her aircraft is being subjected to unlawful interference. Therefore, pilots have been requested to refuse the assignment of Code 7500 in any other situation and to inform the controller accordingly.

b. Notify supervisory personnel of the situation.

c. Flight follow aircraft and use normal handoff procedures without requiring transmissions or responses by aircraft unless communications have been established by the aircraft.

d. If aircraft are dispatched to escort the hijacked aircraft, provide all possible assistance to the escort aircraft to aid in placing them in a position behind the hijacked aircraft.

NOTE-
Escort procedures are contained in FAAO 7610.4, Special Military Operations, Chapter 7, Escort of Hijacked Aircraft.

e. To the extent possible, afford the same control service to the aircraft operating VFR observed on the hijack code.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Code Monitor, Para 5-2-13. [emphasis added]


No mention whatsoever of loss of radio contact, transponder changes other than 7500, or unauthorized heading, speed, or altitude changes in hijack procedures.

It is the official story that the Indy controllers didn't know about the first two flights. Common sense dictates otherwise. The reality is that controllers handling all four flights suspected a hijacking almost immediately, and undoubtedly contacted the proper authorities in the military. That no military fighters were successfully scrambled to any hijacked aircraft during the entire episode can only be explained by a deliberate stand down, perhaps accomplished by a very small number of traitorous officers within the NORAD command structure who were working for the conspiracy.


If the lack of successful interception of any of the hijacked aircraft can only have been due to a "NORAD stand-down," then please explain why in 1999 the Air Force needed over an hour to intercept Payne Stewart's Learjet, using an unarmed F-16 that was already airborne when the plane was initially reported to have been in distress. Please also explain why it took more than an additional hour for fighters scrambled for the purpose to intercept the aircraft. From the NTSB report (http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2000/AAB0001.pdf):


At 0933:38 EDT . . . the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.

About 0952 CDT, a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA. . . .

About 1113 CDT, two Oklahoma ANG F-16s with the identification “TULSA 13 flight” were vectored to intercept the accident airplane by the Minneapolis ARTCC. . . . [citations omitted]



Note also that Stewart's aircraft was traveling in a straight line and squawking its proper transponder code, and was being continuously tracked by ATC.

Now, A-Train, I specifically request that you withdraw your claims about hijack procedures and a "NORAD stand-down," which are demonstrably erroneous.


I posted the above about three weeks ago. A-Train's response:

8HGh9ddRwTM

[A-Train]

Please also explain why it took more than an additional hour for fighters scrambled for the purpose to intercept the aircraft. From the NTSB report (http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2000/AAB0001.pdf):

Note also that Stewart's aircraft was traveling in a straight line and squawking its proper transponder code, and was being continuously tracked by ATC.If you are going to use this incident to support your case, you will have to prove to me that it took that long for the fighter to be scrambled to Stewart's plane. Sorry, but just citing a discredited source like Popular Mechanics is not good enough.

David Ray Griffin has stated that the official documentation is too confusing to make any kind of judgment:

"The NTSB memo, unfortunately, gets very confused, making it very difficult for anyone to figure out from it what happened. Part of the confusion seems to be the failure to account for the difference between time zones, but the confusion appears deeper than this....."

The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions D.R. Griffin p. 323Anyway, even if your account is correct, the reason for the slower response time may have been just that-- the plane was traveling in a straight line, squawking its correct code, and flying in the middle of nowhere, with no evidence of a hijack. Cleary, a radically different situation than what was going on on 9/11.

[Cylinder]

If you are going to use this incident to support your case, you will have to prove to me that it took that long for the fighter to be scrambled to Stewart's plane. Sorry, but just citing a discredited source like Popular Mechanics is not good enough.

NTSB Factual Report DCA00MA005 (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA00MA005&rpt=fa)[PDF]

At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.

About 0952 CDT, a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA.

An hour and twenty-five minutes - give-or-take - from last response to intercept.

[Viper Daimao]

Sorry, but just citing a discredited source like Popular Mechanics is not good enough.

slight side track here, but when did popular mechanics get discredited?

[twinstead]

slight side track here, but when did popular mechanics get discredited?

I totally second this.

A-Train?

[A-Train]

An hour and twenty-five minutes - give-or-take - from last response to intercept.

Why is it significant when the last response from the aircraft was?

Shouldn't the time interval we are interested in be from the time the military was contacted until the time of intercept?

And again, isn't it understandable if ATC waited a while before calling the military, since the plane was initially only a NORDO and did not initially show all the signs of a hijack-- as did the four flights on 9/11?

[DGM]

We have showed you the procedure for a hijacked aircraft. Now it's time for you to show us the ATC procedure for a shoot down. Show us the doc not someones opinion.

[Cylinder]

Why is it significant when the last response from the aircraft was?

Shouldn't the time interval we are interested in be from the time the military was contacted until the time of intercept?

The claim usually made (though not by you to my knowledge) in relation to the Payne Stewart incident is that NORAD scrambles within X minutes of loss of contact (the mistake in that claim is the failure to correct for CDT.)

What specifically about the 9-11 air defense operations seems suspicious to you?

[SpitfireIX]

If you are going to use this incident to support your case, you will have to prove to me that it took that long for the fighter to be scrambled to Stewart's plane. Sorry, but just citing a discredited source like Popular Mechanics is not good enough.


Sorry, but as noted, the quotation is from the National Transportation Safety Board accident report, which was adopted in 2000. Who said anything about Popular Mechanics?? And in any case, PM is only discredited in the imaginations of conspiracists such as yourself.


David Ray Griffin has stated that the official documentation is too confusing to make any kind of judgment:

"The NTSB memo, unfortunately, gets very confused, making it very difficult for anyone to figure out from it what happened. Part of the confusion seems to be the failure to account for the difference between time zones, but the confusion appears deeper than this....."

The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions D.R. Griffin p. 323


Handwaving. Griffin is merely attempting to sow doubts about this extremely strong evidence that there was no NORAD stand-down, and possibly explain away the failure of many conspiracists (and some newspaper reporters) to notice the time-zone shift. Also, there is no "failure to account for" the difference in time zones. As noted, I omitted the footnotes from the original quotation. Here it is again, directly from the NTSB report (http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2000/AAB0001.pdf), this time with the footnotes:

At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response. About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA.8

[Notes:]

7 About 1010 EDT, the accident airplane crossed from the EDT zone to the CDT zone in the vicinity of Eufaula, Alabama.
8 This interception was at the request of the Jacksonville ARTCC mission coordinator through the USAF.


Finally, why should you (or anyone else) care if DRG finds it confusing? The text is available online for people to decide for themselves whether it's confusing. Or do you just let DRG and other conspiracist "gurus" do your thinking for you?

Anyway, even if your account is correct, the reason for the slower response time may have been just that-- the plane was traveling in a straight line, squawking its correct code, and flying in the middle of nowhere, with no evidence of a hijack. Cleary, a radically different situation than what was going on on 9/11.


Like DRG, you are merely attempting to rationalize away highly inconvenient evidence. Aircraft do not simply stop talking to air-traffic control while continuing to transmit their normal transponder codes unless they are in very serious distress. In addition to 7500 ("we are being hijacked"), there are two other reserved transponder codes: 7600 ("radio out," AKA "NORDO"), and 7700 ("emergency"). The fact that the aircraft was not responding to radio calls and not squawking 7500, 7600, or 7700 made it highly likely that its pilots were incapacitated, and thus that it posed a grave danger to other aircraft and to people on the ground along its flight path. Please explain why this situation would have been considered any less urgent or time-critical than a hijacking.

Also, from an Atlanta Journal-Constitution article (http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=AT&p_theme=at&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EADA4B908104D86&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM):

The first sign of trouble came Monday at 10:08 a.m., as Air Force Staff Sgt. James Hicks sat in his air control tower. A clearly troubled FAA worker was issuing a distress call for a Learjet not far away. The twin-engine craft had left Orlando less than an hour earlier and things had turned very strange. The jet was flying [changing altitude] erratically. The pilot did not answer radio transmissions. Could Hicks, from his post at Eglin Air Force Base, send an F-16 to check it out?


10:52 - 10:08 = 44 minutes from the time the military was notified until the first intercept, again by an unarmed F-16 that was already airborne. So, A-Train, please explain what evidence there is for a "NORAD stand-down."

[Cl1mh4224rd]

slight side track here, but when did popular mechanics get discredited?


You don't even have to go that far. The simpler question is when the hell did Spitfire even mention Popular Mechanics in the post/quote A-Train was replying to?

A-Train clearly isn't even paying attention. He's just regurgitating crap in a knee-jerk reaction.

[A-Train]

Aircraft do not simply stop talking to air-traffic control while continuing to transmit their normal transponder codes unless they are in very serious distress.

You are dead wrong here. It happens every day. Aircraft go NORDO for 2, 3, sometimes 10 minutes or more. It usually means the pilots have switched to the wrong frequency but are unaware of it; or they forgot to get the freq change and are now out of range of their previous freq. As long as the plane continues on its route and shows no other signs of distress, it will not be handled as an emergency by ATC for about 20 minutes or so (judgment call).

In addition to 7500 ("we are being hijacked"), there are two other reserved transponder codes: 7600 ("radio out," AKA "NORDO"), and 7700 ("emergency"). The fact that the aircraft was not responding to radio calls and not squawking 7500, 7600, or 7700 made it highly likely that its pilots were incapacitated, and thus that it posed a grave danger to other aircraft and to people on the ground along its flight path. Please explain why this situation would have been considered any less urgent or time-critical than a hijacking.

It is obvious why it would not have. Incapacitated pilots are a whole different ball of wax from a hijacked aircraft. Controllers can easily clear out the airspace at the same altitude near the suspect aircraft. ATC would have spent a lot more time simply trying to contact the plane than if there was evidence of a hijack, as there was on 9/11.

[Par]

It is obvious why it would not have. Incapacitated pilots are a whole different ball of wax from a hijacked aircraft. Controllers can easily clear out the airspace at the same altitude near the suspect aircraft. ATC would have spent a lot more time simply trying to contact the plane than if there was evidence of a hijack, as there was on 9/11.



Remember what “hijacked aircraft” meant before 9/11; it meant the original pilot making an unscheduled landing followed by negotiations. So, are you claiming that an aircraft assumed to have had no pilot would have been considered less of a priority than one that’s been hijacked?