"Disappering" planes!

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Truthers think that because the transponder was turned off that the planes would've "disappeared" off the radar. But everyone knows that the FAA still uses conventional radar.

Example:

Quote:

XxRymenxX (YouTube Truther)

When the "blip" goes off..that means it's not on no more! Soo,that means it's MISSING. The point is that they (the radar) were shut off! Only the planes that went missing were shutoff the radar.

Truthers truely are stupid & lazy to look up the facts themselves. Quite pitiful!

[Thunder]

radar blips cannot and do not identify flight # or altitude.

i may be wrong about the altitude part but I think I'm right. isn't radar two dimensional?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Originally Posted by parky76

radar blips cannot and do not identify flight # or altitude.

i may be wrong about the altitude part but I think I'm right. isn't radar two dimensional?

You're correct Parky!

I don't know if radar's two dimensional or not.

[Sam.I.Am]

Marine RADAR is 2 dimensional (range and bearing). Aviation radar has a height finder integrated with a regular (2 dimensional) RADAR.

[Thunder]

plus, I would be very very surprised if FAA radars at airport towers had a button they could press to isolate those blips that had transponders turned off. it would be a handy function to have though.

the fact remains before 9-11, 100% of all hijacking were NOT suicide missions. it would have been silly to assume this was gonna happen, until the first WTC tower was hit. and by then, things were moving soo fast and things were soo confusing, it is not hard to understand how we couldn't take out any of the three remaining planes.

well..not hard for sane people..that is.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am

Marine RADAR is 2 dimensional (range and bearing). Aviation radar has a height finder integrated with a regular (2 dimensional) RADAR.

Thanks Sam!

[Thunder]

what was the time difference between the impact of the 1st plane..and the crash of Flight 93? it is during that time period that the FAA and Air Force had to decide if there were more hijacked planes, where they might be, if they might also crash into a building. that's a ******** of if's to decide in an hour or two.

i remember rumors about 8 planes. i remember rumors about a bomb blowing up by the State Department. no one knew what the hell was going on, and that made the hijackers very lucky.

we were caught with our pants down. this is something 9-11 Truthers just refuse to accept..that the Great USA could get caught with its pants down. its very naive, very Ameri-centric, and highly ignorant.

young children believe that their parents are God-like, unable to do wrong. even if they are bad people, children still think their parents are perfect, and can do no wrong. some of this is happening with the Truthers.

[ktesibios]

Originally Posted by parky76

radar blips cannot and do not identify flight # or altitude.

i may be wrong about the altitude part but I think I'm right. isn't radar two dimensional?

According to the NTSB Recorded Radar Data study,

Quote:

The ARSR-4 long-range radar systems utilized by the FAA and the USAF have the capasbility to estimate the altitude of primary targets with a certain degree of accuracy. This capability is only available from the ARSR antennas that have been specially modified for this purpose. The published root-mean-square accuracy of the height estimated by the radar system is +/- 3000 feet. After 08:21 EDT, ASmericn Airlines flight 11 no longer contained transponder altitude information. However, primary returns in the 84th RADES data contained radar-derived heights for the reminder of the flight.

This implies that while altitude information was present in the AF's radar displays, it probably was not available to the FAA's controllers.

[T.A.M.]

Farmer's book "The Ground Truth" discusses the issue in a good amount of detail. ATC defnitely could not determine the altitude of the planes once the transponders were off. They were, at one point, calling for any planes in the region to let them know if they saw AA11, and if so, what was its altitude.

TAM

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Farmer's book "The Ground Truth" discusses the issue in a good amount of detail. ATC defnitely could not determine the altitude of the planes once the transponders were off.

exactly. and if you can't tell a plane's altitude, there is NO way of knowing if its about to strike another target, or had to fly another hour to do so.

like I said, pants were down. ouch.

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by 9/11 Chewy Defense

Truthers think that because the transponder was turned off that the planes would've "disappeared" off the radar.

Actually, this did happen to Flight 77. The hijackers turned the transponder off, and after their turn they managed to get into a small corridor of airspace where no secondary (i.e. "active", not transponder-only) existed. This led to much confusion. Indianapolis Air Traffic Control, who was unaware of the events on the east coast, thought that FL 77 had crashed, and started a search for them along their planned flightpath. If anyone had tried looking for them where they really were at first (we'll ignore how anyone could know where they were), they wouldn't have been able to do so due to the lack of secondary coverage in that area.

When FL77 finally did enter airspace covered by primary radar - this happened fairly quickly, but was not sorted out until quite a bit after 9/11 - it also helped cause confusion. But in a way, everyone's right in details in a way. FL 77's radar track was eventually identified. But that wasn't until well after 9/11. For a short period of time, that flight really did disappear from radar screens. But there is nothing suspicious about that, given that we know it was hijacked.

----

Now, that admittedly is a bit off topic, since I'm not addressing that conspiracy addict's quote. But what he's saying doesn't make sense.

Quote:

XxRymenxX (YouTube Truther)

When the "blip" goes off..that means it's not on no more! Soo,that means it's MISSING. The point is that they (the radar) were shut off! Only the planes that went missing were shutoff the radar.

Only the planes that went missing were shutoff (sic) the radar? What in God's name is he trying to say? Only the ones who shut down their transponder disappeared from the radar tracks? Yes, the primary tracks. But no, not the secondary ones. Regardless, how does that establish any sort of conspiratorial activity? I don't get it.

-------


ETA: Whoops! I got my terminology backwards. Secondary radar can only read transponders. It's primary radars that use active detection. When the transponder was shut off, FL 77 disappeared from secondary radar screens. And it took a primary radar signal to find it again.

I'm also off on my timeline. Apparently, FL77 was not found on primary radar recordings until around 5 minutes before it hit. So I misremembered two things. Blah... getting old...

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by parky76

plus, I would be very very surprised if FAA radars at airport towers had a button they could press to isolate those blips that had transponders turned off. it would be a handy function to have though.

they did not in 2001

however i believe they have something like this now, for precisely this reason

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

they did not in 2001

however i believe they have something like this now, for precisely this reason

Cheap Shot spoke on this, I think. I don't recall exactly what he said, but I do believe he spoke about switching between secondary and primary radar. I'll have to go look.

Thankfully, he doesn't post much, so there's not much to look through . Bless him, though, that also means everything he says is on target. Unlike me the rest of us some others here.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

Actually, this did happen to Flight 77. The hijackers turned the transponder off, and after their turn they managed to get into a small corridor of airspace where no secondary (i.e. "active", not transponder-only) existed. This led to much confusion. Indianapolis Air Traffic Control, who was unaware of the events on the east coast, thought that FL 77 had crashed, and started a search for them along their planned flightpath. If anyone had tried looking for them where they really were at first (we'll ignore how anyone could know where they were), they wouldn't have been able to do so due to the lack of secondary coverage in that area.

When FL77 finally did enter airspace covered by primary radar - this happened fairly quickly, but was not sorted out until quite a bit after 9/11 - it also helped cause confusion. But in a way, everyone's right in details in a way. FL 77's radar track was eventually identified. But that wasn't until well after 9/11. For a short period of time, that flight really did disappear from radar screens. But there is nothing suspicious about that, given that we know it was hijacked.

----

Now, that admittedly is a bit off topic, since I'm not addressing that conspiracy addict's quote. But what he's saying doesn't make sense.


Only the planes that went missing were shutoff (sic) the radar? What in God's name is he trying to say? Only the ones who shut down their transponder disappeared from the radar tracks? Yes, the primary tracks. But no, not the secondary ones. Regardless, how does that establish any sort of conspiratorial activity? I don't get it.

-------


ETA: Whoops! I got my terminology backwards. Secondary radar can only read transponders. It's primary radars that use active detection. When the transponder was shut off, FL 77 disappeared from secondary radar screens. And it took a primary radar signal to find it again.

I'm also off on my timeline. Apparently, FL77 was not found on primary radar recordings until around 5 minutes before it hit. So I misremembered two things. Blah... getting old...

9/11 was very chaotic, that much was certain.

That nutball on YT doesn't know WTH he's talking about.

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by 9/11 Chewy Defense

9/11 was very chaotic, that much was certain.

That nutball on YT doesn't know WTH he's talking about.

Absolutely. But the yay-hoos like to litter YouTube comments threads with stupidity and insipidity. It's just the nature of YouTube and the 'net in general.

Chewy, you haven't been around here long (unless you were lurking before), so you may be unaware that forum poster Cheap Shot is Colin Scoggins, Boston Center Military Liason and was one of the guys on the front line of the FAA who managed to convince people to get fighters in the air that day. Much information about the FAA ATC response regarding Boston Center came from him. He also was consulted with during the making of the movie United 93. Anyway, he was interviewed by another poster here - Ref - and his info is interesting to read:

http://911guide.googlepages.com/cs

Since it's on this topic, you might find this interesting. Thought I'd point it out, in case you were unaware. But if you already know about it, you can tell me to piss off, and that you got it covered.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

Absolutely. But the yay-hoos like to litter YouTube comments threads with stupidity and insipidity. It's just the nature of YouTube and the 'net in general.

Chewy, you haven't been around here long (unless you were lurking before), so you may be unaware that forum poster Cheap Shot is Colin Scoggins, Boston Center Military Liason and was one of the guys on the front line of the FAA who managed to convince people to get fighters in the air that day. Much information about the FAA ATC response regarding Boston Center came from him. He also was consulted with during the making of the movie United 93. Anyway, he was interviewed by another poster here - Ref - and his info is interesting to read:

http://911guide.googlepages.com/cs

Since it's on this topic, you might find this interesting. Thought I'd point it out, in case you were unaware. But if you already know about it, you can tell me to piss off, and that you got it covered.

Exactly! I know those YT Truthers are too chicken to come to JREF & argue their case.

Actually I was lurking a long time before, I did have a "ThereIsNoConspiracy" account on here a long time ago. I let that account go because I lost my PW for it (which sucked). I'm aware that the FAA got the military to get fighters in the air. I'll have to read his interview, thanks for the url!

You're too much of a nice person to say "piss off". However I'd tell that to a Truther! LOL!

[Reheat]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

Actually, this did happen to Flight 77. The hijackers turned the transponder off, and after their turn they managed to get into a small corridor of airspace where no secondary (i.e. "active", not transponder-only) existed.

There's only one minor correction to your otherwise excellent written piece.

AA 77 was actually under primary radar coverage the entire time. However, primary coverage was not available to the controllers in the one particular sector controlling him at Indy. By the time help was requested from another sector, they were all looking in the wrong place and presumed he had crashed.

This is very important because AA 77 had total radar coverage for it's entire flight and can be tracked by either secondary radar until the transponder was turned off and primary radar (after the fact) all the way from after take-off at Dulles until abeam the Sheraton Hotel on it's approach to the Pentagon.

Our John Farmer has put together the entire track that's only missing one return (one radar antenna sweep) for it's entire trip as noted above. I don't have handy access to that file (perhaps someone can locate and post it).

Note: The technical reason for no primary coverage was due to what is known as "sort boxes" which is a software selection of what radars the scope position has available to the radar display. It's purpose is to cut down the "clutter" the controller has to view. The specific reason for the omission of primary coverage at that position at Indy was because the FAA was intending to go Secondary Radar ONLY on Jet Routes (above FL 180) until 9/11. That plan was canceled after the experience on 9/11.

As has already been noted the FAA has no primary radar height finding capability, the military does.

[ElMondoHummus]

Thank you, Reheat, for the correction. It's this sort of detail that someone outside the profession (like me) simply can't remember.

[Algebra34]

Primary radar only tracks skinpaint. It's not identification. That's WHY they have transponders. That's why the planes on 9/11 either turned off or changed codes. To avoid detection. The ATC didn't even know flight 77 was flight 77 right before it hit the Pentagon according to the official version.

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by Algebra34

Primary radar only tracks skinpaint. It's not identification. That's WHY they have transponders. That's why the planes on 9/11 either turned off or changed codes. To avoid detection. The ATC didn't even know flight 77 was flight 77 right before it hit the Pentagon according to the official version.

Yes, this is correct. It was only after the fact that the flightpath was reconstructed.

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by Algebra34

Primary radar only tracks skinpaint. It's not identification. That's WHY they have transponders. That's why the planes on 9/11 either turned off or changed codes. To avoid detection. The ATC didn't even know flight 77 was flight 77 right before it hit the Pentagon according to the official version.

show us the huge gaps in the reconstructed flight paths genius. or is this more of your personal incredulity?


got anything else?

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by parky76

radar blips cannot and do not identify flight # or altitude.

i may be wrong about the altitude part but I think I'm right. isn't radar two dimensional?

The FAA uses six different types of Long Range Primary Surveillance Radar. They are: ARSR-1E, ARSR-2, ARSR-3, ARSR-4, FPS-20, and FPS-117.

Of these, only the ARSR-4 is three dimensional and capable of height-finding - the others detect only slant range and azimuth.

The ARSR-4 radars are used exclusively for the Joint Surveillance System, which is a joint-department surveillance network on the perimeter of the USA. Feeds are sent to both the Department of Defense and the FAA. However only the DOD actually processes the height-finding data as it is generally not required for FAA duties.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Reheat

There's only one minor correction to your otherwise excellent written piece.

AA 77 was actually under primary radar coverage the entire time. However, primary coverage was not available to the controllers in the one particular sector controlling him at Indy. By the time help was requested from another sector, they were all looking in the wrong place and presumed he had crashed.

This is very important because AA 77 had total radar coverage for it's entire flight and can be tracked by either secondary radar until the transponder was turned off and primary radar (after the fact) all the way from after take-off at Dulles until abeam the Sheraton Hotel on it's approach to the Pentagon.

Our John Farmer has put together the entire track that's only missing one return (one radar antenna sweep) for it's entire trip as noted above. I don't have handy access to that file (perhaps someone can locate and post it).

Note: The technical reason for no primary coverage was due to what is known as "sort boxes" which is a software selection of what radars the scope position has available to the radar display. It's purpose is to cut down the "clutter" the controller has to view. The specific reason for the omission of primary coverage at that position at Indy was because the FAA was intending to go Secondary Radar ONLY on Jet Routes (above FL 180) until 9/11. That plan was canceled after the experience on 9/11.

As has already been noted the FAA has no primary radar height finding capability, the military does.

Just a nitpick, Reheat, the above isn't completely correct either. It wasn't the sector that was handling AA77 that was at issue - it was the sort box that AA77 was located in at the time. Only one radar site is ever assigned as preferred for a given sort box (except in a few rare double-preferred cases) with one more as the alternate and 3 and 4 as back ups. However site assignment is based on secondary radar coverage, not primary radar coverage.

Where AA77 was located, the preferred site was beacon-only, and did not have a primary radar. As a result, the radar data processor doesn't send through primary coverage for that site.

However, all of the data received by the radar data processor is recorded, which includes data from the alternative site, the 3rd and 4th back up sites, and any other site which might happen to cross that sort box. This is how it could later be constructed.

None of the sectors at Indy could have seen AA77 because the same processing applies for every sector. Regardless of which sector was looking for AA77, that particular sort box was assigned to a beacon-only site, and all primary radar was binned.

[Obviousman]

Slight thread hijack, but the discussion reminded me that some people are unaware that back in the old days (when dinosaurs walked the Earth) we didn't use radar at all. It was called procedural control and we used altitude / azimuth from a NAVAID / time to separate aircraft. Radar allowed you to handle more traffic by applying reduced separation standards. SSR was for use with primary radar only, and was not allowed to be used as the sole or primary method of identification / tracking.

My air traffic course was the first to undergo training in radar control from the start; previously it was only taught on the advanced course you did a few years later.

[sylvan8798]

Originally Posted by parky76

we were caught with our pants down. this is something 9-11 Truthers just refuse to accept..that the Great USA could get caught with its pants down. its very naive, very Ameri-centric, and highly ignorant.

young children believe that their parents are God-like, unable to do wrong. even if they are bad people, children still think their parents are perfect, and can do no wrong. some of this is happening with the Truthers.

That's because in the movies some studly guy like Stallone/Seagal/Van Damme/Willis, et al, comes along and discovers the "nefarious plot" and secretly takes over the plane/train/ship/building and there is lots of dramatic slicing/dicing/shooting/ broken glass and lots of time for them to get everything under control and achieve a happy and satisfying ending - usually involving a pretty flight attendant/playboy playmate/estranged wife...

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by sylvan8798

That's because in the movies some studly guy like Stallone/Seagal/Van Damme/Willis, et al, comes along and discovers the "nefarious plot" and secretly takes over the plane/train/ship/building and there is lots of dramatic slicing/dicing/shooting/ broken glass and lots of time for them to get everything under control and achieve a happy and satisfying ending - usually involving a pretty flight attendant/playboy playmate/estranged wife...

yup. there was no Hollywood ending on 9-11. even the take-over of 93 is not a Hollywood ending..since everyone died.

the truthers have been watching too many movies..where the good guys win in the end..and the Great USA is victorious!!

sorry truthers, this is the real world.

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by Algebra34

Primary radar only tracks skinpaint. It's not identification. That's WHY they have transponders. That's why the planes on 9/11 either turned off or changed codes. To avoid detection. The ATC didn't even know flight 77 was flight 77 right before it hit the Pentagon according to the official version.

is there anyway that a plane (plane A) could turn of its transponder and another (say a drone plane) put the code of plane A into its transponder and basically turn into plane A?

that gets into the whole drone plane conspiracy....

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Originally Posted by Algebra34

Primary radar only tracks skinpaint. It's not identification. That's WHY they have transponders. That's why the planes on 9/11 either turned off or changed codes. To avoid detection. The ATC didn't even know flight 77 was flight 77 right before it hit the Pentagon according to the official version.

WRONG! Skinpaint makes no difference if the design of the plane isn't stealth.

The ATC knew where it was going. Other planes in the vincinity saw Flight 77 including Pilot Lt. Col Steve O'Brian who flew the C-130 of the Minnesota National Guard:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Obviousman]

Slight correction, Chewy. An experienced operator can tell a large aircraft from a small aircraft using primary return only; the RCS of each will be different and so the screen display will be different.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Originally Posted by Obviousman

Slight correction, Chewy. An experienced operator can tell a large aircraft from a small aircraft using primary return only; the RCS of each will be different and so the screen display will be different.

Right! Thanks for that slight correction!

[Obviousman]

When we have over 100 witnesses, why is this even still being discussed? People SAW the airliner fly into the Pentagon. Anyone who disputes that is, frankly, an idiot.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Originally Posted by Obviousman

When we have over 100 witnesses, why is this even still being discussed? People SAW the airliner fly into the Pentagon. Anyone who disputes that is, frankly, an idiot.

So the next bunch of idiots can understand that it was Flight 77 & nothing imaginary like a "cruise missile".

Truthers often target gullible high school & college kids.

[Reheat]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

is there anyway that a plane (plane A) could turn of its transponder and another (say a drone plane) put the code of plane A into its transponder and basically turn into plane A?

that gets into the whole drone plane conspiracy....

I probably shouldn't even address this, but just to illustrate silly twoofer thinking, I will.

What's the "Rest of the story"? How did the drone escape detection prior to this imaginary event? What kind of drone was it and where did it go? Where did the original AA 77 go after this imaginary event occurred? Why didn't American Airlines recognize this happened via ACARS instead of realizing their aircraft proceeded to and crashed into the Pentagon? How did the drone rendezvous with AA 77? Who made the phone calls describing a hijacking as AA 77 approached the Pentagon? How did the wreckage of AA77 along with crew and passenger DNA end up in the Pentagon?

Others can add to this if so inclined.

Once you fully answer all of these questions and provide evidence indicating that this occurred perhaps your idea can be discussed. Until then why are you not one of the idiots now under discussion?

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by Reheat

I probably shouldn't even address this, but just to illustrate silly twoofer thinking, I will.

What's the "Rest of the story"? How did the drone escape detection prior to this imaginary event? What kind of drone was it and where did it go? Where did the original AA 77 go after this imaginary event occurred? Why didn't American Airlines recognize this happened via ACARS instead of realizing their aircraft proceeded to and crashed into the Pentagon? How did the drone rendezvous with AA 77? Who made the phone calls describing a hijacking as AA 77 approached the Pentagon? How did the wreckage of AA77 along with crew and passenger DNA end up in the Pentagon?

Others can add to this if so inclined.

Once you fully answer all of these questions and provide evidence indicating that this occurred perhaps your idea can be discussed. Until then why are you not one of the idiots now under discussion?

i was reading some research that a group by the name of team8plus did. they talk about the transponders being shut off right beside areas with no primary radar coverage. that would be the best place to put drones in play.

some conclusions from their research:

"Within the area that the hijackings took place, there are two areas with no primary radar coverage that stretch up towards Canada.
Flight 11 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no primary radar coverage.
Flight 77 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no primary radar coverage.
Flight 93 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no primary radar coverage.
United Flight 175 switched off its transponder next to United Flight 93.
We have two incidences where a hijacked plane came very close to a non-hijacked plane. (What are the odds?) Flight 11(hijacked) meets Flight 175 (not hijacked). Flight 175 (hijacked) meets Flight 93 (Not Hijacked)."

http://www.team8plus.org/the-movement/radar/Radar.htm

[Senenmut]

here is a map that is of interest.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Senenmut, if there was drones, mind if I ask where's the evidence?

[Reheat]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

i was reading some research that a group by the name of team8plus did. they talk about the transponders being shut off right beside areas with no primary radar coverage. that would be the best place to put drones in play.

I see that you didn't answer any of my questions. Ring me up when you do.

[TexasJack]

The drone theory sounds more absurd than the CIT crap, who thinks of this nonsense?

[Obviousman]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

is there anyway that a plane (plane A) could turn of its transponder and another (say a drone plane) put the code of plane A into its transponder and basically turn into plane A?

Yes. It's just a code. Even though, there is absolutely no evidence that it happened. Until someone can come up with evidence - not speculation, not conjecture but proof - then it is not worth considering when compared to factual data.

[ElMondoHummus]

The errors in this proposal are ridiculous. First of all, FL175 did not turn off it's transponder; the hijackers changed the code to something else (a nonsense code, if I recall correctly; someone please correct me if I'm wrong). It was tracked the entire way. Only FL77 was in an area where primary radar was not available to the concerned ATC center. And that is not the same not being under primary radar coverage at all; it merely means that the Indianapolis Center controllers could not see the craft on their screens. John Farmer's data reconstruction establishes that it was indeed within radar coverage the entire time.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter whether jets were "next to" areas with no primary coverage. They remained in areas with coverage, and were painted the entire time; the difficulties the controllers had with finding the aircraft had to do with the difficulty in identifying unlabeled blips on a highly cluttered screen in real time while not knowing what was going on. Post event reconstruction built from radar records definitively shows all aircraft from origin to impact. So unless conspiracy peddlers want to assert that the aircraft that left the runways were drones, they have no argument.

On top of all of that, to argue drones, you have to argue remote control. And that ridiculous idea was firmly squashed some time ago.

Even without the radar data, you have recovered debris as well as eyewitnesses and video recordings of the New York Impacts. You have eyewitnesses, recovered debris, recovered DNA evidence, and FDR data for FL77. And I need to renew my knowledge on FL93, but there is a multitude of data definitively identifying it. The notion that drones were substituted for the flights makes zero sense and is entirely and definitively contradicted by the entirety of the evidence that exists.

This proposal is DOA.


Further reading:

• NTSB Flight path studies: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/
• Separate link to United 93's flight path study (I don't know why it's not listed on the GWU.edu page; the UA93 report there is the FDR one): http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight%20_P...Study_UA93.pdf
• Gumboot's 9/11 timeline: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61752
• 911 Myths hosting of the radar based timeline for FL 77: http://www.911myths.com/images/4/4c/...d-Timeline.pdf
• 911 Myths hosting of the radar based timeline for Flights 11 and 175: http://www.911myths.com/images/4/4c/...d-Timeline.pdf
• Gravy's page linking FAA and NTSB information: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/nora...abilities,pilo