IPBFacebook




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Aa11 Tracked All The Way To Steel..., FAA tracking systems...

Robin Hordon
post Dec 5 2006, 04:19 AM
Post #1





Group: Guest
Posts: 99
Joined: 2-December 06
Member No.: 274



Its been a few years but I trained the Boston Center personel on the new RDP, Radar Data Processing, the new radar scopes, and new[old] IBM computers systems and programs way back when. This was when we went from the REALLY old broadband radars into computerized displays....I suspect that a few things may have changed in the tracking systems, but most of the basic characteristics remain the same. If not, someone can always get the computer files and just chime in whenever they want. My ego can take it...

Pilots...I'm not writing this just for you...there may be others without your background who need to be informed about some basics that y'all take for granted.

The way I see "parts" of AA11's flight and handling...

Much has been made of the second or Phantom AA11 "coasting track" that was seen approaching the DC area after AA11 "the aircraft"...had already hit WTC1. It is said that his was very confusing to official personnel...but I postulate its really not so because trained ATC types would recognize this track and do something about it well north of DC.

In fact, the existence of the south-soutwestbound "track" for AA11 after the "aircraft" AA11 hit WTC1 tower, tells a very "interesting story" that may become very troubling to the "official story" . Actually, AA11's continuing track may be a huge bit of "information" cleverly leaked out by the FAA air traffic control personel that day. We will see...

Therfore, for the opposite of official reasons, much should be made of this "phantom flight", AA11's full data block and track that went into coast mode after it passed WTC1 on its way to DC.

Its a mathematical thing: If A=B and B=C, then A=C...just the simple basics.

If the track for AA11 was still heading south-southwest bound heading in a "straight line" towards DC and south of Manhattan while in the coast mode indicating that it had LOST its target to track...that means...

That at one time this track was ACTIVELY following something headed south-southwestbound in a straight line from some point NORTH of its current location near DC, like somewhere up toward the Manhattan area...perhaps even north of Manahattan...like in the Albany NY area...[straightish] NNE-SSW shot to DC...a bit west...

And if a huge airliner holding the same flight number, AA11, was creating a strong primary target and was also heading south towards Manhattan FROM the Albany NY area at nearly the same time...and if...

Both the "track" for AA11 and the "aircraft" AA11 were over or near Manhattan at approximately the same time and they were going southbound...and then...

If when they were both over Manhattan the large primary target, AA11, the "airplane", stopped flying southbound because it hit WTC1...and the "track" for AA11 kept going southbound in its mandated "straight line" towards DC seeking its missing primary target but...

If the "track" AA11 searched for its primary target but eventually went into "straight line" coast mode because it couldn't find AA11, "the plane"...well then...

One must conclude that both the "track" for AA11 and the "airplane" AA11 were at one time both heading south-southwestbound from the Albany NY area toward Manhattan and that they were indeed co-joined as AA11, "the airplane" and AA11 "the track".

And of course, since the "track" of AA11 and the "airplane" AA11 were co-joined north of Manhattan, one must conclude that AA11 was indeed tracked by the FAA, and or someone all the way to WTC1 because...

How could the controller start a track on a target that he or he couldn't find north of Albany?

Well, that's because they never lost tracking in the first place...it was difficult and I'm betting that they were reaching out to ADC/NORAD...but sector-to-sector, and they desparately followed AA11 all the way to WTC1 as they tried to get some fighters there.

Getting back to "A" in this scenario...AA11 "the airplane" stopped at WTC1...and AA11 "the track" headed south towards DC...which is where we picked up this story.

However, in order to make this MADNESS of mine actually work out, there has to be proof that the wide body of AA11, a Boeing 757 had been seen by radar from take-off to crash.

Conveniently enough, the Federal Government has given us such proof in its addendum showing AA11 tracked by radars from take-off to landing...imagine that?

OK, lets fill in a few bits of background here...

Understanding some of this requires a few bits of knowledge.

First the differences between types of targets...one an electronic target created by a transponder on board the aircraft, and the other a primary radar target.

Second about the huge differences between an actual aircraft "target" and the automated "tracks" and alpha numerics created by computer systems which are designed to automatically, or semi-automatically SEARCH FOR, and "track" aircraft through the air. Mostly ARTCC's...

Third, its important to know about how the FAA's flight tracking system works in conjunction with a beacon target, a primary target and a computer flight plan.

FIRST...the diiference in target types...there are basically two types.

PRIMARY RADAR
The simplest to understand and the old "standby" is a target generated by the sides of aircraft reflecting back, or "bouncing in return" the raw signals emitted by a basic radar sweep. We most often see this radar in older movies and the like where there is a round green screen and we can see a bright line sweeping round and around occasionally finding a "target" which shows up as a "blip".

SECONDARY RADAR, or a transponder, or its called a beacon sometimes..
The second type of radar is actually a radio signal sent back to the radar site by a small radio-type transmitter in the airplane. This signal is also sent in response to a signal from a "different type" of radar antenna at the same sites and this return signal can carry codes and information back to the radar site.

The SECONDARY or transponder radar targets are much, much better because they can be more powerful, and can carry a specific code that helps the FAA tracking sytem "find" the specific aircraft amongst all others.

The PRIMARY radar is used primarily in emergency events when the transponders have failed or there are electrical or other problems on board the aircraft. The primary radar target provides no special identify features or codes that assist the FAA's radar tracking systems. Tracking can be accomplished, it just requires more attention by the controller.

SECOND...the diiference between an aircraft target and the information and tracking capabilities of a "track" used to follow that target.

An aircraft target has been explained above and is either a primary target or a secondary target utilizing a transponder. The reason that I have repeated this here is to establish that a target is an airplane and that a 'track" is a computer generated alpha-numeric display AND at ARTCC's, includes a system of "searching for" specific targets. This critical to AA11.

THIRD...the Enroute flight searching/tracking system...and alpha-numeric displays...

Tracking is very different in smaller approach control and terminal radar control facilities [TRACON's] and this report only deals with ENROUTE tracking systems.

An ENROUTE tracking system creates a small "search box" and projects it ahead of the aircraft its tracking at a place where the computer tracking "thinks" the target will be on the next radar sweep or refresh. Usually the target will be within this "search box" and the tracking system will "jump" the alpha-numeric data block right onto that new location. This is easy and efficient for the tracking system.

For a primary target, the tracking system has to work very hard to find a primary target in this system beacuse the "search box" may "see" or contain a few other aircraft that are also primary targets...and the searching program has trouble distinguishing them apart. But keeping identification with a primary target is manageable...but its a far more difficult task because the controller must be more vigilant and keep track of the primary target and the track him or herself by manually placing the track exactly where they can see the confirmed primary target.

Conversely, an aircraft with a transponder is far easier for the "search box" and tracking programs to work with. This is because the "search box" for the aircraft with a transponder looks for a specific code from that transponder and sees it more easily, and more definitely because even though there may be other aircraft are within that search box, there is only one aircraft with that code.

The tracking system learns where to "project" the "search box" for the aircraft based upon a straight line drawn between the last two radar recordings or coordinates for the aircraft. A line drawn between two coordinates shows the projected COURSE the aircraft will fly, and by measuring the distance between the last two radar coordinates and applying "time", the computer generates ground speed and projects the distance along the straight line that the "search box" should center itself. There are some features where upon "departure" the computer is ready to "look for" a specific transponder code just before an aircraft gets airbourne. This activates the flight plan down the line to destination AND in some instances creates the "search box" at the airport and tracking can automatically begin. Landing is a different story and its really important in all of these hijacks.

There are two ways to end the "tracking system" associated with an airplane and flight plan. One is to make a manual computer entry cancelling the program, the other can be an automatic cancellation once an aircraft reaches its dstination and nears landing at the updated time of arrival. This feature is also very important regarding these four flights. There could be no automatic cancellation of the "search boxes" and the flight tracks of these four aircraft because none ever made it NEAR their destinations. So, if the tracks were ended, it was done by controller input.

The next journey into "coast tracks" combines several aspects explained above.

A "coast track" is an alpha-numeric track with the usual flight identification data within it...but NO TARGET...no airplane. A track goes into coast when it has not been cancelled, yet finds no qualifying airplane target within its "search box". Consequently, the "track has no solid chance to upgrade itself because it needs to find an airplane to move itself to. "Coast tracks" are called such because lacking any "real world" and actual target or airplane, it knows where to "coast to" and what speed to "coast there at" based only upon its last TWO known target locations which can be tens and hundreds of miles behind the track. There is a special symbol displayed when a track is in coast...I believe that its the # sign where the target should be. Again, the coast track considers its next positioning of the "search box" as a function of previous affirmed radar strikes...but if there is no airplane target, the data block continues along this established track ...coasting...and still looking for a target. Consequently, a coast track, if not noticed, may coast right out of your radar display and go on forever...sorta. This is what I POSTULATE happened to AA11's track that passed by Manhattan after the "target" or aircraft, AA11 crashed.


My conclusion, if AA11 "the track" made it to Manhattan...and AA11 "the plane" made it to Manhattan, then AA11 the "airplane" was "tracked" to Manhattan...all the way.

So, why was it again that ADC/NORAD didn't know where AA11 was until it was 35 miles north of JFK? Somebody had to have trcked AA11 to a point 35 miles north of JFK. If not, then that was one hell of a random guess out of the blue. I bet the entire set of FAA air traffic sector controller tapes would tell the real story.

I fully believe that the ZBW controllers WERE trying to get hold of Rummie's Pentagon staff...but couldn't...

I believe that if we got all sector controller tapes, conducted personal interviews, and got all the recorded "tracking" information that the FAA/FBI are still denying us, there would be different story told for 9/11.

It is possible that the ZBW controller who was in charge of the "track" for AA11 not only was able to track it all the way, but after it went into coast, may have let it keep on going south-southwestbound in the same direction that it was headed when it approached Manhattan from the north. Somebody would find it...still going south-southwest.

We ned information to be released
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
George Hayduke
post Dec 6 2006, 01:41 PM
Post #2


Got aliens?


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,052
Joined: 21-October 06
Member No.: 120



Hey Robin, I've got a room in this hallway about the F11 path that goes from NY to DC. Interesting stuff, indeed. Note that top Pentagon brass told both the NY Times and the AP on 912 that they had tracked what they called "F77" from NY to DC.

Here's what I've compiled after scavening Thompson's timeline.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...p?showtopic=882

Anyway, pilots and FAA radar geeks, Flight Controlers, et al were gagged that day and afterwards because of all the errant blips and paths on their radar screens. At one time, something like 22 "hijacks" were reported. This could be a conservative #. FTW and CTR, both essentially by Ruppert, have Cheney in the PEOC inserting blips on FAA, NORAD, NEADS, Secret Service, and Pentagon radar screens as part of the military exercises that day, exercises that a CENTCOM lieutenant has said were "all hijacks."

As you probably know, I'm an NPT/NBBT guy. So this discussion is of particular interest to me.

This post has been edited by George Hayduke: Dec 6 2006, 01:44 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Robin Hordon
post Dec 6 2006, 08:15 PM
Post #3





Group: Guest
Posts: 99
Joined: 2-December 06
Member No.: 274



Hayduke...thanks for the Thompson Timeline info...

So, the entry at 9:21AM says:

"...Boston Center was never tracking Flight 11 on radar AFTER [caps added] loosing sight of it near Manhattan..."

Two things and a question...

1. Clearly we now know that AA11 was tracked 99%of the way to WTC1 by Boston Center.

2. That someone within NEADS/NORAD "KNEW" the information about what Boston Center was doing for AA11's flight, means that there was inter-facility communications between NORAD/NEADS/ADC and the Boston Center PREVIOUS to that time...but they are not telling us "exactly" when that communication time was, nor do they tell us what control or supervisory position was involved in this conversation.

Question:

Which CIVILIAN ATC sector or FAA supervisory position was involved with this communcation sharing the tracking status of AA11 to just north of Manhattan, and what was the exact time of that communication?

Again, I have some information that the Boston Center reached out to Otis Approach around 8:20AM to discuss AA11. This is an indication that the Boston center controllers KNEW at that time that AA11 was in trouble. I further postulate that the ZBW control staff reached out to Otis Approach because they could get no respnse from Rummie's military who were not answering their calls BEFORE Otis was called. Now, if this is true, no wonder the FEDS have locked up all the tapes and Rummie had his boys manufacture other "tapes" as presented in the Vanity Fair sham.

Just think of the problems Rummie would have IF it were true that the FIRST notification to NORAD had been prior to 8:20AM. To me, wether or not it was a "formal" notification, or an "informal" notification is irrelevant to me. If the concerns that the ZBW controller had were successfully transmitted to ADC/NORAD just before 8:20AM and as in past practices, the interceptors were shortly put on active ready, and then launched [it was an airliner in trouble...hijacked or not], AA11 would have been intercepted just north of Manahattan. Here is my rough scramble timeline to the north end of Manhattan:

8:20 notification...
8:24 fighters strating if not started and fired up...
8:26 off the ground...
8:36-40...over Manhattan

Now, IF the ZBW controller were dilligent as usual and at around 8:14-15 am had put a quick call into the local NEADS/ADC/NORAD controller/observer as soon as there were danger signs about AA11, and the scrambling preparationsbegan at that time, the math gets even better.

AND, if interceptors were scrambled from Andrews and headed north, northeast right into AA11 who was southbound then...it even gets better than that!

The tapes would tell...as would personal interviews with ZBW control and supervisory staff.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
p.w.rapp
post Dec 7 2006, 01:04 AM
Post #4





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,744
Joined: 19-October 06
From: European Protectorate
Member No.: 110



worthy.gif

Robin Hordon you're an asset to the TM. Very interesting read.
Someone save that thread securely - it might be needed as evidence at a court trial.



biggrin.gif George Heyduke "I'm an NPT/NBBT guy" biggrin.gif

I (erroneously) believed at the beginning, you were a NPT-guy!
Now you know, that I started as “PT-guy”. Under your influence I am heading towards “PT/NBBT” wink.gif
Sorry, OT
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pinnacle
post Dec 7 2006, 06:54 PM
Post #5





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 276
Joined: 14-November 06
Member No.: 242



According to the Tom Brokaw interview with Boston controllers who first noticed problems with Flight 11 they began moving other planes out it's way at 8:20 am and considered it to be a "runaway plane". At that point NORAD NEADS in Rome , New York should have seen on it's own radar scopes what was happening and could monitor the radio transmissions of all the planes being orderded out of the way.
NORAD at Griffiss AFB was on exactly the flight path Flight 11 had turned toward when it went of it off course which should have raised suspicions with transponder being turned off and all the radio traffic concerning it. None of this should have required a phone call from the FAA.
Since the pilot of Flight 11 was an air force veteran he would have known where NORAD was located and may have still been flying at that point deliberately
trying to get NORAD's attention. It makes no sense for the hijackers to have turned
northwest when they wanted to go south to New York.
Fighters at Syracuse might not have been "on alert" but could have been sent up within ten minutes in an unarmed mode yet were not. Since a "traditional hijack" did not require a shootdown but merely an intercept and tailing five miles behind why bring in armed fighters from Otis when Syracuse was much closer to Flight 11
and unarmed planes were all that was necessary under standard hijack procedures?
Once unarmed fighters were up with on-board targeting radar to lock onto the hijacked planes it would be easy to vector in the armed fighters if necessary.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JackD
post Dec 12 2006, 06:22 PM
Post #6





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 295
Joined: 13-November 06
Member No.: 238



AA11 turned off its transponder in an area of poor primary radar coverage.


13:31: American Airlines Flight 11 (AA11) last transmission with Boston Air Traffic Control (ATC).

8:13:32 to 8:20: AA11 goes off course and is hijacked.

8:20: AA 11 transponder signal stops.

8:36: NORAD spokesman, Major Mike Snyder, confirmed that the FAA notified NORAD of AA 11 hijacking.

8:38: Boston ATC notifies NORAD that AA11 has been hijacked.

8:39: AA11 flies directly over our # 1 terrorist target, Indian Point nuclear stations.

8:40: FAA notifies NORAD that AA11 has been hijacked.

8:43: FAA notifies NORAD that United Airlines Flight 175 (UA175) has been hijacked.

8:46:26: AA11 impacts the North Tower of the WTC between the 94th and 98th floors.

---------

AA11 essentially is 'disappeared' after its transponder is off. Even if a track is picked up again, it is without transponder, and remains an unidentified craft -- a 'best guess'

It remains possible that the craft that got picked up again on radar, that later crashed into WTC, or didnt, was indeed Ogonowski's AA11 plane.

It is also possible that the new signal on primary radar was off a different plane entirely, that emerged out of the upper NY valleys or from Griffiss AFB or from Stewart AFB>

Read Operation Northwoods again for a blueprint for a plane swap drill with drone, circa 1962.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JackD
post Jan 9 2007, 01:13 PM
Post #7





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 295
Joined: 13-November 06
Member No.: 238



it would appear that AA77 and AA11 were similar in that their transponder went off, they went into "coast" as a radar track, and then, at some point, the signal was 'picked up again' as a primary target and ASSUMED to be the same commercial craft as was in "coast" -- based on the projections of speed and trajectory.

ain't necessarily so.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Culper721
post Nov 7 2007, 05:31 PM
Post #8





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 210
Joined: 2-January 07
Member No.: 396



QUOTE (Robin Hordon @ Dec 5 2006, 04:19 AM)
I fully believe that the ZBW controllers WERE trying to get hold of Rummie's Pentagon staff...but couldn't...

I believe that if we got all sector controller tapes, conducted personal interviews, and got all the recorded "tracking" information that the FAA/FBI are still denying us, there would be  different story told for 9/11.

Robin,

Quick question:

Why do you 'believe' the controllers were attempting to contact Rumsfeld in lieu of following normal procedures; i.e. contacting RCC per 10-5-2?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
honway
post Nov 19 2007, 05:52 PM
Post #9





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 61
Joined: 18-November 07
Member No.: 2,493



Virginia company tracks terror flights

15:26 EDT Tuesday Taylor Lincoln

Potomac Tech Journal

A Fairfax, Va., company that tracks and records the flight paths of airplanes has released dramatic animated illustrations of the flight path of the Boston-Los Angeles American Airlines flight that is believed to be the first plane to crash into the World Trade Center Tuesday morning.

The recording by Flight Explorer, a Fairfax-based subsidiary of Alexandria, Va.-based Flight Dimensions International Inc., shows the path of American Airlines Flight 11 heading west from Boston, then making an abrupt left turn in the vicinity of Albany, N.Y., and heading due south to New York City.

The plane crashed into the World Trade Center at about 8:45 a.m., about 15 minutes before a separate commercial plane crashed into the other World Trade Center tower.

The illustrations were depicted through a series of digital radar images that play back in a computer browser. Flight Explorer planned later Tuesday to distribute animated illustrations of the three other commercial flights that crashed Tuesday morning, said Jeff Krawczyk, chief operating officer of Flight Explorer.

Flight Explorer, which received requests for the illustrations from about 12 news agencies including all the major networks, also has learned that a United Airlines plane bound from Newark to San Francisco that crashed near Pittsburgh, Pa., at 10:10 a.m. had its flight path diverted. The flight was changed to arrive at Reagan National Airport, in Northern Virginia, Krawczyk said.

"When it got outside of Pittsburgh, it actually had a flight plan change to DCA," said Krawczyk said. "We hardly ever get a flight plan change. Very unusual."

Until the past few years, Flight Explorer was the only company that recorded flight paths and received frequent requests from the Federal Aviation Administration for recordings of flights, Krawczyk said.

After the death of golfer Payne Stewart in 1999, the FAA began recording flight paths, Krwczyk said. The company had not heard from the FAA by Tuesday afternoon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
honway
post Nov 19 2007, 06:03 PM
Post #10





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 61
Joined: 18-November 07
Member No.: 2,493



The FAA never "lost" American Airlines Flight 11.


This is a gif representative of the real time data that Flight Explorer recorded
on Flight 11 on 9/11/2001. Flight Explorer receives it's data from the FAA. The information below was first presented on CNN by Miles O'Brien on 9/11/2001 around one or two p.m. The CNN coverage of this information is available in the archives linked below:

http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive



This post has been edited by honway: Nov 19 2007, 06:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 21 2007, 07:19 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



My work on the UA175 USAF 84 RADES .XLS data also led to some interesting findings on AA11. I graphed the velocity from Lat/Lon data and the "altitude changes" in Excel.

I'd like to see some independent verification of my charts if possible.

AA11's altitude changes were "interesting" from takeoff to 08:05:04 EDT, then fairly "normal," then very interesting from 08:22:26 until 08:30:02.

The last portion of the data indicates a dive of ~-33 feet/second at WTC1, except for a large anomaly at 08:45:01.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Nov 23 2007, 01:36 PM
Post #12





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,125
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 21 2007, 07:19 PM)
The last portion of the data indicates a dive of ~-33 feet/second at WTC1, except for a large anomaly at 08:45:01.

What is interesting to me: the data show that consistent pattern of the altitude changes in that 33ft "steps". Is it the result of computation or is it like that actually in the data?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 23 2007, 02:00 PM
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Nov 23 2007, 01:36 PM)
What is interesting to me: the data show that consistent pattern of the altitude changes  in that 33ft "steps". Is it the result of computation or is it like that actually in the data?

The "Height" data appears to have a 400 foot resolution "increment" in my review. Dividing by the ~12 second radar "sweep interval," this gives many +/-33 and +/-66 fps intervals.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 24 2007, 10:47 AM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Update: Tume recently asked me about analyzing different radar station locations. The NOR station (North Truro, MA) only gave returns for AA11 from approx. 08:00:00 to 08:03:00. The remaining returns were taken at RIV (Riverhead, NY) for AA11, and splitting these data groups made little difference in my analysis.

Sorting the data did show a large discrepancy between the NOR and "early" RIV "Height", but the "Mode 3 Altitudes" & NOR "Height" had very good agreement during the 36 second "overlap period." (RIV "Height" appears the most suspect).

This post has been edited by dMole: Nov 24 2007, 11:04 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Nov 24 2007, 06:36 PM
Post #15





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,125
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 24 2007, 10:47 AM)
Sorting the data did show a large discrepancy between the NOR and "early" RIV "Height", but the "Mode 3 Altitudes" & NOR "Height" had very good agreement during the 36 second "overlap period." (RIV "Height" appears the most suspect).

Hi dMole,

The RIV Height could be also explained that The RIV doesn't see there well on low altitudes.

But I just have found a striking anomaly about AA11 just before crash. I'm quite puzzled. It looks like there could be a second plane at 102000+ft (... probably a military one) around. One could see it at the GIB radar at time 12:45:13:640 and further . Just AA11 shows at RIV radar the height 3200ft, but at GIB 102000ft. I checked many planes passing that same place during whole 2 hours, but no one shows the Height read anomaly at GIB radar, except just in the same time when AA11 was passing, many planes around -M3:2231, M3:0416, M3:2336, M3:6676, M36231... were suddenly all at height 102000ft, which ist probably the radar ceiling... It could be a cloud reflexion?, only problem is, that there were no clouds on 9/11, or some antiradar jamming?....
Check it out and tell me what you think

Tume
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 25 2007, 04:22 PM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



The original .XLS data from the .ISO shows no GIB radar return for AA11, so this .XLS must have been an "incomplete" AA11 data extraction by USAF 84 RADES (and reviewed? by the FBI and NTSB?) - hmmmm....

UA 93 shows a 98,000 foot "Mode C Altitude" at 08:56:02 EDT from DAN, and three 102,000 foot "Height" echoes from GIB around 09:21 EDT- maybe this is your mystery "plane" from the AA11 data.

This is soon before UA93 went "stealth" at 09:23:13 (according to the .XLS file "Height") at 36,400 AGL....

Then the UA93 "Mode C Altitude" continues on near 40,000 feet until 09:40:03. dunno.gif

I just downloaded the AA77 FDR data and will try to incorporate into my earlier charts for comparison- will advise when I find something conclusive (and the file server I'm using comes back up- hmmm.... ) AA77 also had one "Mode C Altitude" return at 58,500 AGL and a considerable "stealth" portion of its flight according to the .XLS...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Nov 25 2007, 10:33 PM
Post #17





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,160
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



dMole

98000 feet on Mode C? Sounds like an inject maybe. B)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JackD
post Nov 27 2007, 05:45 PM
Post #18





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 295
Joined: 13-November 06
Member No.: 238



no, can't be an "inject"

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access...6239581&FMT=ABS

according to Canadian NORAD official Mike Jelllinek, after the 2nd tower hit, all "Injects" or fake radar blips used in war game simulations were removed from NORAD radars.

according to Toronto Star (quoted in Ruppert) "All simulated information (so called "injects") were purged from computer screens at NORAD headquarters in Colorado."

oops my bad -- the injects were not purged until 9:03 am, according to Jellinek. so that leaves time for the full AA11 radar trace to also have injects and fake blips going on ....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wilbert
post Nov 28 2007, 04:20 PM
Post #19





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 24-December 06
Member No.: 364



QUOTE
oops my bad -- the injects were not purged until 9:03 am, according to Jellinek.

Where did you get this time (9:03 am) from?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pinnacle
post Dec 19 2007, 06:37 PM
Post #20





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 276
Joined: 14-November 06
Member No.: 242



Does anyone know why Flight 11 was instructed by Boston controllers
to turn 20 degrees north at 8:13:47 am?
Why would a plane headed southwest be told to turn north off course?
Also why does the radar data show Flight 11 moving north at 8:12 am
when the instruction came nearly two minutes later?
If Atta took control at 8:14 am why would he continue heading north
away from New York for another 13 minutes?
The 9/11 Report says that the flightpath was "normal" when Flight 11 was hijacked. But how could it be normal if they were 20 degrees off course
and heading for Canada?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd November 2017 - 04:16 AM