Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ American 11 _ Aa11 Tracked All The Way To Steel...

Posted by: Robin Hordon Dec 5 2006, 05:19 AM

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 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 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 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.

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 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

Posted by: George Hayduke Dec 6 2006, 02:41 PM

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.

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.

Posted by: Robin Hordon Dec 6 2006, 09:15 PM

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.


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 even gets better than that!

The tapes would would personal interviews with ZBW control and supervisory staff.

Posted by: Zapzarap Dec 7 2006, 02:04 AM


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

Posted by: pinnacle Dec 7 2006, 07:54 PM

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.

Posted by: JackD Dec 12 2006, 07:22 PM

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.

Posted by: JackD Jan 9 2007, 02:13 PM

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.

Posted by: Culper721 Nov 7 2007, 06:31 PM

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.


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?

Posted by: honway Nov 19 2007, 06:52 PM

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.

Posted by: honway Nov 19 2007, 07:03 PM

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:

Posted by: dMole Nov 21 2007, 08:19 PM

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.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Nov 23 2007, 02:36 PM

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?

Posted by: dMole Nov 23 2007, 03:00 PM

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.

Posted by: dMole Nov 24 2007, 11:47 AM

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).

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Nov 24 2007, 07:36 PM

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


Posted by: dMole Nov 25 2007, 05:22 PM

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...

Posted by: amazed! Nov 25 2007, 11:33 PM


98000 feet on Mode C? Sounds like an inject maybe. B)

Posted by: JackD Nov 27 2007, 06:45 PM

no, can't be an "inject"

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 ....

Posted by: Wilbert Nov 28 2007, 05:20 PM

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?

Posted by: pinnacle Dec 19 2007, 07:37 PM

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?

Posted by: amazed! Dec 19 2007, 10:51 PM

Because the government lies? yes1.gif

Posted by: woody Dec 20 2007, 04:20 PM

QUOTE (pinnacle @ Dec 19 2007, 11:37 PM)
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?

Probably because of this plane:

8:11:58 — 46R: AAL11, your traffic is at, uh, 2 o'clock 20 miles southwest-bound MD80 310.

Given the relative position of the MD80, a northern deviation would be better to avoid it than a southwest turn.

Posted by: dMole Dec 26 2007, 02:35 AM

I updated my charts from the USAF 84 RADES .XLS data (now sorted by radar station). The distance (and consequently velocity) should be more accurate using a Spherical Law of Cosines geodesic method. The few distances that I checked were within <= 0.25% compared to a Vicenty algorithm online. The Vicenty method claimed to have accuracy to +/- 0.5mm. Unfortunately, the Vicenty page appears to be down. I also added "Avg_5" velocity points that are an average of about 5 radar-derived velocities.

I also discovered a distance, range, azimuth calculator program that has altitude/slant correction on the RADES CD under :\rs3\3dRadarRngCalc.exe.

My updated AA11 charts are at:

Posted by: CocaineImportAgency Jan 26 2008, 03:18 AM

98000 feet on Mode C? Sounds like an inject maybe.

...i wish i knew what the f@ck you guys were on about!?!... makes me feel thick! doh1.gif

Posted by: dMole Jan 26 2008, 11:29 AM

Sorry CIA (gawd I hope that's the ONLY time I need to say that in my life wink.gif ),

For further reading, here's a little radar resource I put together (not linked on this thread yet):

Mode C is "Secondary Surveillance Radar" (SSR) that "squawks" things like aircraft identity, airspeed, and altitude data back to the FAA and USAF radar stations when everything is "operating normally." Mode C gives the best altitude data and plane location (when it is turned on and not futzed with, that is).

Ptech and/or PROMIS software allegedly has the capability to take over nearly any computer system (including FAA air traffic control computers) and do whatever the nefarious Ptech operator wishes or has skills to do (like "inject" false radar data on an air traffic screen, or erase a credit history, or create a criminal record, or...). DoD and the Secret Service [read Cheney] are reported to have Ptech software.

I believe that Ptech/PROMIS has been covered in some detail in Michael Ruppert's "Crossing The Rubicon," but Mike's credibility has been questioned by some here. I did find that Mike recently relocated to Venezuela and Canada, allegedly for health reasons, but draw your own conclusions here- I'm just the messenger.

I believe that "NORDO" is when an aircraft does not respond to FAA air traffic control (ATC) communication- generally cause for great alarm and scrambling fighter interceptors, unless it's 9/11/2001 and Cheney's in his "undisclosed secure location."

AA11 turned off its ModeC transponder at 08:20:14 EDT, 28 900 feet according to the USAF RADES radar data. Rades primary radar continues to track a plane that could LIKELY be AA11 until 08:45:48 at 2000 feet. The RADES data stops here. FAA radar data- who knows- it's "secret."

AA11 is the "best behaved" of all 4 flights according to RADES data, except for little things like 590 knots groundspeed at 08:07:16 EDT when the plane is at 14 700 feet Mode C altitude. There are many groundspeeds over 500 knots, and some over 600 knots (690 mph, or 1111 kph). That's awfully fast for a commercial Boeing, even at cruising altitude.

Up to about 17 000 feet, a Boeing transport is only supposed to go 350-360 knots (360 in the B767 case)- that is the V_mo, or maximum operating velocity. At cruising altitudes, the maximum speed is M_mo, or maximum operating mach, which is 0.86M for either B757 or B767.

At 20 000 feet, 0.86M is 528 knots
At 25 000 feet, it's 518 knots
At 30 000 feet, 507 knots (kts)
At 35 000 feet, 496 knots

The maximum operating ceiling for commercial Boeings is around 43 000 feet (if they can even get there when loaded in various atmospheric conditions). A B-2 "Stealth" bomber has a published ceiling around 50 000 feet. Most military fighter jets have a ceiling around 65 000 feet as I recall, and most things flying over 70 000 feet are likely to be classified- several exist though.

A mode C "squawked" altitude of 98 000 feet is pretty damned unlikely for a commercial Boeing, or an F-15, or an F-16, or a B-2, or...

Now as to how they got that alleged AA11 Boeing going over 600 knots groundspeed at 31 000 feet altitude (with 0.86Mach around 500 knots airspeed and a calm September day with little wind) right after the transponder was turned off, I'm at a bit of a loss. Jet engines don't generate a lot of thrust at that altitude, but the air drag is much less though than the altitude at say at the 96th floor of what was once WTC1. Then there is the "phantom AA11" radar track and Langley fighters after the North Tower WTC1 was hit...

There has been considerable hand-waving about aircraft velocities, but the RADES data was only released for AA11 and UA175 (plus AA77 and UA93) last October. I have seen what I needed to there, and my results were confirmed by 2 other people, one begrudgingly. My newest, more accurate velocity method has slightly faster velocities, on average.

This RADES data was done by the USAF at the request of the FBI [read federal law enforcement in a criminal investigation]. FBI didn't find the 98 000 foot Mode C as curious, or they didn't look at the data. AA77 and UA93 are much "wackier" than the AA11 data, too.

Posted by: CocaineImportAgency Jan 27 2008, 04:34 AM

...err!... i understood the "AA11 is the best behaved" bit!..... dunno.gif rolleyes.gif doh1.gif

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Jan 27 2008, 07:42 AM

QUOTE (CocaineImportAgency @ Jan 27 2008, 03:34 AM)
...err!... i understood the "AA11 is the best behaved" bit!.....  dunno.gif  rolleyes.gif  doh1.gif

Yes, the other planes misbehave in the Rades data even more crazy way than just fly way above Vmo at the cruising altitude. - They consistently fly above Vmo even in time before the alleged hijack (which I suppose the normal pilots with normal jetliner would not let happen) - and they fly above the Vmo while ascending! (I would like to see that throtle record..), many times they disappear from radar for long periods - even the radars (according to the deleted radar statistical evaluations deleted with John Farmers forum) should see them - ("AA77" and "UA93"), fly 576+mph! at 1000fts ("UA175"), sometimes look like two separate objects ("UA93" just before the "crash") - the two blips after reappearace from the "stealth" period - highlighted even by USAF who analyzed the data for FBI (they "ommited" another two blips further corroborating the assumption of two objects) ... etc. yes1.gif salute.gif

Posted by: dMole Jan 27 2008, 03:03 PM

QUOTE (CocaineImportAgency @ Jan 27 2008, 01:34 AM)
...err!... i understood the "AA11 is the best behaved" bit!.....  dunno.gif  rolleyes.gif  doh1.gif

I'll try again. It looks like several people have had similar questions.

Here's the picture that goes along with this:

The Secondary Radar is much like a police radio system. Like the police dispatcher, the Radar Station sends out a Secondary Radar inquiry (also sending Primary Radar energy that doesn't care if the transponder is on or off). The transponder if turned on, replies and says electronically "Hi this is 1443. I'm doing 350 knots airspeed and am at 15 000 feet altitude." The "1443" code was the one officially given by air traffic control, and the AA11 pilot set his transponder to "squawk 1443" as its identifier code (until our alleged boxcutter jihadi got involved that is).

The primary radar keeps sending out radar energy on a 12-second sweep interval. So every 12 seconds, the radar station gets an opportunity to "see" all aircraft in range, regardless of whether they have transponders on. After the transponder (or mobile police radio in this example) was switched off, the secondary radar "dispatcher" just hears static- no Mode C responses.

Turning off the transponder is a very bad idea, since it normally involves US fighter jets being immediately scrambled to do a visual tail identification of the suspicious "plane." With a dead transponder system, the primary radar system sees a Boeing 767 as a rather large, bright "UFO" on the air traffic controller's screen (complete with distance, position, and less-accurate altitude data for the "3D" radars). The NEADS division of NORAD could have found this bright "UFO" (or UA175 that hit South Tower WTC2 for that matter) at any time until right before impact. For AA77 and UA93, it's a little more complicated, but those allegedly left Flight Data Recorders (FDR) behind.

The newer Mode S transponders are going to tell much more information than the older Mode A and Mode C transponders.

The very curious thing is to have ANY aircraft say "Hi, I'm at 98 000 feet," since passenger Boeings can't ordinarily fly half this high. The spreadsheet data didn't have the Mode C identifier code for this "UFO", but the United States Air Force radar squadron put this 98 000 foot "UFO" in with the UA93 data- it is possible that it "squawked" a proper Mode C code for UA93- I'd need to dig in the RADES software. I believe that the proper English term is "bollocks" here, but I'm on the west side of the pond.

There was also "phantom" radar data believed to be AA11 quite a while after the North Tower WTC1 was hit... USUALLY- no more plane means no more radar reflection... blink.gif

Then there is the issue of alleged aircraft speed WELL over what commercial passenger Boeing 757s and 767s have been physically or documentably proven to be capable of. I'll post more on AA11's curious speeds soon. I was hoping to get independent, "blind" speed verification, but there is considerable trigonometry involved to get there from here.

In essence, I'm just using the RADES latitude and longitude data to get each and every DISTANCE traveled by our "AA11" between radar sweeps. DISTANCE / 12 seconds = aircraft speed or velocity (after some unit conversion).

For more info, there is a transponder thread very nearby here at:

See also:

Hope this helps,

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Jan 27 2008, 04:46 PM

Was this how they made the hole?

Posted by: dMole Jan 27 2008, 05:38 PM

Hi Tume,

I think this same video was discussed over at:

Unfortunately, I have been running a "weighted average" on 9/11 evidence credibility, and my "weight" of internet video right now is running about 10% (and dropping, I'm afraid to say). 8 people can watch the EXACT same video and see about 13 different things IMHO, if they watch it multiple times.

There are some pretty interesting indicators of what could likely be shaped explosive charges in that video, though. I'd prefer to see the term "squib" dead & buried though- I believe that a "squib" is typically a small "Hollywood" special-effects-type charge that wouldn't even get the WTC steel's attention, but that's just me.


Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Jan 27 2008, 07:41 PM

1. the video was "debunked" by "chek"...
2. I'm reluctant to believe anybody who promotes the slogan "911 was inside job", you know...
3.OK I'm also a bit reluctant to judge, but the chek's debunk didn't convinced me to not see the hole starts to build long after the impact and not see the secondary explosions under the roof even before the level is reached by the primary explosion plume through the air with no obstacles in the way.
4. if I see the obvious extensive and deeply proven 911 footage fakery as f.e. this:
(shouldn't they simply start to investigate FOX for fraud?) then I'm less reluctant to leave the question of TV fakery open.
5. I don't say there are not mistakes in socialservice videos, but the socialservice is extensively "debunked" also by "alawson911"...

so my bid to TV fakery is still at least 50:50 salute.gif

Posted by: Culper721 Feb 16 2008, 10:13 PM

QUOTE (pinnacle @ Dec 17 2007, 09:37 PM) *
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?

Given the average velocity between the 8:14 mark and the 8:21 mark and 8:27 mark respectively, what was the approximate time to target between the 8:14 mark and the North Tower? I believe I came up with 16 minutes to target from the moment of hijacking--leaving AAL as of 8:27 within 3 minutes to target. Yet Atta decided to take a cruise over Schenectady Airport on a heading of approximately 310 instead; i.e. taking up 13 minutes to put himself 19 minutes further from target.

Where did Atta obtain the luxurious assumption that he had time to take such a detour without risking a routine intercept?

If most all pilots and ATC's, Tower and TRACON, have no maps of the locations of gaps in the primary radar as of 9/11, who gave Atta such information to exploit said primary radar hole (where he turned off the transponder) and how did he know to exploit it during an unprecedented military and terror drill bonanza. (Did he get help from Secret Squirrel or Morocco Mole?)




Posted by: amazed! Feb 18 2008, 11:14 PM

Atta is a figment of the public's imagination Robert. Rather like Santa Claus.

Posted by: Zapzarap Feb 19 2008, 12:09 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Feb 19 2008, 04:14 AM) *
Atta is a figment of the public's imagination Robert. Rather like Santa Claus.


poor old Santa won't appreciate yr. comparison, amazed!

Posted by: amazed! Feb 19 2008, 10:43 PM

Oh dear, I hadn't thought about that. I hope he doesn't punish me next Xmas. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: DANDPT Feb 11 2011, 02:05 PM

QUOTE (pinnacle @ Dec 19 2007, 06:37 PM) *
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?

Posted by: DANDPT Feb 11 2011, 02:06 PM

These are still good questions on Feb. 11,2011.

Posted by: Obwon Jun 28 2011, 01:44 PM

We've been led to believe that the "perps" did do their "homework" and thus came up with times and speeds that would "fit" a reasonable flight profile.
However, after a good bit of reading about the various blunders, like the wandering layer mask, that allowed the nose of the craft to emerge from the opposite side of the building undeformed... Well, we can only imagine what else might have been allowed to "fall to the cutting room floor" in the name of expediency. At least, we have to agree that any such perps would have
been really rushed to get the work out on the deadline.

So here is what I propose. Since some here already have the rades data and the software and expertise to use it, this shouldn't be very difficult for them to do.

What we need is an "Idealized average speed", to see how it lines up with
the facts. Since we know that speed, distance and time are intractibly related, we know that higher speeds for one segment of travel, mandates reduced speeds along other segments. So it came to me, wouldn't it be a "kick in the head" to discover that the "impossible high speeds" in evidence, don't allow for reasonable speeds elsewhere along the journey? Or, perhaps, reveal other
artifacts that might make the pilots here go hmmm!

We need to take the rades data points and calculate the milage from "wheels off" to "impact". Then using this independantly arrived at mileage, and the "wheels off" time, and the time of impact, then calculate the average speed needed to complete the journey. This will give us an "idealized ruler" with which to gauge
the the journey.

Next we can then compare this to the actual speeds that are supposed to have
been flown. Since higher speeds for some segments of the trip will mandate slower speeds for the other areas, We can apprehend whether or not, these high or reduced speeds make a picture that fits within a reasonable view of the events.

Of course, as I said, there may be nothing there to hang a hat on, but then, with so much else botched, it's entirely possible this element was also badly handled as well. In any event, I think it'd be interesting to have a look at the data.


Powered by Invision Power Board (
© Invision Power Services (