Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ On the radio... _ A Question For Us Radar Controllers

Posted by: ivanvedder Feb 21 2007, 09:05 AM

Hy, this is an italian Atcer, I have a question for all the radar controllers here:
In 2001 (in case of a plane with transponder off) did you have to select a different setting on your radar to see his primary response?
this is what the 9/11 commission says:

"On 9/11, the terrorists turned off the transponders on three of the four hijacked aircraft. With its transponder off, it is possible, though more difficult, to track an aircraft by its primary radar returns. But unlike transponder data, primary radar returns do not show the aircraft's identity and altitude. Controllers at centers rely so heavily on transponder signals that they usually do not display primary radar returns on their radar scopes. But they can change the configuration of their scopes so they can see primary radar returns. They did this on 9/11 when the transponder signals for three of the aircraft disappeared."

Is there any guy (especially from Boston or New York, Cleveland, and Indianapolis) who can answer?
In the italian sistem if an aircraft loses the transponder signal (or if we have an a/c without it) we see directly (with no changings of configurations) a specific simbol (+) with the speed indication.
thanks for your help

Posted by: johndoeX Feb 21 2007, 09:13 AM

Hi Ivan, welcome to the forums.. good to have you!

We have two US Controllers that float around on this board every so often, that i know of...

Robin Hordon and andrewkornkven.

Robin is former Boston Center and Andy is current Minneapolis. The best thing to do is to PM them as they will get the message as soon as they sign on.

Hope this helps...

I'll also make them aware of this question.


Posted by: ivanvedder Feb 21 2007, 09:21 AM

thanks Rob! (for welcome & help)

Posted by: andrewkornkven Feb 21 2007, 09:42 AM

QUOTE (ivanvedder @ Feb 21 2007, 01:05 PM)
Hy, this is an italian Atcer, I have a question for all the radar controllers here:
In 2001 (in case of a plane with transponder off) did you have to select a different setting on your radar to see his primary response?
this is wath the 9/11 commission says:

"On 9/11, the terrorists turned off the transponders on three of the four hijacked aircraft. With its transponder off, it is possible, though more difficult, to track an aircraft by its primary radar returns. But unlike transponder data, primary radar returns do not show the aircraft's identity and altitude. Controllers at centers rely so heavily on transponder signals that they usually do not display primary radar returns on their radar scopes. But they can change the configuration of their scopes so they can see primary radar returns. They did this on 9/11 when the transponder signals for three of the aircraft disappeared."

Is there any guy (especially from Boston or New York, Cleveland, and Indianapolis) who can answer?
In the italian sistem if an aircraft  loses the transponder signal  (or if we have an a/c without it) we see directly (with no changings of configurations) a specific simbol (+) with the speed indication.
thanks for your help

There is a button on a center controller's display called "ALL PRIMARY." A controller working low altitude (ground to 23,000ft) keeps this button depressed at all times. However, a controller working high altitude, above 24,000ft-- which would have included all four controllers handling the 9/11 planes-- would have that button in the OFF position normally. This is because all airplanes above 18,000-- the PCA, or "postive controlled airspace"-- are required to have and be using transponders. Thus there are usually no primary signals to display in a high altitude sector; VFR flight is illegal in the PCA.

When a high altitude controller loses a transponder, it is a very simple matter to press the ALL PRIMARY button, and thus display the + primary signal that you are referring to. To suddenly lose the transponder of an airliner in the PCA would be an unusual and disturbing event for a controller. It has only happened to me once in 15 years as a controller, and I still remember it quite well.

With the ALL PRIMARY depressed the jet's primary target would have been visible. The exception is the Indianapolis controller working AAL77, who did not see the primary target because primary radar was down in that area that day. These primary targets would not have displayed speed or altitude, but in these cases they would have "stuck out like sore thumbs" from the other primary targets because, being jets, they would have been moving across the screen so much faster than the other primary targets, which would tend to be small VFR aircraft, cropdusters, balloons, or even flocks of birds.

[I should note that with the newer equipment, the ALL PRIMARY "button" is no longer a button, like it was when I started my career; it is now just a box on your scope that can be activated by using the trackball to move the cursor over it and left click. I'm not sure what equipment was used at the various centers on 9/11, but the point is it is a simple matter to quickly display your primaries at a high altituded sector.]

Posted by: ivanvedder Feb 21 2007, 12:37 PM

"but the point is it is a simple matter to quickly display your primaries at a high altituded sector"

thanks Andrew, all is clear, the final part of your answer too..

Posted by: Robin Hordon Feb 21 2007, 02:58 PM


Hello, my name is Robin Hordon and I'm the former controller from Boston Center. Andy is exactly correct with his thorough response, and years ago I was one of the controllers who trained controllers in the transition from the old "broadband radar", into the the newer computerized or "RDP" [radar data processing] radar when there were buttons as Andy indicated.

I'm very glad that Andy has pointed out the issue with AA77, and its something that always needs to be remembered, and re-looked at, as the 911TM gains ground and improves its "truth base".

I would also point out something very important. If you are using the 911 Commission report for your beginning point, PLEASE be very, very wary of what that corrupted group [read: Phillip Zelikow] has generated in its report because its so full of lies and distortions. If you are using written materials, I suggest that you get Dr. David Ray Griffin's two seminal books in publication now: "The New Pearl Harbor" to start, then his crituque of "The 9/11 Commission Report" which is named as such, and its subtitle is: "Omissions and Distrortions". In March he will be putting out another rebuttal of current "alleged" debunkers of our good work. The name of that book is: "Debunking 9/11 Debunkers: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory". I suggest that you purchase that book should help out a lot.

And just as an example, the 911 Commission's information presented about secondary and primary radar in the paragraph that you highlighted is one of the FEW outlays of information that is about 100% correct. How about that!

There are several not-yet-credible sources about 911Truth hanging around, but more and more, the credible ones are becoming more apparent, and the less credible ones are withering away due to lack of credibility, or facts. So, its best to double-triple-quadruple check your information.

And of course, "Keep the Search for AA77 Alive"...its one of the government's achilles heels just behind WTC7 and a few other solid "givens" that show the complicity by the US government.

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon

Posted by: ivanvedder Feb 22 2007, 05:04 AM

Hi Robin, I've read your posts all around the forum, thanks for your answer too.
No, I'm not at the beginning point and as a radar controller (10 years in an ACC) I 100% agree with Andrew (and yours) professional osservations.
Here in Italy all the people, who want to defend the (unbelievable) delays the Boston controllers had to notify Neads/Norad, usually say that during those moments was very difficult to follow primary returns of the aircraft cause the controllers had the radar set for "trasponders only" (and go back to the "all primary" was a long procedure).
I've never had any doubt this was not the real situation, now I'll show your answer (and the Andrew's one) to that people.
for truth from Italy

Posted by: amazed! Feb 24 2007, 06:59 PM

Some good conversation here, from the perspective of a non-controller. cheers.gif

I have heard talk of the Pentagon's use of "injects" on the radar screens. It seems to me that if they can do such things as inject false targets into the system, then the possible scenarios for 11 September are almost infinite.

Posted by: Robin Hordon Mar 3 2007, 03:57 AM


The NORAD "injects" never make it to any FAA controllers radar...they are only seen on NORAD radars because THEY ARE NOT REAL! It would be very irresponsible to load in fake stuff on a live controllers' scope and then have that controller do the bob and weave with fake aircraft. The exercises have some real targets, the responding aircraft, but all the other inputs are all computer generated. Its a play world during the exercises...and when ATC calls them off for emergencies, they are OVER, and the "real world rules". These "inputs" and all the NORAD exercises are just a smoke screen for the public to say "OOOOOH", now I understand...when they absolutely do not understand. Just more psy-ops and public PR spewed out by the military and Bush Regime to cover their guilty tracks.

Another point that probably needs to be made is that on the ABC/Walters news report with Danielle OBrien, there were THREE different radar displays shown, and only ONE, near OBrien's talking was a real ATC scope. One other was a simulation that was noted as such, and the other was either from the FAA Command Center, or to me, the old "Central Flow Control", or, most likely, a NORAD display because of the coloration differences between military traffic and civilian traffic. The FAA Command Center uses the huge radar display showing aircraft movement coast-to-coast to keep a handle on potential overlods, bunched up arrivals, or the effects of bad weather on regional ops. Andy would be able to verify that difference. But, the FAA Command Center really does not monitor military traffic...NORAD does that.

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon

Posted by: Robin Hordon Mar 4 2007, 03:39 AM

Terrorcell asked some questions about radar systems and transponders on another post somewhere, and I will try to give some answers.

Question #1
If 93 is flying under 89 and turns off its transponder, can they appear as only one target.

Yes, absolutely.

The only way that either primary or secondary radar would be able to distiguish them is if they were several thousand feet apart. The long range radar [LRR] used by enroute centers needs more distance in between the aircraft than the shorter range tracon radars. If there were two transponder replies right on top of each other, the RDP [Radar Data Processing] computers may not show anything, or it might show the stronger signal for a sweep or two. If the aircraft NOT squawking, or utilizing its transponder, moves several thousand feet away, and the center controller selects his primary radar to be activated, then there would be two targets, one the transponder, and one the primary target. So, if there were "piggy-back" airplanes, they would have to remain very close to each other in order NOT to be able to be seen. Additionally, the enroute radar controller would have had to select "primary" targets to be displayed which is unusual.

However, Zalewski, and all the other Boston ARTCC controllers following AA11 AFTER it lost its transponder, DID switch the primary radar filter to "on" as well as they amended the flight plan so that the computer TRACKING program would seek only aircraft WITHOUT a transponder. [The "tracking program" is NOT the RDP "target" program...they are separate functions and separate programs.] This change enhanced the TRACKING ability, and would have shown another aircraft in either a primary manner, or a secondary [transponder] manner if one were nearby. I think that no extra targets were noted.

2. Can a controller tell the different sizes of aircraft based upon the size of the returned primary radar signal?

NO and YES...again, citing enroute long range radar capabilities...

NO...When targets are displayed on an enroute controller's radar scope, in normal "narrowband ops" eveything is computerized, the RDP, Radar Data Processing computer collects all the target responses that each one gets during each sweep and converts them into electronic "blips". Then, if there are multiple radar sources for the same airspace/aircraft, the computer makes a judgement as to which return is the best target and makes that target available should the controller select such types of targets. The digitized/electronic TARGETS are displayed as... + ...or... / ...or... \ ... on the scope and they are just as you see them here.
The + is a primary target....
The / is a transponder target NOT being tracked by the computer program...
The \ is a transponder target that IS being tracked by the computer program...

[Note: Some of this information may be outdated due to new "PCs" used at enroute sectors, so I may have the two slashes backwards, and the below stated TRACKING PROGRAMS may have changed a bit since those times. AndyK would know this.]

Therefore, for Long Range Radar LRR like that used at all the ARTCCs, there is no way to tell any AIRCRAFT size difference in RDP primary targets, and all transponder-secondary targets are displayed as identical symbols also.

But what IS a factor regarding an aircraft's "primary target size" is that when a TRACKING program for a specific primary target pre-locates its "search box" and within that box it is seeking a primary target, IF that primary target is LARGE, the TRACKING PROGRAM is quick to jump on it, and if it were too small, The TRACKING PROGRAM might look for another primary target in that search area. One of the reasons that AA11 was able to be so easily tracked by the computer is because it was a B767 with a WIDE BODY and a HUGE VERTICAL was basically a blimp and could be seen VERY easly.

So, size counts for "tracking" even in the digitized radar world.

YES...but this may be older information...
In earlier days when broadband radar was either used, or was a back-up to the RDP radar systems, the RAW radar would sweep across the scope like that as seen in the Dulles approach control displays shown during Daniel OBrien's piece on ABC. Its the type of a sweep where the targets seem to illuminate in bright green FLASHES as the radar hits the target. The RAW radar used to show some elements of larger vs smaller targets. So, if there were several aircraft flying near each other, like following each other with 500 feet between them, they would make a LONG target, that would be noticed, BUT, not by much. Now, if there were a small or slender primary "fuselage" then that would often be very hard to see. So, the net result back then was that we could sorta tell the sizes of aircraft...kinda.

Giving example of flight of the "alleged" flight AA77 on 9/11, when A "high speed primary target" was seen emerging from the Appalachians 50 or so miles west of Dulles, there is no way to tell if it was a B757, or a smaller military fighter-bomber-drone type of aircraft.

3. Can transponders squawk a code assigned another aircraft?


Civilian transponders are able to select a code that includes four numbers from zero to nine. Consequently, if you had ten aircraft on your frequency, you could tell them all to squawk the same code, or ten individual ones. A transponder code is assigned to a flight plan about an hour before scheduled departure and the "localized" computer system would know not to assign the same code to another aircraft in that local computer system because the TRACKING system would see two identical codes and it might jump the TRACK from one to the other.

Code changes are made enroute sometimes because, for example, the LAX local computer system might assign a four digit code to an eastbound flight from LAX to NYC, and conversely, the NYC local computer might assign the exact same code to a flight headed towards LAX at the same time. As the two aircraft approached each other near, lets say, the Chicago Center, ONE of the flights would be assigned a different code by the Chigago Center local computer to avoid two aircraft having the same code in the same geographical area. Modern ARTCC sector computers have been "PC'd", so actually, there may be more code changes now than what I remember in the past.

I hope that this helps answer your questions. There should be more questions about radar, so feel free to fire away.

Something interesting to look forward to down the AA77 road...

One of the main steps ahead for the 9/11TM in learning and understanding of radar and the variety of radar systems and displays that are in use throughout aviation, is that the military has its own, DIFFERENT transponder identification systems and its fondly known as: IFF...Identification-Friend-or Foe. Consequently, military aircraft have TWO transponder outputs available to them, one civilian FAA radar type, and one the military IFF type. If my knowledge serves me well, military IFF transponder outputs are NOT SEEN by FAA radar systems. One of the many purposes that the IFF system serves is to "disarm" air-to-air" and "ground-to-air" missle attack, or defensive systems respectively from US military aircraft and defensive installations. Commercial jetliners are not normally outfitted with military IFF transponders so they cannot "disarm" such defensive missle systems. A PRIMARY radar target also cannot disarm such a missle defense system.

All of this comes into play regarding the strike on the pentagon as missle defense systems for the White House, and possibly the pentagon, were seemingly shut down by "something", or "somebody" on 9/11. I am aware of the "Minetta-Cheney" story about "orders still standing"...but there may be different conclusions about that drawn. There are several questions that are begged from the "alleged" AA77 saga regarding radar identification near the pentagon and the FAB TURN executed by the air vehicle.


1. Which radar faciity was briefing the young man who kept asking Cheney about the orders? No reports exist that it was from Dulles Tracon.

2. Some reports show that the Secret Service informed the Reagan-National tower about the inbound air vehicle, or vice-verse. If it was the Secret Service that told Reagan-National tower, who did tell them about the air vehicle?

3. Was it a military radar facility that tracked the aircraft that told the SS?

4. If so, how long had it been tracking the air vehicle? More than 50 miles away?

5. Was THIS the source of the radar data that "filled in the dotted lines" that first represented the eastbound leg of the "alleged" flight AA77?

6. An air vehicle 60 miles out doing 300K [as the FDR indicates], or five miles per minute was 12 minutes away, and when adding a 3-4 minute turn, it was 15-16 minutes away when Cheney was first notified, was that long enough to scramble fighters?

7. The air vehicle was a primary target to Dulles Tracon and therefore had NO ALTITUDE READOUT, how, and by whom was it established that the "air vehicle" that made that FAB TURN near the pentagon started at an altitude of 7000 feet and then descended? If not by FAA radar, by whose radar?

If my memory serves me, the 7000 foot altitude was known BEFORE the ensuing radar data surfaced several days after 9/11.

Just some Qs...

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon

Posted by: ivanvedder Mar 4 2007, 12:11 PM

Hi Robin some more questions about Us procedures:

I read the "CJCSI 3610.01A1 June 2001"

and at point "4" policy there is:

"Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), has exclusive responsibility to direct law enforcement activity
related to actual or attempted aircraft piracy (hijacking) in the “special
aircraft jurisdiction” of the United States."

The questions are:
Who gives informations about position of the intercepted aircraft to the scramble fighters?
(i'm obviously interested in a case of a primary target interception)

Are this fighters vectored by a controller (Faa or Norad) to intercept an unknow target or they are able to perform a "self-interception"?

thank you

Posted by: pinnacle Mar 5 2007, 02:27 PM

I have been trying to get radar records of Washington DC airspace
for the time period of 9:30 am to 10:00 am on 9/11.
So far the FAA has not provided the radar images but has sent a letter saying their
are "no record" of any aircraft in this airspace at this time, which is odd because we know that the C-130 was there.
If the four engine "white plane" seen and photographed circling the White House
at 9:40 am were in fact a military plane like the E-4B is it possible it would operating on the IFF transponder, providing "no record" to the FAA of it's identity?
If so is there any possible way that a 747 could be invisible to radar, or could project it's radar image to another location,
or would the FAA radar simply show a primary target with no information attached?
Wouldn't a primary target be considered a "record" of an aircraft even if it's identity were not known?
I am still trying to get the radar images.

Posted by: Robin Hordon Mar 7 2007, 12:58 AM


To put the JCS document in proper perspective, the Bush Regime is THE mst secretive, manipulative and evasive administration that ever ran the United States of America. So, if you or anyone else thinks that any changes in any policy in any department involved in any subject, is going to leave a paper-legal trail of words with which ther opponents will be ble to repudiate them...THINK AGAIN!!!!

They are all deliberately worded sets of "smoke screens" to hide their malfeasance.

So, the way that any changes need to be looked at should be looked at from the perspective of: WHY...did they make this change.

So, the June JCS "change" simple cleverly conneceted the FAA intercept procedures under the wings of the pentagon...even though the words do not expressly say that.

Like...DUUUUHHHHHH, were you expecting them to provide easy evidence against themselves?

You asked about the "law enforcement" role that the FAA played regarding aviation activities within US airspace. "Posse Comatatus" precludes the military from playing any "law enforcement" role towards civilians, so the FAA had to be given the "hammer" in controlling violations of law, and the assignment of military assets to emergencies of all shapes and sizes. Consequently, once an air traffic controller saw the need to use this nation's assets to either intercept, or assist aircraft needing such actions taken against them, then the FAA had the authority to do it. It has always been the FAA's call for servicing/assisting "in-flight-emergencies". The hijacking end of the military scrambling protocols were initiated by the FAA, but action was approved by the pentagon because they both "had time", and had to set up assets all along the flight paths of the "hijacked aircraft". They usually would fly to Cuba, or ask for ramsoms or some such thing.

OK, to your question about who locates aircraft needing the be dealt with.

The FAA...period. And it was always an easy thing to do. If you are reacting to the Vanity Fair "sh*t" put forth as the truth, just read Dr. David Ray Griffin's upcoming work in "Debunking 9/11 Debunking:". After this release, NEADS-NORAD will be speaking with testicle breah!

Next, the question about who "vectors" the interceptors to the "subject aircraft". Principally its the FAA controllers who do this and it IS still the FAA's airspace and separation criteria that are used until the "subject aircraft" and the "intercepting aircraft" are in close proximity. The FAA and NORAD-NEADS are in contact with each other as soon as is possible. Consequently, there is alotta talk back and forth with each working at identifying and locating all the aircraft in question, ie: the "subject aircraft" and the interceptors.

On 9/11/2001, there "appeared to be" some wrenches thrown in the gears by "moles" in the FAA ARTCC's in some aspects of the "hijack intercepts", if you want to call them that. But really, it simply had to do with the hijack protocol being used instead of the "in-flight-emergency" protocol.

Had the "scramble procedures" NOT been changed in June of 2001, each airliner that was "eventually determined to be hijacked" actually qualified as an "in-flight-emergency" WELL BEFORE they were ever considered a "hijack".

The "in-flight-emergency" protocol required giving PRIORITY OVER EVERY OTHER AIRCRAFT to the fighters as they tried to get to the stricken aircraft as soon as was POSSIBLE!

The "hijacking protocol" DOES NOT give such 'priority" to the fighters so they had to wait someplace to "fit in" to the ongoing traffic patterns.

Hence, a cleverly disguised "institutional stand-down" was established by Rummie's pentagon in June of 2001. And not one word needed to be spoken in doing so on 9/11/2001.

In other words, no "in-flight-emergenciy" scrambles were allowed from June 2001 until September 11, 2001...only the slow paced "hijack protocols".

On September 12th, 2001, all scrambles were put under the fast "in-flight-emergency" protocol and the slower protocol was discontinued..

Now, knowing the Bush Regime and its track record of "ethical behavior", who woud have guessed...aye?

Hope this helps...

Love, Peace and Justice...

Robin Hordon

How about that...

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon

Posted by: Robin Hordon Mar 7 2007, 03:04 AM


Lets try to get through your excellent questions...

Could the four engine aircraft have been operating via IFF and thus NOT be visible to FAA radar except that it would then be seen as a primary target by FAA radar.


But, such a high speed primary target may not have been easily noted by smaller low altitude sectors in the FAA facilities and the high altitude sectors would not usually have their "primary target" button pushed and thus, they would not see it either. Radar data shown in succeeding days may disclose all the targets that all the radars actually "saw" or "considered" during that time period. And controllers may not have seen them on that day because of their "selected target" buttons pushed or not pushed. But, IF a controller were in a searching mode, they could adjust their scopes to create a competent search. I do not know what they chose to do...and it would be nice to know.

The radar track readout that Ashoki had showing the "alleged" tracks along the ground for the "alleged" AA77 were thought to be showing the C-130 departing from Andrews BUT the primary radar target that I "sorta saw" actually was a very high speed target in a long turn just north of the pentagon and WH. So, I actually thought I had that WHITE four engined aircraft "picked out". Needless to say, I can no longer find that entire radar display from Ashoki. Hmmmm???? Sound familiar?

I saw ABSOLUTELY NO PRIMARY TARGET that represented the C-130 departing from Andrews...and C-130's are very, very visible to primary radar.

It's also possible that such an aircraft could be painted/coated with "stealth" materials and that would eliminate some primary radar returns...but that's just conjucture...although, if I were to slip a "secret" aircraft through that airspace on that day, you KNOW I would paint it invisible. The military is well known for taking advantage of all situatons to test their new fangled, one never knows.

The last I was aware, there were some defensive ECM...Electronic Counter Measure systems for military aircraft that would confuse any inbound missles by somehow projecting their "target" to another location. But, I do not think that such capacilty exists regarding normal FAA radar systems. Again, that is conjuecture on my part. I do know this, the military is very, very advanced in its radar research and developments.

And YES, any radar return, either primary or secondary would be considered a "record" of an aircraft seen by the associated radar system IF such records were in fact real. As far as making positive radar identification of said targets, that would have to have very specific steps taken by the pilot at the behest of the controller...either with a transponder or primary target.

Its not all that hard to create any and all the information that I have seen so far. In the 1970s there were fake target generator technologies used to train air traffic controllers, and that was 30 ago! So really, almost anything is "create-able, or "delete-able".

Hope this helps...

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon

Posted by: Ashoka Mar 7 2007, 08:38 AM

QUOTE (Robin Hordon @ Mar 7 2007, 02:04 AM)
The radar track readout that Ashoki had showing the "alleged" tracks along the ground for the "alleged" AA77 were thought to be showing the C-130 departing from Andrews BUT the primary radar target that I "sorta saw" actually was a very high speed target in a long turn just north of the pentagon and WH. So, I actually thought I had that WHITE four engined aircraft "picked out". Needless to say, I can no longer find that entire radar display from Ashoki. Hmmmm???? Sound familiar?

Hi Robin,

here they are


Posted by: pinnacle Mar 7 2007, 01:17 PM

I am not sure what altitude the White Jet was flying but the eyewitnesses I have
been in contact with have all said it was flying slowly at what they considered to be a low altitude and the videos seem to confirm that.
As a supposedly "survivable" flying command center I would this plane would have
all possible radar manipulation capabilities to avoid attackers.
In the radar images does each blip represent 4.5 seconds?
Is the C-130 the jagged line northwest of P-56?
If so could the series of lines east of P-56 be the white jet?
There were reports of a plane approaching from the southeast at the same time Flight 77 was coming from the west.
If this track ends at 9:38 am than the White Jet would be close enough to P-56 to be circling the White House at 9:40 am as reported by Peter Jennings on ABC news.
Also wouldn't the existence of Prohibited Airspace 56 require that all radar in the area be able to see primary targets since any aircraft threat to the White House would probably not have a transponder on for easy identification.

Posted by: Robin Hordon Mar 7 2007, 03:15 PM


Thank you so are some "things"...I'd like you to consider.

...the AA77 story is far, far from over...

...there might be other copies or resources from which these, and other radar data readouts can be obtained...BUT...I suggest that you save your files in several independent places... should be of interest that the last PIC does show radar targets as seen on FAA ENROUTE radar scopes and the the left leaning slashes show that the aircraft shown in the PIC are all being "tracked" by the computer...

...and this stands in comparison to the two previous PICS which show a terminal radar scope where the targets are "allegedly" soley a primary radar return...

A few Qs...

Are there more such printouts showing the entire flight path from IAD?

Did you crop these PICS, or are they representations of what the original source has cropped BEFORE they gave them to you?

How did you get these PICS anyway?

At my first look at two of these PICS, [the bottom two] I am VERY interested in any pictoral information to the WEST [or in your presentation, toward the bottom] of the middle printout. If one looks at the primary target as it enters the picture, it appears to be in a solid right turn and then straightens out...sorta...

And on the third PIC, do you have any more PICS for the flight path further EAST of the edge of the PIC [in this case to the top of your PIC]? I am interested in the odd turn to the north that AA77 made before resuming its westbound course for a few minutes before it began its left turn.

Are there larger PICS from which you might have cropped the copies shown here?

Are there any with better resolution?

Is there a master "source, file or report" that I can access to dig into the entire flight on my own?

I'm computer illiterate, so, can you grab these PICS, and ALL others and somehow send them as an attachment directly to me at my email address so that I can save them for my future analysis...I have copied them from this site and iit takes alotta pages to get to them...and they are smallish.

Is there a trail of possession of these PICS, or some way to validate that they are the originals of the sources?

Do you have access to the radar "input sources" that the HI PERPS have used to "connect the dots" from where AA77 was lost to FAA radar during the turn at the end of the westbound leg of the flight, and where the Dulles radar display picks up the "unidentified target" heading eastbound at high speed?

Just as a reminder to all...the target shown on Dulles radar is traveling at 300K based upon simple calculations.

For Rob Balsamo...

In comparison to being 50 west of Dulles doing 300K, is there any way that we can co-locate these flights and compare the airspeeds shown in the animation to the 300K shown on Dulles radar?

If we can compare the data, the radar tracks show "groundspeed" and not IAS as the animation shows, and certainly not the TAS. We can calculate the TAS at some of the altitudes in descent, and I think the lower altitude winds were negligible that day.

Based upon the middle PIC showing a slight "S" turn across Dulles airspace, does the NTSB data and the animation show the same "S" turn?

The final approach in the NTSB stuff shows a full throttle acceleration after the turn, but this is not shown by radar returns on the top PIC. It is hard for me to "see" the exact location of the pentagon on the PIC, so, its possible that it was below radar coverage at the point of acceleration...

Does the animation show the air vehicle's altitude when the throttles were pushed ahead? I think it does. So, I can probably get it from the site. I'm asking because I suspect that radar coverage is probably down towards 800-1000 feet there and I think that the acceleration took place above that altitude???


For Andy K, if you are still engaged...

Can you find out if terminal radars like that at Dulles, shows raw primary radar targets, or are they somehow "computerized" and presented as the symetrical primary targets are shown in the ATRCC RDP presentations? Thanks...RDH

Anyway, thanks a million Ashoka...

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon

PS: I was interviewed by a documentary crew from Italy when I was down in Chandler Arizona. The name of the project, or documentary, is ZERO. It looks to be a BLOCKBUSTER which will blow all things 9/11 sky high.

Posted by: ivanvedder Mar 7 2007, 04:06 PM

How did you get these PICS anyway?

here they are:

main page:

Posted by: Robin Hordon Mar 7 2007, 08:22 PM


Regarding the white airplanes...I think that I may have confused some stuff here.

The white plane that "I thought" you were referring to was the large white four engined jet seen up at about 30,000 feet circling or passing over DC airspace. It looked like a B747 or something...THIS is what I thought you meant by a command aircraft and NOT the smaller white jet seen in a circling climb out and away from the pentagon area.

I really think that THAT airplane is a HUGE active, or participating "player" in this scheme. So, we have been talking about different aircraft.

Hence, my earlier answers about the FAA seeing or not seeing such a high altitude aircraft during that time period were in reference to the plane that MAY actually ALSO be a significant player, but in a "command" or overseeing role. I do not think that it was an AWACS aircraft because there was no sign of that huge disc housing the radar antennae.

Another interesting "issue" that keeps popping into my head about some air vehicles and airplanes that day is that the high flying B747-type airplane circling overhead, the airplane that we are talking about circling and climbing away from the pentagon, and the low flying aircraft seen by an eyewitness out near Shanksville [which I think is an A10- warthog] are ALL white. Certainly if I were planning such events, I would NOT have participating aircraft painted in mlitary colors like gray. They would be either a standard white to confuse them with corporate aircraft, or where need be, silver to appear like an AAL aircraft. back to your questioning about IF the "twin engine?" jet climbing away from the pentagon, it may be possible that it was equipped with "on-board" radar evasion electronics that nullified primary radar electronic "pulses, or sweeps" from FAA radar, and thus would be invisible. So, I'm not sure why we do not see any radar target data, unless, as I have one of my scenarios, this craft was the "replacement" AA77 and it carried a smaller missle/drone in its bombay [I think one model has one, and if not, they would craft one], and then snuck away...or as we see here, tried to sneak away. But, I really have to do some homework on the radar PICS before I can make any more judgements.

For example, if the primary targts are NOT computer generated with Tracon radar, and its just the pure FAA primary radar that is displayed in the PICS, then the SOURCE, or site of the radar is perpindicular to the slashes and that IS NOT Dulles radar because their radar is located AT Dulles Airport unless I am mistaken. So, if that's the case, where is, and who owns the radar system that has provided these PICSthatwe are dealing with?

This question lines up with my long held question regarding which radar facility was providing distance information for the incoming "air-vehicle" to the young fellow down in the bunker who then kept telling Cheney? Its a good question because Cheney is NEVER so careless with critical information. he may be deliberately misleading all of us with this little "story" that somehow...made it out of the bunker!!!

Obviously, if the answer to both of these questions is that it was some "military radar facility" watching the incoming target, now wouldn't THAT be troublesome to them.

I'm hoping that Andy K can find out some stuff about terminal or tracon radar target presentations and let us know.

Each radar blip represents a new sweep and I believe that terminal radars sweep at about every 5 you are close. The LRR at enroute radar centers sweep at about every 12 seconds or so.

I will have to wait for closer study of the radar pics to answer about the C-130 and this other white jet. But if the white jet had anti-radar electronics, so could have had the C-130. In the end, since there are so many radar sweeps shown in these pics describing AA77's [?] flight path, then any OTHER target would have an equal number of "blips" for its flight through the vicinity...and I see no long flight paths.

I did think that I was able to pick out a 450K+ aircraft target series making a long fast turn in this PIC and it can be seen northeast of the pentagon and west-ish of Andrews. So, ALL tagrgets flying in and around the pentagon would have to have a similar number of "blips" forming their own 'tracking patterns" looking like the "alleged" AA77 track to the pentagon. And I just don't see them.

However, there are FIVE interesting blips in the middle of the FAB TURN, and then there are a few blips northeast of the pentagon that appear to be high speed [faster than a C-130 on climb-out] that I mention above.

Another interesting set of "blips" are the two, then no hits, then three-four more seen "on the other side of the pentagon?"...and they look like an extension of the same direction inbound flight track of the "air vehilcle" that was approaching the pentagon after the FAB TURN. Interesting?

The P56 ground-to-air misle defense system absolutely HAD to have primary radar capabilities. No doubts there at all. Again, it also had to have FAA transponder and IFF transponder capabilities also.

But all of this PIC could be staged anyway...if it were the real thing, there would be "blip tracks" all over the, somebody had to doctor something unless all it was looking at was primary radar returns, and I do not know IF terminal radar can separate those apart like the ARCC LRR can do through its RDP systems.

The 8:38-8:40 timing relationship to the white plane being observed and noted by Jennings near the WH,or wherever in the vicinity, seems valid.

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon

Posted by: pinnacle Mar 8 2007, 02:10 PM

According to the White House news correspondent who identified the
four engine White Jet as the E-4B Doomsday Plane it was much lower than 30,000
feet. And the videos show a fair amount of detail which again makes it appear to be within the 18,000 foot P-56 restriction altitude. The speed appears quite slow for such a large plane. I know that the E-4B is designed to operate at extremely slow speeds to uncoil it's reel antenna out the tail and hang it as much in vertical as possible, so this would also indicate some kind of radio operation was
being conducted.
Would a long thin antenna show up on radar?

Posted by: amazed! Mar 9 2007, 11:54 PM


Thanks so much for answering the questions.

When you mention the C130 off Dulles (or wherever), would you be talking about that Wisconsin ANG C130 in which the pilot testified before the Commission?

Posted by: Robin Hordon Mar 10 2007, 12:14 AM


Yes, its the C-130 from Andrews...if I said Dulles, it was a brain lapse...

That entire flight is quite suspicious to me. There has been quite a bit of talk about "airbourne" communications centers and the like...this aircraft may qualify. But for sure, the contradictory information that seems to be "reverse enginered" regarding this flight should always be looked at suspiciously. Too "coincidental", too "pat"...too "military".

Let's see...AT the pentagon and AT Shanksville on the single most incredible day in this nation's about those odds?


Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon

Posted by: Robin Hordon Mar 10 2007, 01:11 AM

To All..

Thanks for getting me to the entire set of "flight paths" for all four flights.

Although I have some quiet Qs in the pipeline to the inside, I can tell you all my impressions so far.

I skip around a bit from flight-to-flight as I cross check stuff...

There is absolutely NO REASON that the flight path of UA175 needed to be displayed on a Newark, or New York Tracon radar scope display. That aircraft was in emergency conditions at high altitude when still being worked, and monitored by ZNY, and it was tracked by the enroute RDP computer which means that it woud look like the presentation shown for UA93.

Same story for UA93 when it was shown on the PIT Tracon radar display.

Also, the radar tracks shown for UA175 as seen on the New York Tracon radar scope have the same flaw that is seen on the Dulles Approach Control radar scope AA77 was indeed a high speed target doing 500kts, or so.

Now, there is NO DOUBT that UA 175 was at high speed before its descent and before its turn back towards WTC2, but just check out the spaces between the sweeps. They are the IDENTICAL spaces as seen on the Dulles presentation for AA77. In other words, the "speed" that the spaces between the "blips" on New York Tracon radar show that UA175 was going 300kts...the same as AA77...but it was moving faster. Same is seen on the Pittsburgh Tracon radar display for UA93...aka...300kts

Looking at it from the opposite view, UA 175 was at or near full speed so the spaces between the "blips" should have been ALMOST TWICE AS LARGE as are those displayed...AND it was a secondary [transponder working] target yet it looks identical to the primary target of AA77 on Dulles Approach Control radar and all the other tracon radar displays.

This ALSO ANSWERS why we do not see many other targets moving all over the Dulles and New York Tracon radar dislays. MANY, MANY other targets should have been on all the tracon radar scopes. But only these "special targets" were presented.

Again, just check out the big turn of UA93 on the ENROUTE radar see several other aircraft "targets" flying along their routings. Then, we see the same "300K" target spacing and north-south orientation on the Pittsburgh Tracon radar. I believe that UA93's transponder was working for most of the flight?

Also, AA11 radar flight targets show ENROUTE radar targets until the transponder is turned off...and then it shows NOTHING on enroute radar! Well, that's not what Zalewski and his brothers and sisters saw after the transponder was turned off. BECAUSE...they went to primary radar and all of THOSE targets, including AA11's strong wide body primary target would be displayed by a "+" on the enroute controller's scope. Then, AA11 was shown on New York Tracon's radar display and had the same small target with a north-south orientation as seen on Dulle's PRIMARY target for AA77.

At the moment, it certainly appears that HUMAN BEINGS etched all the targets' flight paths onto the various TRACON radar scope displays.

Sooooo, all of this seems just another part of the "psy-ops" so carfully crafted by the HI PERPS. The public was simply led to believe that AA11 "dissappeared" from the controller's radar scope...when actually, they were doing their jobs by adjusting their equipment, raising their attentiveness, and asking for more "eyes" on the task!...JUST LIKE I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY MY INSIDE CONTACTS. And, the targets shown on all the Tracon radars are all identical, all flying at 300Kts, and all ALONE in the air that day. HMMMM...

You have to admit, it all LOOKS pretty good aye!

BTW...Who was it that was led to safety in the forest by following crumbs carefully left upon the ground...OH YEAH, I remember, the american public!

More info to confirm needed from the inside...TBA.

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon

Looks like we may have some fun ladies and gentlemen...
Let's all raise a toast to the HI PERP'S map makers!!!!

Posted by: amazed! Mar 10 2007, 10:30 PM


So for this layman, what you are saying is that the radar data/reproductions/whatever presented to the public were heavily doctored or edited, or whatever the proper term is?

They are essentially spoofing the system, taking advantage of the ignorance of laymen such as myself in matters technical to the radar business?

Why am I not surprised. pilotfly.gif

Posted by: Robin Hordon Mar 11 2007, 01:01 AM

Amazed, appears that the radar displays showing all the concentric circles which are the tracon radar displays have all had the radar "blips" cut, inserted, painted, etched or somehow placed upon them in a very carefully constructed manner so as to make a believable "public story" that looks "just right".

However, I do have to get some more information from a tracon controller so that I can understand the differences between primary radar targets and secondary radar targets, and how the targets are sown on the scopes at each sweep, or if they are all computer generated as are the enroute radar targets.

The enroute radar displays have a reality to them to which I can testify. Just note other targets moving across the screens.

The tracon displays are simply too similar to each other when they should be different and representing different characteristics of targets and speeds etc.

So, its just another part of the "show" ladies and gentlemen!

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon

Posted by: Westgate Mar 12 2007, 04:41 AM

Hi Robin - I am Radar illiterate I am afraid, so please forgive my following question from your excellent and detailed postings - it's referenced below:-

"The NORAD "injects" never make it to any FAA controllers radar...they are only seen on NORAD radars because THEY ARE NOT REAL! It would be very irresponsible to load in fake stuff on a live controllers' scope and then have that controller do the bob and weave with fake aircraft. The exercises have some real targets, the responding aircraft, but all the other inputs are all computer generated. Its a play world during the exercises...and when ATC calls them off for emergencies, they are OVER, and the "real world rules". These "inputs" and all the NORAD exercises are just a smoke screen for the public to say "OOOOOH", now I understand...when they absolutely do not understand. Just more psy-ops and public PR spewed out by the military and Bush Regime to cover their guilty tracks."

Way back in the early days of 911 research, much was suddenly made of the discovery of the various military exercises taking place on 911. It was suggested that false injects caused some confusion to the ATC system, at least for the first 45 minutes or so, until FAA called 'game off'
This, of course, has been repeated endlessly by all sorts of researchers in all manner of publications and posts. Just so I can get it clear in my mind, are you saying there were no false injects appearing on the FAA screens, only on the NORAD screens? Were the exercises 'real targets' visible on the FAA screens though please?
Does this mean that the NORAD exercises are indeed just a wrong avenue to explore, of no actual significance? Thus the researcher who first made much of NORAD'S significance in his book, was 'barking up the wrong tree'. (Mike Ruppert and 'Crossing the Rubicon')
I am enjoying this thread so very much, thank you for taking the time to help enlighten us on this complex subject. It is becoming ever more incredible as you realise the sheer scale of duplicitous cover-ups and smoke-screens expertly placed for the ignorant researcher like myself.

Posted by: Robin Hordon Mar 12 2007, 09:02 AM


I'm sad to say it but I think that Rupert is not correct and his words on Zwicker's DVD are US psy-ops taken in, hook line and sinker. Too bad. There has been so much consideration about "war game" confusion that actually had so little net affect regarding FOUR airliners on 9/11. The only issue that has any bearing here is that there might have been a small amount of confusion when the FAA controllers first contacted NORAD/NEADS with their concerns regarding the FAA's REAL aircraft in trouble. This is shown wihin the Vanity Fair article when the term "real world" was utilized. I will explain more about this below.

I have yet to read Rupert's book and thus cannot testify to any other conclusions within it, but on these examples, he is misinformed.

Most "war games" are held in desolate and unused airspace in Canada, the westerm parts of the US, and over the ocean. Some, are conducted at high altitudes over the busier parts of airspace in this country, and those altitudes are then "blocked from civilian use" during the war games. This last activiy usually takes place late at night so as to minimize the effect upon civilian air commerce. Some low altitude training takes place at night, and again in desolate areas Normal high and low altitude "training missions", which are different from "war games", are conducted in "low traffic areas" that are also blocked from civilian aircraft access.

The ONLY interaction that the FAA controllers have with any "responding aircraft" or "target aircraft", or "refueling-support-command- and other participating aircraft" in any of the above mentioned activities, is that the military aircraft are under FAA control, regulation and procedures when in FAA controlled airspace. This is true when traversing from their departure bases to the above mentioned "play yards". This is when they USE civilian airspace and co-mingle with civilian traffic. This is also true, when the aircraft are returning to base. You could liken it to taking a vehicle from the garage, driving it to a race track to practice a few laps, then returning to the garage at home. When the vehicle is on the public streets, the vehicle is subject to common driving laws and police enforcement and when its at the track, its subject to whatever is going on at the track that day, and there, the civilian rules and speed limits do not apply.

Most of the departure, enroute and arrival activities for military aircraft that are conducted within civilian airspace are done so using well established and standard routings that have been designed to fit in along with civilian air traffic activities. I used to help design such routings, airspaces and procedures. For these "departure-enroute-arrival" parts of ANY "war game" or training excercise, the military aircraft are considered the same as all the other civilian aircraft being controlled by the FAA in that airspace, and they get the same equal priority. Although if they were late, we used to "wink-wink", figure out a way to "gettum there" on time. The above "race track" analogy is instructional.

Each "war game" has its own script planned well in advance, and its kept secret from the responding aircraft because it is THEY who are being evaluated. The "attacking scenarios" are mostly accomplished through computer generated "aircraft targets" called "inputs" and these "inputs" are all kept within the airspace that has been restricted from civilian use noted above. It would be a bad thing to have an "input" end up overhead Chicago and then have a REAL fighter break out of its "play space" and intercept or play with it in the middle of heavy civilian air commerce. This woud be BAD...and its why such "war games" are played elsewhere. Occasionally there would be a "real" military target that the FAA woud be working in civilian airspace, and then NORAD woud reach out to the FAA to verify that the aircraft was "friendly" and under our control. But this was very, very rare.

But to make it perfectly clear...NORAD TRAINING INPUTS are not allowed to affect "real world" air traffic control activites. How would you like it if an FAA air traffic controller turned a REAL aircraft with mom on board, right into another airliner, with someone else's mom on board, and they did it so as to avoid a "pretend" aircraft? Doesn't happen!

War Game inputs are computer generated and projected upon NORAD scopes and military aircraft missle systems. The FAA air traffic controllers are not involved in this part of the war games. There were NO EXTRA TARGETS ON FAA RADAR SCOPES. Ther WERE extra targets on NORAD-NEADS addition to NORMAL CIVILIAN AIRCRAFT ACTIVITIES, there were military "players" and all the "inputs"...but most of those inputs were probably far, far away from New England conjecture.

The affected airliners were identified to NORAD/NEADS using standard protocols and phraseologies...the same phrasiologies used when the FAA points out military aircraft who are just about to enter the special airspace designated for "War Games" and traiing excercises.

Regarding FOUR airliners, NORAD's duties 24/7/365 and the "alleged" confusion, there are a few things to realize.

FIRST...NORAD would NEVER use all of its "defender aircraft" for "war games" or training excercises, or any combination of the two, and leave no "asets" available to defend the country. And they had MORE THAN ENOUGH equipment and resources on 9/11 to handle even MORE than four "in-flight emergency", and/or hijacked airliners. The four fighters at Otis and Langley had more than one bullet on board each, and if it were REAL attacks by a foriegn government sending a dozen aircraft at us, you probaly would have seen a dozen kills.

Lets put it another way, if you were fire chief, would you have all your fire vehicles scheduled for oil changes at the same time all on one day? I think woud keep your assets as ready as possible, and then plan the oil changes to be spread out. So, all this crap about not having enough interceptors on 9/11 is exactly that, a total bunch of crap. Rummie's military guys know it, and they are hemming and hawing their way past their cleverly constructed stand-down. Dr.David Ray Griffin's new book will help the 9/11 truthers, and others begin to understand how Rummie cleverly changed scramble protocols JUST FOR 9/11/2001.

SECOND...There was one military guy who "actually told the truth", in that since there was so much "war gaming" activity that day, at least "all military hands were on deck" and plugged into their equipment. Therefore, he accurately stated that it would be easier in some ways for NORAD/NEADS to act more quickly. Refocusing the NORAD personnel would be very easy to do because the FAA only needed to call up and state "priority message", or, "emergency situation", or "real world request", OR, "We need some fighters..." [which the FAA did], and ALL TRAINING MISSIONS ARE OVER. The military would now be following FAA air traffic controller requests and instructions.

Unless there is a national emergency where the military has taken control of the entire country, or parts of it, the FAA has enforcement authority over the military's responsibilities to intercept civilian aircraft. Except that...scrambling interceptors for HIJACKED AIRCRAFT...needed pentagon approval. No such pentagon approvals are needed for scrambling to assist civilian aircraft in an "in-flight emergency" situation...IE...situations such as those that had precipitated an average of 100 scrambles per year for the previous ten years.

Please note that in those ten previous years, the were NO, all scrambles wer immediate, and for emergency or drug interdiction reasons. BOTH circumstances require IMMEDIATE scrambles without direct pentagon approvals. Hmmmm? How about that EH?

THIRD...The Vanity Fair article was very carefully constructed to mislead the public about the LIE that NORAD/NEADS personnel could not find AA11 in the SEA OF AIRCRAFT flying all over the country that day. Funny how the day after 9/11 the military had the target for AA11 all the way, and funnier still how the FAA NEVER lost track of AA11 all the way to WTC1, and funny yet again how many times the FAA controllers and supervisory staff tried to point out, or, "locate" AA11 to NEADS in the viciity of Albany New York. [Albany is about 100-150 miles from the "coastline" where NORAD was supposedly only looking "outward"?...and how about those "war games" where someone seemingly had to be looking "inward" sometime that day?]...and isn't it funny how NEADS finally picked up AA11 a few minutes north of Manhattan...just so funny about all that stuff EH?

So, Rupert took this misleading information that the HI PERPS needed spread about planet earth to create their cover, and he slam dunked it home for them...Rummie's military psy-ops pretty damn well.

Too bad.

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon

Posted by: painter Mar 12 2007, 11:45 AM

QUOTE (Robin Hordon @ Mar 12 2007, 05:02 AM)
Unless there is a national emergency where the military has taken control of the entire country, or parts of it, the FAA has enforcement authority over the military's responsibilities to intercept civilian aircraft.

Mr. Hordon, I'm also one of the ATC illiterate finding this thread fascinating. I very much appreciate you clearing up the misconceptions many of us were left with regarding inputs in FAA radar. Thank you very much for taking the time to spell all this out in such well worded detail.

The quote above caught my attention in part because of what I've been told by a trusted associate, Peter Dale Scott:
QUOTE (Peter Dale Scott)
When planes crashed into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, Vice President Cheney's response, after consulting President Bush, was to implement a classified "Continuity of Government" plan for the first time, according to the 9/11 Commission report. As the Washington Post later explained, the order "dispatched a shadow government of about 100 senior civilian managers to live and work secretly outside Washington, activating for the first time long-standing plans."

Source: (And else where, Google: )

Since you were engaged with ATC on 9/11/01, were you aware of any COG contingencies being put into effect? The reference to COG in the 9/11 Report are on page 38: "At 9:59, an Air Force lieutenant colonel working in the White House Millitary Office joined the conference and stated he had just talked to Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. The White House requested (1) the implementation of continuity of government measures, (2) fighter escorts for Air Force One, and (3) a fighter combat air patrol over Washington, D. C. 201"

Posted by: pinnacle Mar 12 2007, 01:08 PM

The fact of routine interception of "unknown riders" inside of US airspace is
proven by the 1998 Air Force Achievement Award given to the Western Air Defense Sector for 171 scramble intercepts.
The Award clearly decribes WADS as providing air defence for the entire western United Statesand all intercepts occurr within US airspace relying on close co-ordination between NORAD and the FAA and the US Customs Domestic Air Interdiction Co-ordination Center at March Air Force Base. US Customs also has it's own jet fleet for intercepting drug smugglers and they are on a five minute alert at all times. According to a GAO report from the late 1990s US Customs
scrambled about 15,000 times every year to check out suspected drug smuggling aircraft.

Posted by: Westgate Mar 12 2007, 02:50 PM

Robin - Thank you so very much for your detailed response, at last I am seeing a more logical and acceptable explanation for what happened on 911. Mike Ruppert was obviously way off target in his assumptions. He asserts that Cheney was controlling it all from his bunker, with Secret Service radar screens supplying the information, but these were screens from the FAA system. But he also states that the SS had access to military screens as well - do I take it that would be NORAD/NEADS? They obviously had a most detailed picture of just what was happening.

It really seems as though the veep had taken total charge - which is an impeachable event on it's own I believe!

In response to the other posting after yours, here is an article I posted on an English truth site this past weekend:-

I have just started reading - 'Rise of The Vulcans' - 'The History of Bush's War Cabinet' by James Mann. When browsing the book in my local Borders bookstore, before purchase, it fell open at chapter nine - 'In the Midst of Armageddon'

As I read the beginning of the chapter, I suddenly thought that here was a clue from the past, that is almost certainly current in today's 'Shrubland'. I have long wondered exactly how 911 could have been planned by the perps. Just how many people would actually have to know the whole plan? With skilled compartmentalisation, of which both military and politicians are extremely adept, probably not that many in terms of key players. So maybe it was a case of 'who you know' rather than 'what you know'. The key surely lies in the ability to network with a small cadre who are each well placed to camouflage their true intentions from those outside the loop. But then, a great level of trust must be forged, perhaps soundly based on experience of working closely with one another. But if the top planning perps are from diverse professional backgrounds, how could they liaise and gain experience as top team players? Here is the beginning of Chapter Nine...........

'At least once a year during the 1980s, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld vanished. Cheney was still working diligently on Capitol Hill, and Rumsfeld remained a hard-driving business executive in Chicago. Yet for three or four days at a time, no one in Congress knew where Cheney was, nor could anyone at Rumsfeld's office locate him. Even their wives were in the dark; they were handed only a mysterious Washington phone number, through which they might relay messages in case of emergencies.

After leaving their day jobs, Cheney and Rumsfeld usually made their way to Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington. From there, in the middle of the night, each man, joined by a team of forty to sixty federal officers and a single member of Ronald Reagan's cabinet, separately slipped away to some remote location in the United States, such as a discarded military base or an underground bunker. A convoy of lead-lined trucks carrying sophisticated communications equipment and other gear made it's way to the same location.

Rumsfeld and Cheney were principle figures in one of the most highly classified programs of the Reagan administration. Under it, the administration furtively carried out detailed planning exercises to establish a new American 'president' and his staff, outside and beyond the specifications of the US Constitution, in order to keep the federal government running during and after a nuclear war with the Soviet Union.
Over the years a few details about the existence of this Reagan-era effort have come to light, but not the way it worked or the central roles played by Cheney and Rumsfeld.

This clandestine program of the 1980s served as the hidden backdrop to the operations of the second Bush administration in the hours, days and months after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. When Vice President Cheney urged President Bush to stay out of Washington that day, when Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ordered his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, to get out of town and when other federal officials were later sent to work outside the capital to ensure the "continuity of government" in case of further attacks, these actions had their roots in the Reagan administration's classified program. When Cheney himself began to move from Washington to one or another "undisclosed locations" after September 11, he never acknowledged that he had also regularly gone of to undisclosed locations in the 1980s.'..............................

IMHO - these years enabled the coming together of a team well versed in their abilities to govern in the event of a nuclear war or any other sort of dramatic catastrophe. The relationships formed and rehearsed between the military, government, and federal officials, would have made the perfect cover for an 'inside team' planning 911 during the 1990's.

I wonder if this is a clue as to how it all started?

Robin - thanks so much - you have taught me a great deal in your excellent postings.


Posted by: painter Mar 12 2007, 06:10 PM

QUOTE (Westgate @ Mar 12 2007, 10:50 AM)
'In the Midst of Armageddon'

The "Armageddon Plan"

Posted by: amazed! Mar 12 2007, 11:06 PM


Regarding the use of injects, I understand that during games the NORAD scopes might be injected, but FAA not. Fair enough.

And I understand that it would be irresponsible to do otherwise.

However we are not dealing with responsible men, we are dealing with criminal bastards.

So I would like to rephrase my question please. Is it technically possible to inject the FAA scopes as well as NORAD? And if so, would such techniques have assisted the goals that fateful day?


Posted by: pinnacle Mar 13 2007, 12:18 PM

FAA Order 7610.4 "Special Military Operations" was issued on November 3, 1998.
Chapter 8 of this order requires close co-operation between NORAD and FAA radar controllers in order to scramble and intercept suspected aerial drug smugglers both inside and outside of US airspace. These interceptors
are to have priority over other air traffic.
Yet the 9/11 Commission never mentions these FAA/NORAD Joint aerial interdiction intercepts or explains how the orders could be carried out if their were no continuous communications between NORADa nd FAA and no aircraft available to scramble as required.
How could such a system scramble and intercept drug small drug smuggling aircraft sneaking into the country in the dead of night
yet be unable to intercept huge airliners in broad daylight?

Posted by: Robin Hordon Mar 14 2007, 07:43 PM

My computer has "been compromised" I missed quite a few questions about my, please resend then so that I can answer them as best I can.

I was not working at ZBW on 9/11...but my inside informants were...

Regarding COG...
First, I had the priveledge of meeting Peter Dale Scott in Arizona and he asked my opinion of a few ATC-NORAD-SEQUENCE of EVENTS issues regarding the: "bunker", Cheney, COG and some other aspects going on down there that day. He had put together some "airbourne-ATC-NORAD" timelines and conclusions that I was able to sugest he might not be correct about and that when you consider "all things aviation", the added "fourth dimention-TIME" really complicates things and consequently needs a lot more study before too many conclusions can be drawn. He thought it best to not insert these "aviation" things and concentrate more on the wierdness of Cheney, COG, Bush and the military activities in the bunker. This leads to my answer. COG is not conneceted to 9/11 aviation activities very much at all that day. However, COG regarding the entire attack IS something that PDS has some good insights about. MY strongest input woud be that the "planners" of 9/11 certainly thought of "testing out" whatever they possibly could test out that day. And for sure, some of it would be COG, and certainly that would have Cheney involved. But to me, Cheney is president anyway. So, not much difference in the long run.

I think that someone else on this site talked of another bunker in the Appalachians or something and that this could be used as another "physical space" for COG...but I think that its not the "physical" that controls COG so much as it is the people, and the dark process that PDS is so interested in looking into.


Seems that you have some solid stuff on background for scrambles and the like...this is rally good. your abilities to dig stuff out, you find out how many scrambles and WHY they occurred between June, 2001 and September 10th, 2001, then that just might bust a few BLOCKS. Also, you might want to update the files, and sharpen your teeth because I think that if the new information contained in Griffin's new book develops any "legs", then the Qs will flow about intercepts. For example, what were the reasons for 1000 scrambles in the 10 years previous to 9/11?...and how many for hijackings? [zip..], and how many for "in-flight emergencies"? It seems that there are records about the scrambles BEFORE June, 2001...and then AFTER 9/11..but NONE in the middle! Hmmmm?

AND...PINNACLE...your facts about "scrambling awards" pretty much blows NORAD'S excuses about "looking only outward" right out of the water. Last time I checked, the Rocky Mountains are not affected by high or low tides in either Chessapeak Bay nor San Francisco Bay...but then again, I only got B+s in geography!


Lets talk about "those needing to be in the know" to pull the military's part of 9/11 off from inside. I personally think that the building collapses are much more of a "real estate deal", possibly something with Israel, and a BIG issue for former political big-wigs in, I'll just talk about the FAA-NORAD-NMCC-PENTAGON players on 9/11...again, its how I see it.

All other military and FAA personnel were simply compartmentalized and "just doing their jobs"...with some of them doing their NEW jobs as of June, 2001.

Here is my hit list...

Cheney...he's running the WH show anyway, and he could have been running it all...but I doubt it because it would expose him too openly...he's prince of darness for very good reason...and a hero to weapons manufacturers

Rumsfeld...he quietly made personnel moves and re-shaped the "Defense Department" including the June, 2001 intercept protocol changes...he also knows enough to create and sustain "plausible deniability" for himself...and I think the those scholars like Peter Dale Scott, and others, are piecing together his strange behavior that day. Another hro for the Military Industrial say the least-did he EVER make mone for that clan!!!

General is THE KEY person as he was doing everything, everywhere, with all the different agencies and organizations leading up to 9/11. And his primary goal was to increase the footing of military spending in this contry...and what better way to deal with "the peace dividend" than to get us into war with 1.3 BILLION "peoples of the sands" in the middle east? The Russians were gone, the "Arabc Peoples" are IN! He is the MIC's third most major hero...Rummie is #1 and Cheney is #2. Meyers is REALLY DIRTY. Maybe that's why his wife is advertising "nicety-nice things" on progressive radio nowadays?

The No-Names...
...moles with a secret job to do for an attack...whenever it was more than one person each at the following facilities:

NEADS [this guy got AA11 into good service TWICE!!!]
Boston ARTCC
New York ARTCC
Cleveland ARTCC
Washngton ARTCC
Indianapolis ARTCC

Didn't even need one at NORAD in Colorado...

So, that's only 11 guys...and the ARTCC moles may not have been needed, which would make it about five.

The top three did, or oversaw, most of the planning about 9/11. The "reshaping pentagon profile"...or, establishing several groups to study "a variety attack scenarios" which actually could latter be cleverly utilized [thus being in place for the real action]. And then the COG stuff...think...Cheney because he may have been doing that control taking training on that day.

Other points...

I believe that the SS probably has BOTH the FAA Command Center radar "tracking" display information...AND..the NORAD radar "tracking systems" available to them "at the touch". And here is one for YA!

When Bush said that he SAW an airplane hit WTC1 when he was in FL, I think that he may have been looking at, or was being informed by the SS and their remote radar display capabilities as they watched AA11 do its thing. So, Bush's LIPS may have been a bit "loose" they often seem to be! Just a hunch. Certainly Bush would NEVER be given all the keys to the way, he had to pay $250 per paper just to pass high school...but they might let him watch TV!


I do not believe that NORAD "inputs" can be displayed on FAA radar displays, BUT, they might be able to be presented upon the ARTCC's military-FAA Command Center displays at the supervisory positions in the ARTCC's called "Watch Desks" because those screens are different anmals. The Watch Desks are long command centers where supervisory personnel connect with their world. Its NOT where aircraft targets need to be seen...but where aircraft "TRACKS" showing aviation density, demand, and flows...along with some possible "military ops" might be accessible for 'systemic" air traffic decision making. Additionally, I suspect that IF the "inputs" were displayed and were confusing to the FAA controllers that day, I think that we would have heard about it fom controllers...although they have been told to not talk about 9/11.

Two other points...inputting NORAD training exercises onto FAA scopes on 9/11 would become PROOF that the military was trying to "make the attacks happen"...its too obvious. AND, before anyone can talk much about "war games and military inputs", one needs to know where the war games were being played. As stated before, these games are not usually held in and around busy airspace...normally its all planned in remote areas and if the "games were up in Canada, the the "inputs" would be up that way also. The "inputs" would not likely be operating between NYC-DC.


RE: your last words...

You got that right!

And that you understand the issue of "giving priority" to scrambling fighter-interceptors is a very, very important thing to get out to the world. Hijacking scrambles DO NOT have PRIORITY...the fighters just fit in with normal sequencing because there is no emergency for them to deal with.

Rummie's military KNEW exactly what they could change, and they "HID" that change very cleverly.

Hope this helps...

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon

PS: I lost all emails, questions and statements between Tuesday at 3pm, and today at, resend if you like-RDH

Posted by: Westgate Mar 15 2007, 11:58 AM

Robin - As always, thanks so much for such detailed and fascinating responses.

On other forums and sites, I have seen much debate on 'Radar Holes' in the areas where 11 & 175 flew up to. The debate seems to centre on whether a plane swap was feasible in the so called Radar holes. Of course, following your detailed descriptions it seems more than likely, most definitely to me now, that both flights were followed all the way. Good controllers would automatically do all they could to keep those birds tracked.

Is it wise therefore to surmise that they would also have spotted any form of plane swap taking place? Or can one plane literally fly in the radar shadow of another if it gets close enough. If that shadow plane is flying without transponder turned on (for obvious reasons) then gets up 'close and dirty' to the other - then at a given signal - one turns it's transponder on, exactly as the other turns it's transponder off, would that mask such a swap. Would it be possible for that to take place in a radar gap - if indeed there is such a thing? Could 11 or 175 have been swapped in the air - or were they drones right from take-off? The change-over in radar holes seems a bit risky to me, not quite the signature of the organisers, but I guess if you really know your airspace?

Many/some of the controllers were interviewed collectively later that day by an un-named supervisor I believe - who subsequently broke the cassette recording up - thus it was never made available to anybody - allegedly! Now I begin to understand what they must have really 'seen' - what an awful thing to have to live with, knowing if you say one word your job, pension, will be taken away from you - perhaps even something worse than that. The HI Perps have so much to answer for - so many lives ruined for ever because of them. Widows, widowers, lots of scared people.

Robin, thanks so very much.


Posted by: andrewkornkven Mar 16 2007, 12:09 AM

QUOTE (Robin Hordon @ Mar 7 2007, 07:15 PM)
For Andy K,  if you are still engaged...

Can you find out if terminal radars like that at Dulles, shows raw primary radar targets, or are they somehow "computerized" and presented as the symetrical primary targets are shown in the ATRCC RDP presentations? Thanks...RDH


It's tough for me to try to answer this question, since I'm not really sure what you're looking for, and I also have no familiarity with tower or tracon radar. I spoke to a MSP Tracon controller who told me the targets are "digitized"-- whatever that means. He did say that there sometimes would be a question as to what was being represented, which leads me to believe their primaries are indeed "raw."

I will keep trying to work on this and get back to you.

Posted by: Robin Hordon Mar 16 2007, 11:31 AM


Thank you for your reply and I am MORE THAN fully aware of the difficult position that you are in regarding soliciting information. But, should you be able to ask, the questions about terminal radar processing and displays, here is what I was hoping to learn.

About targets-NOT tracking...

Are beacon targets presented digitally, and do they differ from the presentation of primary targets IF the primary targets are presented digitally?

In other words, even if the targets are all "computerized", can someone see the differences between primary and secondary targets?

Regarding primary target displays on terminal radar displays...

Years ago, the radar targets displayed used to be a "slash" that was always perpendicular to the physical location of the radar antennae, or "sweep" as we know it. So, when looking at a terminal radar display [or the MUCH older ARTCC LRR that I was brought up on], one could not only see the antennae location, [or the projected location] of the radar antennae, but one could also deduce it from looking at the "slash" or orientation or the target itself and projecting backwards to the antennae location site by using a perpendicular from the target slash.

So, does current day terminal radar still show such target "slashes" that are perpendicular to the radar antenae, or are they processed to look, or slant, or present in the same, or identical manner that is NOT in relation to the antennae?

About TRACKING-not targets so much...

Are digitized beacon targets that ARE being tracked, or have an associated alpha-numeric digitized "tag", or ID block following them, change the "look" or orientation of the associated TARGET in comparison to a beacon target that is NOT being tracked?

If I remember correctly, the RDP targets displayed at ARTCCs swap from a backward slash to a forward slash, [or vice-versa] as a function of the target being tracked or not. So, that's the base of my question about terminal radar TARGET-TRACKING functions.

Does the terminal radar system have the capacity to track a primary target like the ARTCC enroute RDP radar tracking system can accomplish?

In other words, does the terminal radar "system" have the capacity to create "search boxes" [my term] and project ahead of the current target position, a small "search area" in which the tracking system can shrink its "search area" and look for either a specific beacon code, any transponder return, or a primary return, and then relocate the "track and alpha-numerics" to that exact location?

I thought I had an insider about terminal radar all lined up, but the avenue dried up for the moment.

And surely, I can understand why you may not be able to get this info.

Thanks anyway...

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon

Posted by: pinnacle Mar 19 2007, 01:27 PM

US Customs radar center covered internal airspace and 100 nautical miles out to sea as of 1998. They were linked to NORAD and FAA systems all over the country
and the whole purpose was immediate communication about suspect targets and alert for possible interceptions.
Customs had a major computer upgrade in 1998 expanding their radar analysis and tracking ability.
If NORAD needed help tracking the hijacked planes what prevented them from calling Customs and simply asking them to use all 45 of their radar controllers to
help sort through the NEADS and FAA radar feeds utilizng their SGI Onyx mainframe computers? Just pretend they were drug smugglers and there would be no problem.
Customs had an air unit in Islip, Long Island where one of the FAA radars was located so they surely could see what was being tracked there. This was the same radar that figured prominently in the TWA Flight 800 investigation where it apparently saw military planes with no transponders just fine.

Posted by: Robin Hordon Mar 25 2007, 06:27 PM


Sorry for the first answer that I created last week fell victim to my clumsy fingers as I erased it! Here are my responses to your "radar" issues.

Paragraph 1...radar holes and flight following al the way.

The ONLY radar "hole" that is on record is the area in Western West Virginia where it is acknowledged that AA77 was LOST to positive radar contact. AA11, UA175 and UA93 were seen all the way to their crash points by FAA radar air traffic controllers. The big fuss is about NORAD not seeing them. Well, I think that this is just part of the story and Dr. Griffin's new book will put a few holes in that crap.

Additionally, regarding the EVENTUALLY "filled in" radar targets along the "alleged flightpath" of AA77 after it had been LOST to positive radar identification, this radar target information came to exist well after the fact. Its source is from within the military radar facilities and NOT the FAA radar data available that day.

I trust this military radar data as much as I do the FDR and animation data allegedly from "AA77" that was released by the same government...which means, I doubt its veracity very much. Reverse engineering is long as one has no memory.

Paragraph 2 is complex...

Drones from take-off...

I strongly doubt that there were any "drones" from the departure airports for any of the flights. Nor is it even thinkable that a "shadow" flight took off at the same time from the major airports. There is simply too much "very, very visible and really slow aircraft movements" on the airport surfaces for such an activity to even take place. No airliners can operate on an airport surface for departure unless it has its own flight plan, transponder code, and gate to push back from. Airport ground ops are very exacting and the only way that the complexity is managed is because the aircraft are moving slowly...AND CAN COME TO A COMPLETE STOP if needed! So, slipping a B767 off of an airport unnoticed is completely different than hailing a yellow cab in the downtowns of major cities where the yellows all look the same and its general chaos with noone in charge.

Therefore, to me, most of the "issues" surrounding all the "information" regarding flights not scheduled, changing gates, differing tail numbers, and even some issues regarding passnger manifests, are ALL RED HERRINGS. Most of this data was held in computers or on some form of paper records and here is the truth:


...and I feel that this was done as early as possible as soon as the 9/11TM began its questioning. I also feel that the HI PERPS first changed the easiest things to change to get the "hounds headed after some wrong foxes"...and then, as things got clearer and deeper, they made more comlex changes, IE: they "reverse engineered" the events as they came up years later.

One issue that is not talked about much is "the scramble to avoid accountability" that takes place in such crashes and events. The FAA, the federal government, the military the airlines, the airport organizations, the local, county and state municipalities, the screening personnel, the insurance companies, and even Santa Claus, do absolutely every thing that they can to push the blame elsewhere. This will include changing all sorts of records, data and "memories" regarding that day. So, everyone was scrambling for cover, and laying down HUGE smokescreens always helps the banditos in their escapes. This why I stick to bigger issues.

Paragraph 2 cont...In-Flight swapping of targets and aircraft...

First, let me make it clear again, the ONLY place that I see the possibility of an "in-flight swap" of any of the airlinrs is when AA77 was lost to "positive radar contact" and not ever again "re-established in positive radar contact" by any air traffic controller or anybody else. This happened in an area near the long deep valleys and high ridges in the Appalachians. There is no radar coverage down in the hollows of the valleys because the ridges block the signals.

So, was NOT AA77 that hit the Pentagon, and people have questions about what eventually happened to the B757, it could have snuck away out there, and the air vehicle that DID hit the pentagon COULD have been "swapped in" anywhere just west or southwest of Dulles airport where the valleys flaten out to the eastern seaboard. If one takes a look at these streaked mountain ranges, ridges and valleys in this general area, one can see that BOTH of the events that I identify could have taken place in that region. Obviously, this is speculation...but the "radar hole" exists!

Paragraph 2. cont...swapping aircraft...

YES...its is possible to swap aircraft in and out exactly as you postulate. Hoewever, there are four major points that hurt this hypothesis.

One..its pretty hard to pull such swaps off, or lets say airbourne "meet-ups" unless there is on-board radar on one of the craft. Now, this IS possible, and certainly IF there were an airbourne "electronic-control-radar seeing-command center" as some feel that there may have been airbourne that day [I certainly feel that something was up there overseeing some stuff-for sure], then that craft could have provided such guidance for the intercepts. AWACS command flights do this all the time in places such as the middle east.

Two...You mention yourself about how hard it would be to do such a thing in the "time/space/locations" that were available to these aircraft on that day. So, that would be a really narrow window in both time and location to do it. I can easily testify that even when given the most optimum of conditions, such as an airbourne tanker scheduled to be at the beginning of an aerial refueling route waiting for the arrival of fighters who need refueling, and the arrival of those fighters near the beginning of the air refueling...IT STILL IS QUITE A TASK FOR EVERY PLAYER CONCERNED...including FAA controllers. However, practice really helps and that is done all the time. imortant issue to consider is "rate of closure" for the "replacement aircraft..even IF they SOMEHOW departed from an airport under the flight path as some suggest. The ONLY reason that I know that we could and should have shot down the airliners is because the interceptors can fly so damn fast...their closure rate is incredible. Therefore, any replacement aircraft that is simlar in characteristics to the airliners, would have a very, very hard time "catching up with" any of the airliners that day. So, if it were done, most likely it would have had to be a supersonic "something". Not likely, and most likely visible to someone. seems very likely to me that the replacement aircraft and/or, the aircraft being replaced, are quite likely to be seen by some FAA radar somewhere along the line. Now, there are military "radar jamming" defenses that are well established, but whether or not they work on FAA radar, or whether or not ALL the aircraft involved would have that technology on board is another significant question.

So, again, I really do see this entire line of consideration more likely to be in the "RED HERRING" side of the events. This writing is the only time that I spend on such subjects...and it has been so since I first read these postulations. They are unbelievably unlikely....miracles at best.

Paragraph 3....the destroyed tapes...

I do believe that you have it right because I'll tell you this, if I WERE THERE that day, and I found out that someone somewhere had fighters out on "whale watch" when I NEEDED them for immediate intercepts, I'd probably be in jail because I would have wrung some supervisor's neck...or the neck of whomever denied my supervisor such assets. I have a deep belief that during that very meeting, the FAA air traffic controllers IMMEDIATELY GOT that it was an inside job, and that they KNEW that they had been set up as "new intercept protocol patsies". So, my guess is that they simply did the "Skull and Bones" thing [without the sex play] and swore to protect themselves because they remember the government's callosness with PATCO, and could very clearly see that the odds were stacked completely against them. I just KNOW that that was one VERY ANGRY MEETING...with nowhere to take the anger!

Love, Peace and Progress..and PAPER BALLOTS

Robin Hordon

Posted by: Robin Hordon Mar 26 2007, 03:08 PM


Rearding your information about all the radars available to NORAD and the FAA...I'd like to make several points...

First, as the investigations into 9/11 grow, I hope that you can come out and bring your WEALTH of information about these radar systems to the forefront. It will be invaluable and is certainly very impressive. Its OUR COUNTRY...and we need some "chins" stuck out.

Second, under the configurations on 9/11, its fairly easy to understand that within the "critical" timline needed to shoot down AA11 and UA175, there may not have been time to "plug in" these other radar feeds and coverages.

Third, all of the airliners were seen all the way with the exception of AA77 after its DESCENDING left turn at th end of its westbound leg. Therefore, and this is the most critical thing, its NOT the lack of radar coverage that caused the problems on 9/11, its that th entire event was FIRST shifted into a "hijack protocol" instead of being handled as BOTH an "in-flight emergency" protocol [immediate scramble] AND a "hijack protocol" [getting the pentagon involved for longer term planning].

Had AA11 and UA175 [and hence all others] been handled as "in-flight emergencies" as they WERE, then NORAD's "real world" would have been eneterd at least 10 minutes earlier and AA11 would have been EASILY seen, and UA175 woud have been noticed would the other two.

Its good to remember that AA11 was finally "seen" by NORAD about 15-20 miles north of Manhattan a few minutes before the crash. This acknowledgement was NOT accidental as it served the HI PERPS' needs, and the military has never clarified why it could NOT see AA11 north of that point.

So, in the end, the system SAW the airliners in time, Pentagon-NORAD simply played some "hijack protocol" games as established in June, 2001.

Its NOT the lack of radar targets....

Fourth, do you have information about target aqusition, target displays, and general radar presentation on the Tracon radar systems and their associated computer-identification tag functions? Thanks...rdh

Love, Peace and Progress...and PAPER BALLOTS

Robin Hordon

Posted by: Westgate Mar 31 2007, 04:53 AM

Hi Robin - I am just back from a few days visiting friends in the North of England. I just want to thank you, once again, for your detailed and highly informative responses to my questions. As before, I now need to go away and assimilate all you have told me.

The key seems to be, come way 'out of the box' - pull back for more global view of what actually happened, rather than what appeared to happen. For a mere civilian like me, with no military or FAA background, trying to grasp the technicalities is almost impossible of course.

That said, it is so enlightening once an expert view like yours enters the arena. I immediately realise just how little I truly understand about tracking the four flightpaths.

It is the Hijack versus Emergency instruction that is such a key point. That effectively attenuated the USAF QRAs out of the equation.

Time for thinking cap, more coffee and another read of your responses.

Thanks once again. thumbsup.gif

Posted by: Robin Hordon Mar 31 2007, 03:44 PM


Thank you for reading them and showing interest...

Perhaps the most efficient way to approach all of this is to do some "reverse engineering" of all thoughts 9/ all aspects of the event.

In other words, and focusing on this particular aspect of 9/ presume that the HI PERPS" MOST IMPORTANT TASK was to convince the public of "their story" through the use of psy-ops, then its pretty easy to "see" the BIG BLOCKS of information that they have established, or have laid out there for public consumption.

So, in this case, they had to keep the public thinking about hijacks-hijacks-hijacks...for a variety of of which establishes a NEW ENEMY to excuse the pentagon's actions and to establish its outlandish budgets. Another is to establish a SLOW interceptor response which they needed to have as protocol to avoid the airliners being shot down as they should have been.

So, if YOU were planning this event, and YOU knew that the established "in-flight emergency" scramble protocols would thwart the mission, and YOU knew that there was a "slow" intercept protocol, and YOU needed to create a NEW ENEMY...wouldn't you make the protocol change made in June of 2001? And further...wouldn't YOU set up some immediate "psy-ops" to get the public thinking the way that you needed them to think in their FIRST think through?

So really, just sitting in the HI PERPS' shoes when looking into any subject regarding all things 9/11 allows one to do such "reverse thinking" and thus discover their approaches to such psy-ops to cover stuff up....and of discover the original plans.

Other examples are Ed Koch on CNN immediately after the WTCs were hit establishing that it was BinLaden [I've never seen any footage of "Koch the salesman" since...its buried...CNN is just another HI PERPS" media tool!], and the "random citizens" who found their way onto TV coverage providing us the "reasons" that the towers came down..."airplane damage-fires-weakened steel" etc. And again of course...the LACK of the first responder radio communications tapes [held in secret for years] and other citizen's, and first responder's eyewitness accounts of pre-collapse explosions. PRE-COLLAPSE EXPLOSIONS.

Now wouldn't THOSE PRE-COLLAPSE EXPLOSIONS throw a wrench in their psy-ops?

Psy-ops nformation like this is all over the place...

Consequently, instead of taking small OBVIOUS stuff and running wild with it as too many 9/11 truthers biting at the first bait in the water!...its really best to think long and work one's wat back to the immediate.

Love, Peace and Progress...and PAPER BALLOTS ONLY

Robin Hordon

Posted by: amazed! Apr 1 2007, 02:55 PM

Well put Robin. Yes, it's amazing how skillful the government propagandists have become.

Credit where credit is due, isn't exactly operative here, but they pulled off one helluva trick.

Posted by: pinnacle Jun 19 2007, 04:01 PM

Is there any information available on how long radar records are normally maintained by the FAA just for possible investigative purposes and wouldn't
records for an important event like 9/11 be kept indefinitely?
I was told by the FAA they had "no records" of Washington DC radar
between 9:30 am and 10:00 am on 9/11.
This is obviously not so since some of these records from 9:30 to 9:37 am were released in 2005 to the National Security Archive showing the flight path of Flight 77.
How could they not have the records for the following 23 minutes?

Posted by: Robin Hordon Jun 19 2007, 05:24 PM


I feel that my following information is undoubtedly outdated, and certainly since the FBI was involved and took control of the evidence in so many locations of the attacks, they have their own standards regarding how long they keep them. And I have no clue about that...except that they have learned well that the best way to go is to destroy all incriminating records. Such activities usually will pay off handsomely for their agency and the "career climbs" down the road...just ask J. Edgar Hitler!

When I was "in", we routinely kept tapes/discs/data files for thirty days before they got recycled and written over by new information. If there was an incident, the tapes and evidence was kept until the situation was resolved either by investigation and reasearch, or until litigation was completed. So, who knows...other than the FBI and all the HI PERPS in the government and military?

As far as the NTSB "radar pics" that I see showing all the flights' tracks across the ground, I can easily show that they are visual fabrications and have been put out there to convince the public that "this is really what happened". These PICS were created after the fact and do seem to be loosely based upon some "real" radar information assembled at some earlier time. Regarding where the "original radar data" might be right the toilet I'd guess!

Love, Peace and Progress..and PAPER BALLOTS ONLY

Robin Hordon

Posted by: mftorso Jun 24 2007, 02:03 AM

I'm a latecomer to this thread but want to thank all involved.
Truly illuminating.
Well done people. Thanks again.


Powered by Invision Power Board (
© Invision Power Services (