IPBFacebook



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


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

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

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
A Question For Us Radar Controllers

amazed!
post Mar 9 2007, 11:54 PM
Post #21





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Robin

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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Robin Hordon
post Mar 10 2007, 12:14 AM
Post #22





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



Amazed...

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 history...HMMMM...how about those odds?

Puhhhhhlease!!!!!!!!!!

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Robin Hordon
post Mar 10 2007, 01:11 AM
Post #23





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



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 presentaion...ie...IF 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 display...you 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

PS:
Looks like we may have some fun ladies and gentlemen...
Let's all raise a toast to the HI PERP'S map makers!!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Mar 10 2007, 10:30 PM
Post #24





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Robin

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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Robin Hordon
post Mar 11 2007, 01:01 AM
Post #25





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



Amazed,

YES...it 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Westgate
post Mar 12 2007, 04:41 AM
Post #26





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 121
Joined: 11-March 07
From: Cambridge UK
Member No.: 752



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."


Robin
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Robin Hordon
post Mar 12 2007, 09:02 AM
Post #27





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



Westgate,

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 scopes...in 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 anyway...my 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 not...you 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 HIJACKINGS...so, 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Mar 12 2007, 11:45 AM
Post #28


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (Robin Hordon @ Mar 12 2007, 05:02 AM)
<s>
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.
<s>

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: http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_arti...936ddc65cdd56a9 (And else where, Google: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari...=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 )

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"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pinnacle
post Mar 12 2007, 01:08 PM
Post #29





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



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Westgate
post Mar 12 2007, 02:50 PM
Post #30





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 121
Joined: 11-March 07
From: Cambridge UK
Member No.: 752



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.

biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Mar 12 2007, 06:10 PM
Post #31


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



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

The "Armageddon Plan"
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print....s04/0318-14.htm
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Mar 12 2007, 11:06 PM
Post #32





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Robin

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?

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pinnacle
post Mar 13 2007, 12:18 PM
Post #33





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



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Robin Hordon
post Mar 14 2007, 07:43 PM
Post #34





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



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

Painter...
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.

PINNACLE,

Seems that you have some solid stuff on background for scrambles and the like...this is rally good. IF...in 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!

WESTGATE,

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 NYC...so, 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 Complex...to say the least-did he EVER make mone for that clan!!!

General Myers...here 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 sceduled...no 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
NMCC
FAA HQ

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"...as they often seem to be! Just a hunch. Certainly Bush would NEVER be given all the keys to the car...no way, he had to pay $250 per paper just to pass high school...but they might let him watch TV!

AMAZED,

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.

PINNACLE,

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 3pm...so, resend if you like-RDH
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Westgate
post Mar 15 2007, 11:58 AM
Post #35





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 121
Joined: 11-March 07
From: Cambridge UK
Member No.: 752



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.




thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andrewkornkven
post Mar 16 2007, 12:09 AM
Post #36





Group: Newbie
Posts: 52
Joined: 17-October 06
Member No.: 105



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

Robin,

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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Robin Hordon
post Mar 16 2007, 11:31 AM
Post #37





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



Andrew,

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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pinnacle
post Mar 19 2007, 01:27 PM
Post #38





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



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Robin Hordon
post Mar 25 2007, 06:27 PM
Post #39





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



Westgate,

Sorry for the delay...my 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 simple..as 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:

SUCH RECORDS ARE THE VERY EASIEST TO MANIPULATE AND TO CHANGE...

...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, IF...it 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.

Three...an 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.

Four...it 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Robin Hordon
post Mar 26 2007, 03:08 PM
Post #40





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



Pinnacle,

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 IMMEDIATELY...as 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th October 2019 - 03:15 AM