IPB




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

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

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Last Primary Radar Return AA Flt 11, Is this time of 8:46:40 precise?

quicknthedead
post Nov 3 2006, 12:08 AM
Post #1





Group: Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: 2-November 06
Member No.: 203



I have written a paper along with Gordon Ross called "Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an Inside Job".

This paper is on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website.

Here below is the summary and link that I post on the internet regarding this:

=====================================================
=====================================================

The following data has not been refuted by anyone yet.
Many proponents of the "official conspiracy theory" reject these times out-of-hand stating these facts are false, but unfounded opinions with no factual basis are meaningless.

These times are true and corroborate William Rodriguez and all the other eyewitnesses that morning who testified to explosions in the sub-basements of WTC1 BEFORE THE PLANE HIT THE BUILDING.

The data herein is from two official government sources that were charged with looking into what happened on 9/11, and both approved these times as real, accurate, and precise to the second.

I found these times on the internet this last July 24th by accident.

Craig T. Furlong

------------------

Summary:

Plane Impact Times – Indicting New Evidence of 9/11 Coverup & Involvement

“Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)”
Link: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Seismic..._Inside_Job.doc
By Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross
Scholars for 9/11 Truth: http://www.st911.org /

One World Trade, September 11th, 2001
American Airlines Flight 11
8:46:40 UTC - FAA last primary radar contact
8:46:30 UTC - LDEO/NIST
Both times: real, accurate to the second

Q- What caused the 8:46:30 seismic event ~10 seconds before the aircrash?
A- The only possibility...huge explosion(s).

Q- Who caused these explosions?

Notes:
Ginny Carr audiotape ~9.2 second gap between initial explosion and aircrash.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the time of the initial seismic event.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements before the plane crashed, and NIST avoided the witnesses as well.
NIST avoided the 9/11 Commission’s time of the aircrash.

Now is the time for the new 9/11 investigation, THIS TIME ONE WITH TEETH.

Justice waits.
{There is no Statute of Limitation on murder.}

=====================================================
=====================================================


The question I have is regarding the final primary radar return for AA Flt 11 that occurred at 8:46:40.

This is the the time of the crash as given by 9/11 Commission in its Final Report.

This time is clearly indicated in the Fig. 2 graph presented by the NTSB report on this flight:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc01.pdf

HERE IS MY QUESTION: Is this 8:46:40 time real, accurate, and precise?
I believe it to be, and my question here is to seek corroboration of this based upon those with professional experience.

Anyone with experience in the areas of radar, ATC, NTSB etc. is invited to contribute on this matter; please share your knowledge and expertise. I only want the truth and nothing but.

Why am I asking this? Because I have encountered two questions from skeptics who thereby dismiss the paper as valueless. However, I believe their positions are false and that this 8:46:40 is a true and accurate time.

1st Question: Some proponents of the official conspiracy theory (i.e., the government's) have stated that the NTSB report used the word "approximate" time for the 8:46:40, so it can not be considered accurate down to the precise second. I countered by stating that, due to the radar sweep/fresh aspect of the antenna, yes it could be considered "approximate", but only in the instances of
perhaps it was 8:46:41 or
perhaps it was 8:46:42 or
perhaps it was 8:46:43 ...
But that it could not have been any earlier than 8:46:40 because that is the time of the last primary radar return.


2nd Question: Others have stated that, if you look at the Fig. 2 graph, the final 8:46:40 return was at zero ground level, so it couldn't have been AA Flt 11. I countered by saying the primary radar returns only provide location and time (not altitude).

These are the only two questions I have encountered on this crucial 8:46:40 time.

Any word or information from professionals in this area, or have some experience that would be helpful, would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.
Craig T. Furlong
Licensed Pilot: Single-Engine, Land
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Robin Hordon
post Dec 2 2006, 04:53 PM
Post #2





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



My name is Robin Hordon and I'm a ex air traffic controller and pilot who, when working for the FAA, was certified/used to breakdown both audio tapes and radar readouts of aircraft involved in "incidents" in need of investigation. I am qualified to speak to this subject except that I have no direct understanding how about the military/NORAD radar establishes altitude on a primary target.

I trust that NORAD has coincidental radar beams emitted in the search sweep...one deals with azmuth and range, [we commonly see this as a sweep around a radar screen], and the other, a coincidental vertical sweep or footprint, which must deal with the vertical angle of the reflected target which is also measured in reflection time giving the target approximate altitude as accomplished in the original azmuth sweep. The azmuth sweep and the vertical sweep must be somehow combined for NORAD display, or the vertical sweep may be displayed separately nearby.

Question #1...Is the last primary radar hit accurate in identifying the earliest time that AA11 could have hit WTC 1.

The answer is YES...but I hold a great deal of reservation regarding any information ever given about any subject at any time by the US Government...and I double that concern when it comes to any information coming from the military. However, for this challenge to your work, both sides are using the government's information and thus cancel each others potential for corruption.

Your conclusion that the collision could not possibly be earlier than :40 is astute and accurate. All times in aviation are based upon GMT [Greenwich Mean Time which is based upon time in Greenwich England] so that real time air traffic activities, projected activities, communications, and positioning/locating can be discussed worldwide all at once with everyone using the same time reference. A similar example of international "standards" agreements would be that the world agrees that north is toward the artic north pole and the south is toward the antarctic south pole...ie: the same reference. So it is with international air traffic time. Therefore, GMT time reference and controll room and aircraft time displays are used and apply to US military and US ATC operations.

The EIGHT number in the "8:46:40" AM time is corrected FROM GMT to the local time so as to make more sense to the public and non-professionals. Saying it in another way...the ":46:40" time in any particular hour is the ":46:40" time in EVERY hour whatever the particular "local" hour it is in the particular time zone throughout the world...and there are more than 24 "local times" worldwide as some locals do some customizing of their local time. GMT is never cutomized.

Although I am not expert on the time standards used by the scientific "siesmic" community, I trust that it uses the exact same GMT time standard for all of its recording, measuring and calculating. For example, in this way when an earthquake occurs in Japan, the results are measure and monitored all around the world using the EXACT same GMT time...this enables the timing and shock wave speed calculations to be accurately throughout he world. Scientists do not bother with trying to compute exactly which "time zone" the event occurred within. They are all using GMT as their reference. At a later point in the quake events, local times are adjusted into the mix by the "local non-scientists" as noted above.

Therefore, if the NORAD/FAA/Military collected radar data shown in your work is to be trusted, it is exactly as it is...:46:40 or later for the collision, and, it should relate accurately to the siesmic readings because they too are using the exact same GMT time reference.

Question #2...Last primary radrar return at ground level...

Primary radar systems have circuitry and adjustable parameters built within them to ingnore, or said differently, "do not display", primary radar returns that are stationary, or that do not move. If the primary radar sytem did not have this capability, then the radar would begin its "returns" from the nearby buildings, hills, trees, and more distant mountains and tall towers/antennae and the radar display would be a bright green blurb near the radar antennae. When these primary radar parameters are not adjusted properly, or sometimes if there are certain atmospheric conditions such as temperature inversions, then the radar displays tons of "ground clutter" or false targets. Therefore, great care and many steps are taken to "certify" that a particular radar system meets accuracy and such "filtering" standards. Moving on...

From the above explanation, if the last primary radar return of AA11 tried to reflect the aircraft that was actually AT ground level, or, at a very low level, the radar either would not be able to distinguish the aircraft from the backgorund [ground, trees, buildings, hills and the like], and therfore, the "ground clutter" elimination system would disqualify the aircraft's reflected return. Again, if AA11 were too low, the radar signal would not strike it because its a straight-line RF signal, or AA11's radar return would blend in with the buildings and the like even if it were moving and thus be automatically eliminated. But there WAS a primary radar return and that proves that AA11 was NOT at ground level when the radar beam was transmitted, reflected and read by NORAD's radar system.

Why the human generated "at ground level" terminology exists? It seems to me that the chart shows ground level as a conclusion by a human being..but if not, the above information should clarify. But lets look at it from a different perspective.

The reason that the primary radar shows AA11 at ground level is because that is the RADAR SYTEM's "ground level". Again, this is because anything below that is mixed in with the stationary radar returns of the buildings, tress, hills and the like...and again, it doesn't matter how many aircraft may be scooting around down there, the primary radar anti-ground clutter system will eliminate them all. Therfore, the "ground level" as noted by this chart is the RADAR'S ground level, not the earth's true ground level. Please note that MANY of these "primary radar return" limitations do not exist with electronic ie: transponder return signals...because there are no comparative electronic returns equalling,or coming from the immense amount of "ground, buildings, hills, mountains, antennae, and towers" that the primary radar "sees". This is why transponders are so valuable.

Another thing to remember about longer range radar is that the width of each degree of arc gets wider and wider as it gets farther away from the radar transmitting-receiving site. Lets compare and make some points:

First...lets consider the old fashioned radar landing systems that were used decades ago in bad weather,or on aircraft carriers, where a ground/shipboard radar controller would "talk and aircaft down" a particular vertical glide path to the runay using both a horizontal azmuth radar and a vertical height radar. The only way that the system worked was because the aircraft was getting closer and closer to both the radar and to the runway. In other words, the width of both of the radar beams was getting smaller and smaller the closer the aircraft got to the runway/radar which gave it more accuracy with closure.

Second...lets expand this "beam width" concept to a radar controller on earth, using an earth based radar system, talking an astronaught down to the surface of the moon. How accurate do you think that beam width at the moon would be regarding the moon's surface. The beam width would probably be tens of miles wide. Translating...the earthly controller's radar "could" show the the lunar lander was right in the middle of the radar glide path, but the lunar lander could be twenty miles above the surface or just about to plow into a crater.

Getting back to Manhattan...and re-making the point made by the military itself, that the altitudes shown by the simple primary radar altitude system are at the best, approximate. And I claim that the farther away from the vertical radar antennae, the less accurate it is. The military does not identify the location of their altitude radar. Therefore, accept the military's explanation about altitude innacuracies and apply it to AA11 as it hit the WTC.

That should do it for your issues with your challengers.

Now, something that I would like everyone reading this report to remember.

THE MILITARY HAD THE CAPABILITY TO TRACK AA11, AND ALL THE OTHER AIRCRAFT ALL THE WAY...THESE CHARTS ON AA11 PROVE IT...and the North American Radar Defense Command has radars all over he place...like North America for example. Seems sensible to me!

Therefore, their claim that they didn't know where the aircraft were, nor could they find or track them will eventually be proven wrong. I postulate that both the FAA and NORAD had solid targets all the way along. My inside information from ZBW states that the ZBW controllers DID locate AA11 to NORAD well before it is currently acknowledged. This is the reason that the FAA/FBI will not release ATC sector audio tapes detailing the communication and coordination actions that the CIVILIAN air traffic controllers took when dealing with the emergencies. I believe that the Christian Scence Monitor in Boston, or some other testimony that "leaked out", shows that the ZBW controller thought there was big trouble around 8:15-8:20 AM and began to take action. I want ALL the controller tapes...not just the radio transmissions, or assistant controller portions. Then, I postulate that we will find out that NORAD indeed was informed WAY before Rummy's military states that it was informed.

I have been told that the ZBW controller contacted the Otis [FMH] approach control for help around 8:24. Wrong place...right timing...right reasons

Its Rummy's military who wasn't picking up the phone!

Robin Hordon
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 3 2006, 07:35 AM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,688
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



ZBW = Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center, for those that dont know.. wink.gif

Thanks for your input Robin.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pinnacle
post Dec 4 2006, 07:50 PM
Post #4





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



According to an interview with the three air controllers who first noticed trouble on Flight 11 it was considered a "runaway plane" at about 8:20 am and they began moving other flights out of it's way.
It seems that they would have contracted NORAD at that point even if they
had no suspicions of a hijack but merely an emergency of some kind.
It also seems that NORAD would have noticed the fact that a flight path was being cleared in front of a plane that was headed directly toward Rome , New York, where NORAD NEADS itself was located.
NORAD can monitor radio traffic and certainly should have heard the
FAA attempts to raise Flight 11 long before getting a phone call from them.
What I would like to know is did Flight 175 also have traffic moved
out of it's way and if so would that not have been yet another signal to NORAD that something was wrong?
The 9/11 Commission made no mention of a "runaway plane" scenario at 8:20
am and never inquired if NORAD was monitoring radio communications
during all of this emergency activity.
The focus on the term "hijack" seems to be used to as a smokescreen to imply that
NORAD was not required to react to other emergency or suspicious situations involving aircraft, or to intercept drug smugglers, or shoot down unmanned
aerial objects, all of which require rapid response times and the ability to track small targets without transponders.
Interestingly the US Customs radar center had software that would have
signalled an alarm if a plane went off course or turned off it's transponder
or any other suspisious actions that might indicate it was involved in drug smuggling, so you would think NORAD would have at least the same if not greater
detection capabilities.
The US Customs service also scrambled it's drug interceptors about 10,000
times every year on a five minute alert basis. They also had a direct line to NORAD
for co-ordinated operations as detailed in the famous 1996 shoot down incident in the Florida straights near Cuba.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Robin Hordon
post Dec 4 2006, 09:25 PM
Post #5





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



Pinnacle,

I'm curious about where you got that information regarding the "conclusions" of three controllers that is was a "runnaway plane".

Runaway plane is not a very familiar term to me except perhaps aircraft who are out of control when taxiing or on an aircraft carrier's deck having some restraint troubles. Runaway train...OK...I'm on that one...

However, clearly if the three controllers thoght this was a runaway plane, it wasn't a good thing to be happening, and they would STILL start their reach-out to ADC/NORAD right then and there.

From what I understand about NORAD, they basically "see" all the traffic that they can, and try to decide wether if is "Friend or Foe"...period!

There is no tracking of aircraft that are under FAA control or random VFR types that are considered "Freindly". Therefore, since so many flights can go in so many directions at all sorts of random times, and NORAD does not have flight path/routing information about the aircraft being worked by the FAA sectors, NORAD would not be able to tell the difference if aircraft were on course, off course, or if it was being vectored around "whatever" might be out there. Almost all "on or off" air routes observations and monitoring is accomplished by the FAA ARTCC's because they have the flight plan data base showing the routings that the FAA controllers read and get into their heads.

Same story as frequencies...there are too many conversations going on all across the country for any one body such as NORAD to sit there and try to unscramble and make any sense of it all...randomely. Surely NORAD has capabilities to "lsten in on, or to perhaps now, even to broadcast" on any chosen frequency once asked to do so. When NORAD talks to/with the military aircraft under their watch/control, they have their own secretive frequencies. So, NORAD had no reason to "listen to" AA11, therefore, they would not know that anything might be wrong regarding radio contact.

Not the same regarding the transpondr though. In my experience with NORAD, almost every time I had a transponder issue with a high altitude aircraft, when I called the ADC sector involved, the sharper observers/controllers would already have seen the high altitude "beacon" or transponder go out. But not all NORAD/ADC monitors/observers were right on this...sometimes they had other duties in other areas of their responsibility.

Regarding traffic being moved out of the way for UA175, its the same as AA11 above. The only teams moving traffic out of the way were the FAA air traffic controller sets of teams in those sectors along the way.

I believe that there is some testimony somewhere that was slipped out to local New England newspapers, that the radar controller in charge when AA11 went bad, shows that the radar controller "saw trouble" with AA11 before he/she decided that it was a hijack. The scenario that I remember is "immediate concern" with the directional change and loosing the transponder. This is "observable" without radio contact, and that's what radar controllers do...watch all their aircraft on every sweep. [believe it or not, controllers are trained in the discipline to keep their own eyes "sweeping" and not allow them to be fixated on only one part of their airspace...which happens] Then, after seeing the routing change and the transponder failure, he/she began to try and contact AA11 on the radio...with no avail. Were I the controller at his time, my thoughts would be that things may be very, very bad...perhaps a total electrical failure, again...very, very bad things could be happening. A few minutes AFTER observing trouble, and after several attempts to re-establish radio contact with AA11, transcripts show that there were a couple of strange transmissions about "having more planes" and another telling someoe to "stay still, or "remain in your seats".

Well, if emergency procedures have already been enjoined by the controller at that time...A VERY, VERY LIKELY THING, then there would have been additional controllers "plugged into" the extra radio and control positions to enhance the system's "ears" so that if ANYTHING is heard...there could be as many witnesses or interperatations of those transmissions as is possible so as to "hear" what was said...if anything was said at all. It would be at that time, after the odd transmissions were heard, that the first thought that AA11 might be a hijacked aircraft. However, remember, ADC/NORAD was most likely already called in to the picture several minutes before these odd transmissions. One or more of the additional controllers may have coordinated this ADC/NORAD connection.

Therefore, it may be true that the word "hijack" may have been misused in describing the events with AA11. Surely there are other reasons that ADC/NORAD and the FAA controllers have experienced which call for scrambling fighters...or in the case of the border drug issues, smaller and slower aircraft.

US Customs is/was not my baliwick, but my understanding of US Customs systems and flights over international waters and in international airspace such as that on our southern watery borders back when I flew them myself, is that indeed, flights have to remain exactly on course and on time out there. Any deviations are surely noticed.

Also, its most likely that the Customs software is somewhat similar to the FAA's enroute software with good data bases and routing information stored in the data banks. And for sure, the radar sensitivities needed to pick up low slow aircraft flying a few feet above the Gulf waters are a least somewhat different from the radar used over northern Canada.

In the end, both ADC/NORAD and the FAA controllers know what to do when troubles hit...its just a matter of who told whom what and when they told them.

To me, Rummie set it up so that ADC/NORAD were acting like the infamous "three monkeys" when they were dealing,or not dealing, with evil.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pinnacle
post Dec 7 2006, 08:59 PM
Post #6





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



The transcript of the NBC interview uses the term "runaway plane" but the controllers describe clearing all flights from 30,000 feet down to the ground
along a large air corridor, near Syracuse New York and the 174th Fighter Wing, which sounds like they though it was pretty serious. Hijacking was not the issue at that point, a mid air collison was.
NORAD may not have known flight route data but a turn directly toward
them and shutdown of transponder by a large jet would indicate something unusual
was occurring , and if a "war game" were actually under way you would think they would be looking for exactly this kind of anomaly. All the scrambling of other aircraft to get out of the way would be visible on radar even if Flight 11 itself were not.
Flight 11 stayed heading directly toward NEADs and the Utica JSS radar for more than ten minutes at about 500 miles an hour so at some point it should have aroused concern just by it's bizarre actions and the failure to send up any jets, armed or not, to check it out for all this time is one of the big mysteries.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Robin Hordon
post Dec 8 2006, 07:23 AM
Post #7





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



Pinnacle...a few points...

10-4 on "runnaway plane" used by mejor corporate media...most likely a "civilian reporter" term...not used much in our system...

Again, please do not forget the EARLY actions taken by ZBW control personnel...they KNEW trouble was in the air...

ABSOLUTELY...the controllers worked with their brothers and sisters high and low to get all the aircraft that they were controlling the hell out of the way of this target THAT THEY WERE STILL TRACKING...and...BTW...using to computer to "point out" AA11 to chosen sectors.

What this "point out" computer action does is to send ALL the information about a tracked flight [target and alpha-numeric data block] to whatever sector they felt it pertinent to send to...IE: ALB and SYR low. There would be a follow-up inter-sector communications [that is not released] between high and low with a viable explanation...for which the "low" guys didn't need too much info about...because they ALL know what to do...

Believe it or not, there is very, very little target cvalue in the NORAD/NEADS facilities on the ground...consequently, I'd be very, very surprised if there were any concern whatsoever about AA11 heading at or toward them...doesn't matter.

Sharp ADC/NORAD controllers would have picked up a lengthy transponder failure of AA11, but that happens sometime...ie: when a code is changed in the cockpit right when the radar sweep hits the transponder antenna, or a switch to standby, or other stuff. ADC/NORAD see but don't react toformerly "friendlies...[which AA11 was]...unless drawn to the aircraft by FAA/ATC.

It is possible that part of the ADC/NORAD protocol is to "look for" civilian aircraft turning into "foes"...and I don't have any feel for that...except for its severe complexities...better to use "computer generated targets" in lieu of pulling some fighters alongside an airliner. Now isn't that paradoxical?

There is no way that ADC/NORAD would have any idea that the flight paths of any targets that they are monitoring in the upstate area were being "moved out of the way" for AA11. This is because aircraft are going anywhere and everywhere every day, in all sorts of directions...and ADC/NORAD just looks at them as either "friendly or foe"...and NOT wether or not they are "on or off" course...because they do not know what their flight plans are in the first place!


There is a major westbound J route just south of Griffiss and ADC/NORAD see traffic all over the place...especially if there is chop, rerouted traffic or T storms. These are not likely that day...but...ADC/NORAD is not gonna panic cause someone is flying overhead. Besides, IF AA11 was headed for Griffiss for real, ATC/FAA would give tem a shout...just like they did the low altitude sectors in the area. That's what controllers do.

As you know by now, I certainly have no mystery as to why interceptors were not sent up to do what they do...its because Rummie's military was purposefully distracted, protocols were deliberately changed, phone calls were NOT answered, and there were several "plants or moles" in the various facilities, civilian and military, to keep communications nil and confusion high.

Inside job brother or sister...

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pinnacle
post Dec 8 2006, 01:46 PM
Post #8





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



Here is a link to the interview with air controllers of Flight 11.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14754701/

Once again it creates the impression that only a "hijack" situation justified calling NORAD,
but assistance to aircraft in distress was part of their mission so the question remains why a
flight of such concern to controllers did not motivate a call for visual inspection by NORAD/
First Air Force when the 174th had F-16s based in the area.
The same applies to Flight 175 which should have gotten a much faster response but apparently got none. Otis scrambled at 8:45 so their was 21 minutes to intercept Flight 175 and
by that point NORAD knew what to look and listen for. Yet no effort was made to inspect Flight 175 when it was not far from the Otis jets and had been switching it's transponder signal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
quicknthedead
post Dec 13 2006, 11:38 PM
Post #9





Group: Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: 2-November 06
Member No.: 203



QUOTE (Robin Hordon @ Dec 2 2006, 03:53 PM)
My name is Robin Hordon and I'm a ex air traffic controller and pilot who, when working for the FAA, was certified/used to breakdown both audio tapes and radar readouts of aircraft involved in "incidents" in need of investigation. I am qualified to speak to this subject except that I have no direct understanding how about the military/NORAD radar establishes altitude on a primary target........

Thank you, Robin Hordon, not only for answering my question, but also for the great post you've made with all you have presented.

Excellent information!

Craig T. Furlong
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Joekabuki
post Jan 14 2007, 01:54 PM
Post #10





Group: Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: 14-January 07
Member No.: 449



Syracuse and the 174th were mentioned here, so I will chime in with something that I noticed in the week of July 4th, 2001 when I flew into Hancock. Some strange things happened on this particular trip. I had an instructor with me because I was trying to get signed off on the Saratoga. We made the both legs of the trip under a VFR flight plan to log hours and pick up my family.

On landing in Syracuse, I noticed that there was a lot of activity in the hangar at the 174th. Planes were still parked with canopies open. By the time we parked at exec air, those planes were taking off in formation, which made it very hard to communicate with the ground crew. We loaded up with fuel, passengers and were off again without incident. I'm flying VFR, on a flight plan, talking to ATC.

Some cumulus clouds were ahead of us over Canada, so I began to turn 5 degrees when ATC (Cleveland Center) called to ask what exactly we thought we were doing. She was somewhat terse. We explained the situation and they told us to keep them informed of any changes from then on. I asked the instructor if that seemed unusual, and he said 'definitely'.

In 2002, people argued that the reason none of the fighters were able to stop the planes, was because they were too far away and would take them too long to scramble to reach the planes. I think my experience that day, along with the knowledge that we had warnings in the months prior shows that argument is ridiculous. Those planes went from having no pilots in their seats to in the air in just a few minutes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Culper721
post Jan 23 2007, 01:06 AM
Post #11





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



Has anyone here ever plotted out the ATC transcript for AAL11, as released in the NY Times on a chart? I did it in the summer of 2005 on the boat out of sheer curiosity.

Several hundred cups of coffee and a few days later.....

See: "NEED RADAR HOLE FLIGHT PATH PICTURE SANS DRONE FLIGHTS"

http://www.team8plus.org/e107_plugins/foru...viewforum.php?7

FYI,

AAL11 seems to be the Achilles heel in the entire "official theory."

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...dpost&p=7205597

I'd call it "the official conspiracy theory" but most people wouldn't know the elements of the Inchoate crime of Conspiracy if they were pissing on them; legally speaking of course.

Quint "Jesus H. Christ chief."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: 30th September 2014 - 05:55 PM