Aa11 Tracked All The Way To Steel..., FAA tracking systems...
Dec 5 2006, 05:19 AM
Joined: 2-December 06
Member No.: 274
Its been a few years but I trained the Boston Center personel on the new RDP, Radar Data Processing, the new radar scopes, and new[old] IBM computers systems and programs way back when. This was when we went from the REALLY old broadband radars into computerized displays....I suspect that a few things may have changed in the tracking systems, but most of the basic characteristics remain the same. If not, someone can always get the computer files and just chime in whenever they want. My ego can take it...
Pilots...I'm not writing this just for you...there may be others without your background who need to be informed about some basics that y'all take for granted.
The way I see "parts" of AA11's flight and handling...
Much has been made of the second or Phantom AA11 "coasting track" that was seen approaching the DC area after AA11 "the aircraft"...had already hit WTC1. It is said that his was very confusing to official personnel...but I postulate its really not so because trained ATC types would recognize this track and do something about it well north of DC.
In fact, the existence of the south-soutwestbound "track" for AA11 after the "aircraft" AA11 hit WTC1 tower, tells a very "interesting story" that may become very troubling to the "official story" . Actually, AA11's continuing track may be a huge bit of "information" cleverly leaked out by the FAA air traffic control personel that day. We will see...
Therfore, for the opposite of official reasons, much should be made of this "phantom flight", AA11's full data block and track that went into coast mode after it passed WTC1 on its way to DC.
Its a mathematical thing: If A=B and B=C, then A=C...just the simple basics.
If the track for AA11 was still heading south-southwest bound heading in a "straight line" towards DC and south of Manhattan while in the coast mode indicating that it had LOST its target to track...that means...
That at one time this track was ACTIVELY following something headed south-southwestbound in a straight line from some point NORTH of its current location near DC, like somewhere up toward the Manhattan area...perhaps even north of Manahattan...like in the Albany NY area...[straightish] NNE-SSW shot to DC...a bit west...
And if a huge airliner holding the same flight number, AA11, was creating a strong primary target and was also heading south towards Manhattan FROM the Albany NY area at nearly the same time...and if...
Both the "track" for AA11 and the "aircraft" AA11 were over or near Manhattan at approximately the same time and they were going southbound...and then...
If when they were both over Manhattan the large primary target, AA11, the "airplane", stopped flying southbound because it hit WTC1...and the "track" for AA11 kept going southbound in its mandated "straight line" towards DC seeking its missing primary target but...
If the "track" AA11 searched for its primary target but eventually went into "straight line" coast mode because it couldn't find AA11, "the plane"...well then...
One must conclude that both the "track" for AA11 and the "airplane" AA11 were at one time both heading south-southwestbound from the Albany NY area toward Manhattan and that they were indeed co-joined as AA11, "the airplane" and AA11 "the track".
And of course, since the "track" of AA11 and the "airplane" AA11 were co-joined north of Manhattan, one must conclude that AA11 was indeed tracked by the FAA, and or someone all the way to WTC1 because...
How could the controller start a track on a target that he or he couldn't find north of Albany?
Well, that's because they never lost tracking in the first place...it was difficult and I'm betting that they were reaching out to ADC/NORAD...but sector-to-sector, and they desparately followed AA11 all the way to WTC1 as they tried to get some fighters there.
Getting back to "A" in this scenario...AA11 "the airplane" stopped at WTC1...and AA11 "the track" headed south towards DC...which is where we picked up this story.
However, in order to make this MADNESS of mine actually work out, there has to be proof that the wide body of AA11, a Boeing 757 had been seen by radar from take-off to crash.
Conveniently enough, the Federal Government has given us such proof in its addendum showing AA11 tracked by radars from take-off to landing...imagine that?
OK, lets fill in a few bits of background here...
Understanding some of this requires a few bits of knowledge.
First the differences between types of targets...one an electronic target created by a transponder on board the aircraft, and the other a primary radar target.
Second about the huge differences between an actual aircraft "target" and the automated "tracks" and alpha numerics created by computer systems which are designed to automatically, or semi-automatically SEARCH FOR, and "track" aircraft through the air. Mostly ARTCC's...
Third, its important to know about how the FAA's flight tracking system works in conjunction with a beacon target, a primary target and a computer flight plan.
FIRST...the diiference in target types...there are basically two types.
The simplest to understand and the old "standby" is a target generated by the sides of aircraft reflecting back, or "bouncing in return" the raw signals emitted by a basic radar sweep. We most often see this radar in older movies and the like where there is a round green screen and we can see a bright line sweeping round and around occasionally finding a "target" which shows up as a "blip".
SECONDARY RADAR, or a transponder, or its called a beacon sometimes..
The second type of radar is actually a radio signal sent back to the radar site by a small radio-type transmitter in the airplane. This signal is also sent in response to a signal from a "different type" of radar antenna at the same sites and this return signal can carry codes and information back to the radar site.
The SECONDARY or transponder radar targets are much, much better because they can be more powerful, and can carry a specific code that helps the FAA tracking sytem "find" the specific aircraft amongst all others.
The PRIMARY radar is used primarily in emergency events when the transponders have failed or there are electrical or other problems on board the aircraft. The primary radar target provides no special identify features or codes that assist the FAA's radar tracking systems. Tracking can be accomplished, it just requires more attention by the controller.
SECOND...the diiference between an aircraft target and the information and tracking capabilities of a "track" used to follow that target.
An aircraft target has been explained above and is either a primary target or a secondary target utilizing a transponder. The reason that I have repeated this here is to establish that a target is an airplane and that a 'track" is a computer generated alpha-numeric display AND at ARTCC's, includes a system of "searching for" specific targets. This critical to AA11.
THIRD...the Enroute flight searching/tracking system...and alpha-numeric displays...
Tracking is very different in smaller approach control and terminal radar control facilities [TRACON's] and this report only deals with ENROUTE tracking systems.
An ENROUTE tracking system creates a small "search box" and projects it ahead of the aircraft its tracking at a place where the computer tracking "thinks" the target will be on the next radar sweep or refresh. Usually the target will be within this "search box" and the tracking system will "jump" the alpha-numeric data block right onto that new location. This is easy and efficient for the tracking system.
For a primary target, the tracking system has to work very hard to find a primary target in this system beacuse the "search box" may "see" or contain a few other aircraft that are also primary targets...and the searching program has trouble distinguishing them apart. But keeping identification with a primary target is manageable...but its a far more difficult task because the controller must be more vigilant and keep track of the primary target and the track him or herself by manually placing the track exactly where they can see the confirmed primary target.
Conversely, an aircraft with a transponder is far easier for the "search box" and tracking programs to work with. This is because the "search box" for the aircraft with a transponder looks for a specific code from that transponder and sees it more easily, and more definitely because even though there may be other aircraft are within that search box, there is only one aircraft with that code.
The tracking system learns where to "project" the "search box" for the aircraft based upon a straight line drawn between the last two radar recordings or coordinates for the aircraft. A line drawn between two coordinates shows the projected COURSE the aircraft will fly, and by measuring the distance between the last two radar coordinates and applying "time", the computer generates ground speed and projects the distance along the straight line that the "search box" should center itself. There are some features where upon "departure" the computer is ready to "look for" a specific transponder code just before an aircraft gets airbourne. This activates the flight plan down the line to destination AND in some instances creates the "search box" at the airport and tracking can automatically begin. Landing is a different story and its really important in all of these hijacks.
There are two ways to end the "tracking system" associated with an airplane and flight plan. One is to make a manual computer entry cancelling the program, the other can be an automatic cancellation once an aircraft reaches its dstination and nears landing at the updated time of arrival. This feature is also very important regarding these four flights. There could be no automatic cancellation of the "search boxes" and the flight tracks of these four aircraft because none ever made it NEAR their destinations. So, if the tracks were ended, it was done by controller input.
The next journey into "coast tracks" combines several aspects explained above.
A "coast track" is an alpha-numeric track with the usual flight identification data within it...but NO TARGET...no airplane. A track goes into coast when it has not been cancelled, yet finds no qualifying airplane target within its "search box". Consequently, the "track has no solid chance to upgrade itself because it needs to find an airplane to move itself to. "Coast tracks" are called such because lacking any "real world" and actual target or airplane, it knows where to "coast to" and what speed to "coast there at" based only upon its last TWO known target locations which can be tens and hundreds of miles behind the track. There is a special symbol displayed when a track is in coast...I believe that its the # sign where the target should be. Again, the coast track considers its next positioning of the "search box" as a function of previous affirmed radar strikes...but if there is no airplane target, the data block continues along this established track ...coasting...and still looking for a target. Consequently, a coast track, if not noticed, may coast right out of your radar display and go on forever...sorta. This is what I POSTULATE happened to AA11's track that passed by Manhattan after the "target" or aircraft, AA11 crashed.
My conclusion, if AA11 "the track" made it to Manhattan...and AA11 "the plane" made it to Manhattan, then AA11 the "airplane" was "tracked" to Manhattan...all the way.
So, why was it again that ADC/NORAD didn't know where AA11 was until it was 35 miles north of JFK? Somebody had to have trcked AA11 to a point 35 miles north of JFK. If not, then that was one hell of a random guess out of the blue. I bet the entire set of FAA air traffic sector controller tapes would tell the real story.
I fully believe that the ZBW controllers WERE trying to get hold of Rummie's Pentagon staff...but couldn't...
I believe that if we got all sector controller tapes, conducted personal interviews, and got all the recorded "tracking" information that the FAA/FBI are still denying us, there would be different story told for 9/11.
It is possible that the ZBW controller who was in charge of the "track" for AA11 not only was able to track it all the way, but after it went into coast, may have let it keep on going south-southwestbound in the same direction that it was headed when it approached Manhattan from the north. Somebody would find it...still going south-southwest.
We ned information to be released
Dec 7 2006, 07:54 PM
Group: Valued Member
Joined: 14-November 06
Member No.: 242
According to the Tom Brokaw interview with Boston controllers who first noticed problems with Flight 11 they began moving other planes out it's way at 8:20 am and considered it to be a "runaway plane". At that point NORAD NEADS in Rome , New York should have seen on it's own radar scopes what was happening and could monitor the radio transmissions of all the planes being orderded out of the way.
NORAD at Griffiss AFB was on exactly the flight path Flight 11 had turned toward when it went of it off course which should have raised suspicions with transponder being turned off and all the radio traffic concerning it. None of this should have required a phone call from the FAA.
Since the pilot of Flight 11 was an air force veteran he would have known where NORAD was located and may have still been flying at that point deliberately
trying to get NORAD's attention. It makes no sense for the hijackers to have turned
northwest when they wanted to go south to New York.
Fighters at Syracuse might not have been "on alert" but could have been sent up within ten minutes in an unarmed mode yet were not. Since a "traditional hijack" did not require a shootdown but merely an intercept and tailing five miles behind why bring in armed fighters from Otis when Syracuse was much closer to Flight 11
and unarmed planes were all that was necessary under standard hijack procedures?
Once unarmed fighters were up with on-board targeting radar to lock onto the hijacked planes it would be easy to vector in the armed fighters if necessary.
|Lo-Fi Version||Time is now: 24th May 2013 - 04:35 AM|