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 )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Aa11 Tracked All The Way To Steel..., FAA tracking systems...

amazed!
post Dec 19 2007, 10:51 PM
Post #21





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,930
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Because the government lies? yes1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
woody
post Dec 20 2007, 04:20 PM
Post #22


Woody Box


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 266
Joined: 28-August 06
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (pinnacle @ Dec 19 2007, 11:37 PM)
Does anyone know why Flight 11 was instructed by Boston controllers
to turn 20 degrees north at 8:13:47 am?
Why would a plane headed southwest be told to turn north off course?
Also why does the radar data show Flight 11 moving north at 8:12 am
when the instruction came nearly two minutes later?
If Atta took control at 8:14 am why would he continue heading north
away from New York for another 13 minutes?
The 9/11 Report says that the flightpath was "normal" when Flight 11 was hijacked. But how could it be normal if they were 20 degrees off course
and heading for Canada?


Probably because of this plane:

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

Given the relative position of the MD80, a northern deviation would be better to avoid it than a southwest turn.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 26 2007, 02:35 AM
Post #23



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



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

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

My updated AA11 charts are at:
http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id2368273217.html

http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id2368311385.html

http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id2392575994.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CocaineImportAge...
post Jan 26 2008, 03:18 AM
Post #24





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 426
Joined: 26-August 07
From: Brentwood, Essex, UK
Member No.: 1,846



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


...i wish i knew what the f@ck you guys were on about!?!... makes me feel thick! doh1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 26 2008, 11:29 AM
Post #25



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



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

For further reading, here's a little radar resource I put together (not linked on this thread yet):
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...post&p=10534172

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This RADES data was done by the USAF at the request of the FBI [read federal law enforcement in a criminal investigation]. FBI didn't find the 98 000 foot Mode C as curious, or they didn't look at the data. AA77 and UA93 are much "wackier" than the AA11 data, too.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CocaineImportAge...
post Jan 27 2008, 04:34 AM
Post #26





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 426
Joined: 26-August 07
From: Brentwood, Essex, UK
Member No.: 1,846



...err!... i understood the "AA11 is the best behaved" bit!..... dunno.gif rolleyes.gif doh1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 27 2008, 07:42 AM
Post #27





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,105
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



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

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

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Jan 27 2008, 08:00 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 27 2008, 03:03 PM
Post #28



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



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

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

Here's the picture that goes along with this:
http://www.radartutorial.eu/13.ssr/sr04.en.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more info, there is a transponder thread very nearby here at:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...dpost&p=9937836

See also:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...dpost&p=9911143

Hope this helps,
d
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 27 2008, 04:46 PM
Post #29





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,105
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



Was this how they made the hole?
http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservi...?m_tkc=10460460
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 27 2008, 05:38 PM
Post #30



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Hi Tume,

I think this same video was discussed over at:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...post&p=10555842

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squib_(explosive)

d
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 27 2008, 07:41 PM
Post #31





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,105
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



1. the video was "debunked" by "chek"... http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=13099
2. I'm reluctant to believe anybody who promotes the slogan "911 was inside job", you know...
3.OK I'm also a bit reluctant to judge, but the chek's debunk didn't convinced me to not see the hole starts to build long after the impact and not see the secondary explosions under the roof even before the level is reached by the primary explosion plume through the air with no obstacles in the way.
4. if I see the obvious extensive and deeply proven 911 footage fakery as f.e. this:
http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservi...-out-part1.aspx
(shouldn't they simply start to investigate FOX for fraud?) then I'm less reluctant to leave the question of TV fakery open.
5. I don't say there are not mistakes in socialservice videos, but the socialservice is extensively "debunked" also by "alawson911"...

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

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Jan 27 2008, 07:50 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Culper721
post Feb 16 2008, 10:13 PM
Post #32





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



QUOTE (pinnacle @ Dec 17 2007, 09:37 PM) *
Does anyone know why Flight 11 was instructed by Boston controllers
to turn 20 degrees north at 8:13:47 am?
Why would a plane headed southwest be told to turn north off course?
Also why does the radar data show Flight 11 moving north at 8:12 am
when the instruction came nearly two minutes later?
If Atta took control at 8:14 am why would he continue heading north
away from New York for another 13 minutes?
The 9/11 Report says that the flightpath was "normal" when Flight 11 was hijacked. But how could it be normal if they were 20 degrees off course
and heading for Canada?


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

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

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

Hint...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10567692

SIYOM,

Bob
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 18 2008, 11:14 PM
Post #33





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,930
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Atta is a figment of the public's imagination Robert. Rather like Santa Claus.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
p.w.rapp
post Feb 19 2008, 12:09 AM
Post #34





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,743
Joined: 19-October 06
From: European Protectorate
Member No.: 110



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


laughing1.gif


poor old Santa won't appreciate yr. comparison, amazed!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 19 2008, 10:43 PM
Post #35





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,930
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Oh dear, I hadn't thought about that. I hope he doesn't punish me next Xmas. rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DANDPT
post Feb 11 2011, 02:05 PM
Post #36





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 32
Joined: 10-February 11
Member No.: 5,642



QUOTE (pinnacle @ Dec 19 2007, 06:37 PM) *
Does anyone know why Flight 11 was instructed by Boston controllers
to turn 20 degrees north at 8:13:47 am?
Why would a plane headed southwest be told to turn north off course?
Also why does the radar data show Flight 11 moving north at 8:12 am
when the instruction came nearly two minutes later?
If Atta took control at 8:14 am why would he continue heading north
away from New York for another 13 minutes?
The 9/11 Report says that the flightpath was "normal" when Flight 11 was hijacked. But how could it be normal if they were 20 degrees off course
and heading for Canada?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DANDPT
post Feb 11 2011, 02:06 PM
Post #37





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 32
Joined: 10-February 11
Member No.: 5,642



These are still good questions on Feb. 11,2011.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Jun 28 2011, 01:44 PM
Post #38





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 561
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



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

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

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

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

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

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

Obwon

This post has been edited by Obwon: Jun 28 2011, 01:48 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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: 24th October 2014 - 12:05 PM