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
911 Commission Transcripts..., Need to read them...

Robin Hordon
post Jan 11 2007, 06:44 AM
Post #21





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



JackD,

Look at a "track" as being a yellow "post-it" with "some" of the airplanes' important information written on it...IE: flight number, assigned and reported altitude, ground speed, and a computer ID number [for atc use]. And the look at it as though after each radar "swep", a controller picks the post-it up from the scope and places it at the NEW location where the associated aircraft is seen by the REAL radar blip. So, if you can see how the controller-post-it combination can keep the identity of that TARGET constant as it moves across the radar scope, then step ahead into the following:

Replace the post-it with an alpha-nuemeric data block created SOLELY by the programming within the ATC computer...and replace the controller "moving" the data block with the SAME computer program that has a capacity to "search for" a certain transponder code-OR-a primary target...and when finding such a target...will then instruct the computer to RE-LOCATE the TRACK to the exact place that the RADAR part of the RDP [radar data processing] system...the BLIP...has been found.

So, the TRACK is computer generated...the TARGET is AIRCRAFT generated, but shown in several ways...

The TRACK has a certain "momentum" that it uses to project "where" to search for ITS target...and it is a computer generated "vector" that helps the computer look for and MOVE the alpha-nuemeric data block to where the TARGET is most likely to be at the NEXT radar sweep...when it finds the target...it moves the TRACK to that EXACT point where the target has been seen.

NOW...IF...there is no longer a TARGET 'seen" at this new "predicted" location based upon the vector speed and direction of the last two "hits" of the TARGET...[as generated by the track's previous movements ALONG WITH the TARGET...]...

THEN...the computer generated ALPHA-NUEMERIC DATA TRACK...CONTINUES ON ITS LAST HEADING AND SPEED until it either, picks up a "target" somewhere that it still is "looking for", or until a controller cancels the track in the computer.

AND..when the track is "SEARCHING FOR A TARGET", but cannot find one, the track goes into COAST MODE...that means that the track will still "move along" according to the LAST TWO headings and speeds registered by the REAL TARGET...I say again..the REAL TARGET. The TRACK will go on this way FOREVER...

At this time, the COAST MODE of the track is indicated to the controllers by a small # sign that is located where the TARGET used to be.

So, PLEASE LISTEN TO THIS...

...EVERYONE...the FAA controllers, the Secret Service, the FAA HQ, the military who have access to the FAA Command Center displays, and...what I used to call "Central Flow Control...which I guess is now the TMU...Traffic Management Unit, has the capacity to watch all of the......................

TRACKS of aircraft within US airspace....

It has nothing to do with.........................

the TARGETS within the US airspace...

Therefore, those who said that AA11 was still airbourne were lying because the TRACK...for AA11...had LOST its....

TARGET back on Mnhattan....

AND... the TRAGETLESS TRACK...continued on southbound...with the COAST MODE # sign where the target was supposed to be...IF there were one...which there wasn't!!!!

ANYONE who knew ANYTHING about alpha nuemeric TRACKS...knew that there was no target...because AA11's TRACK had been in COAST MODE for tens of miles...and it showed this it in the data block...since Manhattan...

So, they INVENTED the idea that AA11 was still airbourne because they SAW a TRACK with AA11's info on it...but there was no target...

The AA11 "still airborne invention" was needed by the military to justify scrambling Langley fighters because they had to claim that they were never informed that AA77 was hijacked...meaning that they were building an excuse to explain WHY the "alleged" AA77 TARGET [not tracked] was not shot down because Langley was scrambled in plenty of time to do it...

So, AA11's COAST TRACK came in handy to get the military off the hook...for now.

A TRACK is one thing...alll computer generated...
A TARGET is another thing...its a blip from RAW radar that is sometimes dressed up a bit as a plain or fancy "blip" on the radar screens...

TRACK-TARGET...not the same!

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JackD
post Jan 11 2007, 03:09 PM
Post #22





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 295
Joined: 13-November 06
Member No.: 238



Robin H - you are a welcome addition to the forum. Thanks for bringing the light.

The 'confusion' over AA11 as "still airborne and heading south" is clearly a red herring -- or there's something they are not telling us.

Our military's radar, with PAVE-PAWS in Otis AFB (and alaska), which can track up to 10,000 small-fast-moving MIRVs at once, does not "miss" an errant 757. Unless it is doing so on purpose.



speculative:
The feeling I get is that the military had to CYA big time. After the event was OVER, they looked at what information was publicly available, that they woudl HAVE to explain, and then reverse-engineered their responses based on that, NOT based on what they were doing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
woody
post Jan 11 2007, 04:22 PM
Post #23


Woody Box


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 258
Joined: 28-August 06
Member No.: 20



Robin,

I'm convinced that the phantom flight 11 was no track, but a real target, and here are my major points:

Point 1. Official FAA diagrams show AA11 west of New York City at 8:47 - when it allegedly had crashed already:



Frank Levi has pointed out here that AA11 was 9.6 miles west of NYC at that point:

http://www.team8plus.org/news.php?item.31

In case these pictures are to blurry, take a look at this FAA file here (scroll down to page 18):

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa7.pdf

Here AA11 is in Sector 42 of ZNY. But according to the official flight path, AA11 was never in Sector 42!

If the phantom was a "track", how did it end up west of NYC? Its last direction was South.


Point 2. I have shown here

http://911wideopen.com/mirror/twin11-1/twin-11-mod.htm

that at least some passengers, probably all, didn't embark on AA11 via Terminal B, Gate 32. (They took Gate 26). In other words, the plane pushing back from Gate 32 was empty - apart from the pilots.

The two pilots were certainly part of the MIHOP plot and didn't intend to commit suicide by ramming their plane into the WTC.


Woody
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Robin Hordon
post Jan 11 2007, 05:15 PM
Post #24





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



JackD,

You have it exactly correct. The military has had to cover their tails BIG TIME...and in addition to having a small handfull of "moles" at the various facilties steering some events and the like, their entire approach to all of this was to wait until what they thought was ALL the information was out in the public, and then engineer backwards to explain it all. Right on brother!

Three points to remember:

1. The FBI took control of the ZBW tapes almost immediately after the 9/11 events THAT MORNING!

2. Any tapes, conversations, recordings, radar data that come out of Rummie's military are most likely to have been "docktored, fixed, hacked, or created" to back up their ever changing timelines. And I think that we have caught them.

3. Of all ironies, the single thing that screwed up all their plans more than anything else is the following:[times are approximate from my memory...so keep calm]

UA175 was 14' late for departure...
UA93 was 40' late for departure...[which is why they had to finally shoot it down]
AA77 was 17' late for departure...

These late departures extended the entire length of this amazing lack of military response on 9/11. I now call it the "institutionalized stand-down" of the military.

More on all that later...can't do anything until folks on this site get the difference between a target and a track...

The military has had to keep modifying its story...a polite term for LYING-yet again, in order to make it appear that they are clear of being responsible for the failure to defend this country on 9/11...which they planned to fail to do!

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JackD
post Jan 15 2007, 01:00 AM
Post #25





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 295
Joined: 13-November 06
Member No.: 238



thanks Robin
it seem that also at Pentagon, similar reverse-engineered CYA after they decided what info was in public domain -- like 330 degree turn, etc.

back to AA11:
I was intrigued by Woody's notice of AA11 (or more than one 'AA11'?) as a continuing airborne radar target, in addition to the 'track' ...

yes, there is confusion engendered by these terms among us non-ATC, you did great work explaining them -- but wished to pass on that after many interchanges with Mr. Woody there are few that have studied AA11 in so much detail.

it sounds bizarre, but there was an AA11 departing from Logan B-32.
and something else, also perhaps calling itself AA11, from B-26.
who was flying each one is hard to determine. Ogonowski was flying one, it seemd. but who flew the other plane, if one existed? -- ('disregard tail number...')

(so much confusion, that on the first anniversary, 9/11/02, some AA personnel did ceremonies at gate b-26, some American airlines people were mourning at b-32...)


--
the existence of a phantom track of AA11 would become useful to the military to explain certain aspects of their scramble response to the 9/11 Commission.

of course, they had 'forgotten' about the track in first replies in 2001-2.

t
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StevenDC
post Jan 15 2007, 09:52 AM
Post #26


Nitpick


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 26-December 06
Member No.: 374



QUOTE (woody @ Jan 11 2007, 03:22 PM)
If the phantom was a "track", how did it end up west of NYC? Its last direction was South.

Thanks for the discussion on Tracks, this is first info for me. Woody does seem to raise a valid question, can the track be changed and if so, by whom?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sergio
post Apr 2 2011, 08:32 AM
Post #27





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 15-February 11
Member No.: 5,658



Hi Robin, I am new to the forum.
Sorry for posting here years later than this topic is apparently over, but there are some questions I would like you or other members would answer to.

QUOTE (Robin Hordon @ Jan 9 2007, 06:38 PM) *
7. My inside information has Scoggins being the ONE who indeed posited that AA11 was still airbourne, and he admits he made an error in confirming such because he said he was just "passing on" information that he had heard over the "phone bridges".


First of all, thank you for clarifying the difference between a target and a coast track. However, we have a problem here. In this interview to 911 myths years later, Scoggins firmly denies someone was monitoring either any target or any track after the primary track of Flight 11 was lost just before Manhattan.

QUOTE
911myths: Why did you believe that Flight 11 may still be in the air?
Colin Scoggins: I was listening on a Telcon with some people at Washington HQ, and other facilities as well, but don't know who they were. Didn't know the people at FAA HQ either. It was some kind of security telcon. I was in contact with many people at that time, UAL175 had crashed. NEADS was interested in Tail Numbers of AAL11 and UAL175. I believe it was either Dan Bueno the Supervisor in charge, or Bo Dean who made some initial calls to the airlines requesting if their aircraft were down, and tail number information. UAL Airlines replied within minutes that they could confirm UAL 175 was down, and they had the tail number. AAL Airlines was totally different. They do what I think they are supposed to do, by locking down their computer after an aircraft crashes, but when they did that, they couldn't access passenger lists, route of flight, it locks everyone out. So we never got confirmation that the plane was down. Somehow this either got misconstrued, and ended up in FAA channels, indicating the plane never crashed, or what I think happened is that someone in HQ knew that AAL77 was missing, and when they were talking about AAL77 they may have dropped the numbers and were reporting that AAL was still missing or still flying but no one knew where. I think this ended up on the telcon as AAL 11 is still airborne. From my point of view the aircraft was heading south at low altitude and we had lost radar, my only guess was he was heading for Washington DC. I found out years later and I am 99% certain the person who made that call on the telcon was Dave Canoles, he has since retired. I took the information I received and called NEADS almost instantly, can't tell you who I told that to, I talked with so many people there the whole day.
911myths: Several 9/11 researchers authors have reported that the “phantom flight 11” was spotted on radar. Is that true?
Colin Scoggins: I have no idea where that came from. Once we lost the aircraft we never even had a hint of another target. I even called FACSFAC VACAPES which has radar up and down the coast, to look for targets, they didn't come up with any.
911myths: If it was never on radar, why say it was going to Washington?
Colin Scoggins: Again it was just my hunch, as where they were heading. The aircraft would have enough gas to get there even at low altitude, but if the aircraft was heading to Cuba, it would never make it at low altitude. Couldn't think of any other important targets on the east coast, so that was where my mind was. I also tried to guess where the aircraft would be at the speed it was traveling.
LINK


First Question
If the source of the wrong assumption about Phantom Flight 11 was actually a computer generated track, why not admit this years later? It would perfectly fit in the official theory and would also backup the delayed/failed fighters' scramble story. But Scoggins does not mention any phantom track. According to his statement, once we lost the aircraft we never even had a hint of another target. So, Boston was not monitoring Flight 11 anymore, therefore Scoggins assumes the wrong information came from FAA HQ. But nobody at FAA HQ has ever confirmed this, to the best of my knowledge. So, if there was a computer generated track on radar, which radar came this track from? If a phantom track was actually on any radar, why not admit openly and clearly which radar this track was spotted on? As usual, Scogging tries to muddy the waters, but conveniently makes no mention about any track on radar. I find it highly suspect. Also, the idea that someone on FAA HQ confused the real/phantom Flight 11 with Flight 77 is simply ridiculous. Flight 77 was lost at 8:56 between the Ohio and Kentucky border and Indianapolis ATC believed it crashed. Wherever Flight 77 was at 9:21, when Scoggins calls NORAD to inform that Flight 11 is still airborne and heading to Washington DC, in no way it could be on the way between New York and Washington DC, where it never had been and could not be. Nobody at FAA HQ in Washington could have spotted such a phantom track of Flight 77 between NY and Washington before 9:21 and confused it with Phantom Flight 11.

The fact that Scoggins does everything possible to deny any track on the radar as well as the source of his "wrong" information leads me to conclude that, if anything was spotted on the radars coming from New York headed to Washington before 9:21, that was a real plane target, not a coast track. They would have plenty of reasons to cover a real primary target. I can't see any plausible reason to cover a coast track, since this would fit perfectly in the official story.

Second Question
As Woody correctly pointed out on Post#23 and Rob on post#11 (if I get his jpeg right), how could possibly a coast track headed South being headed to Washington? Something does not add up here. Either they were following a coast track headed South (i.e. not to Washington) or they were monitoring a primary target of a real plane actually headed to Washington:

QUOTE
FAA Boston: Military, Boston Center. I just had a report that American 11 is still in the air, and it’s on its way towards—heading towards Washington.
NEADS: Okay. American 11 is still in the air?
FAA Boston: Yes.
NEADS: On its way towards Washington?
FAA Boston: That was another—it was evidently another aircraft that hit the tower.That’s the latest report we have.
NEADS: Okay.
FAA Boston: I’m going to try to confirm an ID for you, but I would assume he’s somewhere over, uh, either New Jersey or somewhere further south.
NEADS: Okay. So American 11 isn’t the hijack at all then, right?
FAA Boston: No, he is a hijack.
NEADS: He—American 11 is a hijack?
FAA Boston: Yes.
NEADS: And he’s heading into Washington?
FAA Boston: Yes.This could be a third aircraft.
LINK


There is a blatant contradiction between this transcript and Scoggins' later account (first quote). somewhere over, uh, either New Jersey or somewhere further south perfectly match a South West path to Washington, in no way the original South path of Flight 11.

Thank you in advance to you and any other member to clarify my doubts.
Sergio

This post has been edited by Sergio: Apr 2 2011, 08:35 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Jan 23 2014, 01:45 AM
Post #28





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552



QUOTE (woody @ Jan 11 2007, 08:22 PM) *
...at least some passengers, probably all, didn't embark on AA11 via Terminal B, Gate 32. (They
took Gate 26). In other words, the plane pushing back from Gate 32 was empty - apart from the
pilots.


But if that's the case, then the several passenger and crew mobile phone users, who allegedly
made calls from the grounded Flight 11 plane at Logan; would have had the opportunity to
unwittingly expose the Gate deception, by reporting their true location.

E.g. Damning voicemail message: "Hi; just thought I'd call you before my plane takes off. I'm at Gate 26, Terminal B...".

Isn't it more likely, that the manifest (which judging by Flight 93's, was large enough for two small flights) was bisected?:

Official Gate B32: flight-legitimating cell phone possessors - security checkpoint-logged phones, confiscated at an inoperable cruising altitude.*

Secret Gate B26: non-cell phone possessors* - staged hijack plane.

*So that neither occupancy group, can report when their plane secretly lands.
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: 22nd July 2014 - 09:25 AM