A Question For Us Radar Controllers
Feb 21 2007, 09:05 AM
Group: Student Forum Pilot
Joined: 15-December 06
Member No.: 337
Hy, this is an italian Atcer, I have a question for all the radar controllers here:
In 2001 (in case of a plane with transponder off) did you have to select a different setting on your radar to see his primary response?
this is what the 9/11 commission says:
"On 9/11, the terrorists turned off the transponders on three of the four hijacked aircraft. With its transponder off, it is possible, though more difficult, to track an aircraft by its primary radar returns. But unlike transponder data, primary radar returns do not show the aircraft's identity and altitude. Controllers at centers rely so heavily on transponder signals that they usually do not display primary radar returns on their radar scopes. But they can change the configuration of their scopes so they can see primary radar returns. They did this on 9/11 when the transponder signals for three of the aircraft disappeared."
Is there any guy (especially from Boston or New York, Cleveland, and Indianapolis) who can answer?
In the italian sistem if an aircraft loses the transponder signal (or if we have an a/c without it) we see directly (with no changings of configurations) a specific simbol (+) with the speed indication.
thanks for your help
This post has been edited by ivanvedder: Feb 21 2007, 09:22 AM
Mar 14 2007, 07:43 PM
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.
I was not working at ZBW on 9/11...but my inside informants were...
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.
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!
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?
...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!!!]
New York ARTCC
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.
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!
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.
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...
PS: I lost all emails, questions and statements between Tuesday at 3pm, and today at 3pm...so, resend if you like-RDH
|Lo-Fi Version||Time is now: 19th June 2013 - 06:24 PM|