Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Radar "injects", "sims" And "phantoms"
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Study > Research
kawika
For too long I have been hearing the story about SIMS being injected onto the ATC screens and absolutely confounding the controllers. I have suspected for some time that this was not true, so I went looking for the evidence.

I couldn't find any in the audios and transcripts. I asked several people who are familiar with this and got varying answers, but usually they could not separate the NEADS controller from the FAA when making their points.

I finally went to an ATC who was on duty on 9/11. I have confirmed this answer with others, who concur. (I am not revealing the names because I have not asked for permission to use them.)

Here is my query and the answer.

This issue keeps coming up. Can ATC see the NORAD war games injects? Can NORAD see the ATC civilian traffic?

It seems to me that ATC has enough to deal with. It would be counterproductive for them to have to work around phantoms or ghosts or SIMS.

I have listened to many tapes and read many transcripts. I have heard no references to being confused by SIMS. The one audio we are all familiar with, I am nearly certain, was a NEADS audio telling them turn the SIMS off. But now this story has infected the thinking of anyone who considers ATC activity. Am I way off base here?

I would really appreciate a tutorial or link to learn what the separation between NORAD and ATC looks like.

Thank you very much.


We don't see their SIM Targets. Even our training DYSIM lab is completely tied off of our HOST Computer so we can't even see our SIM Traffic that we use in training. When the military runs a SIM exercise we don't normally even know about them. On occasion when they want to run an exercise and if one or two of the aircraft can't make it, they cancel the exercise and run it as a SIM exercise instead.

NORAD or EADS controllers are MRU controllers and are not ATC certified. Giant Killer Controllers from the Navy are certified ATC controllers. The USAF has ATC controllers but they work at regular ATC facilities. Shaw AFB, others like that. There are some Air National Guard units as well that operate as MRU controllers. MRU is Mobile Radar Controller. Prior to 1998 they were allowed to due certain air traffic control functions like Hand-offs which they no longer can make. So they don't really separate planes. They do what is called a Transfer of Flight Information which is similar to a hand-off but not a true hand-off. We separate from most Military airspace by 3 NM and by 500 feet below Flight Level 290 and above FL290 we use 1,000 feet.


23investigator
QUOTE (kawika @ Oct 25 2011, 11:33 AM) *
For too long I have been hearing the story about SIMS being injected onto the ATC screens and absolutely confounding the controllers. I have suspected for some time that this was not true, so I went looking for the evidence.


I would really appreciate a tutorial or link to learn what the separation between NORAD and ATC looks like.

Thank you very much.


We don't see their SIM Targets. Even our training DYSIM lab is completely tied off of our HOST Computer so we can't even see our SIM Traffic that we use in training. When the military runs a SIM exercise we don't normally even know about them. On occasion when they want to run an exercise and if one or two of the aircraft can't make it, they cancel the exercise and run it as a SIM exercise instead.

NORAD or EADS controllers are MRU controllers and are not ATC certified. Giant Killer Controllers from the Navy are certified ATC controllers. The USAF has ATC controllers but they work at regular ATC facilities. Shaw AFB, others like that. There are some Air National Guard units as well that operate as MRU controllers. MRU is Mobile Radar Controller. Prior to 1998 they were allowed to due certain air traffic control functions like Hand-offs which they no longer can make. So they don't really separate planes. They do what is called a Transfer of Flight Information which is similar to a hand-off but not a true hand-off. We separate from most Military airspace by 3 NM and by 500 feet below Flight Level 290 and above FL290 we use 1,000 feet.


Dear 'Kawika'.

It does appear what you have said was the case on 11-9-2001, from reading and listening, like you.

The radar plots that have been brought forward, seem very confusing though.

There seems to be 'stuff' going in all directions.
Took this up with 'tume', but did not really get a handle on it.

You are so right, that this needs to be really clarified, by people who really know what they are on about.

Your motion is seconded, "come on people who know what they are on about", your help is needed.

Robert S
SanderO
The notion of insertion of simulated radar targets onto ATC radar raises an interesting phenomena about 911. This is not whether this can or cannot be done... which we need to know.. but the fact that we are quick to things... almost anything... usually without attribution or vetting as *fact*. We all seem to do this.

It is somewhat understandable. If we read something written by and intelligent accomplished person, who *credentials* in some field we tend to think that they are not going to make anything up out of whole clothe. It's a kind of trust we have in the integrity and rigorousness of others.

I, for one, know next to nothing about aviation issues, and look to those who do for their expertise on these matters. If someone who has professional experience with the ATC system offers an opinion or a statement about the ATC system I can only assume it to be accurate. But perhaps not. People make mistakes. Maybe it needs to be verified by another person if the statement is key to some important larger argument.. a piece of a large puzzle.

There are some interesting *appeal to authority* issues in play in 911 research. One example which I am personally familiar with the AE911T which in its presentation of its case suggests that it has 1,600 (now and growing) licensed building professionals - architects and engineers who have been associated with and completely support their case... and have put their reputation on the line in so doing. This sounds very impressive. But it is a bit of a slight of hand. First the actual number of architects or engineers .. actual building professionals is less than 1/3 perhaps 500. The rest are engineers.. mechanical, electrical, and so forth. Second virtually none of the signers are consulted about their *case* and most have signed the petition because they support a new investigation. Some may agree with the evidence others may simply want to associate themselves with others in their profession calling for an investigation. Some even come forward and volunteer to assist. But hardly a one does any *research* or even vetting of AE911T's case. And most of that case - the Blueprint for Truth - was created by people who are not architects or building professionals... such as Jim Hoffman, Steven Jones, Niels Harrit, Jim Hoffman, David Chandler. This doesn't invalidate their work, but it does show that it was not the work of *licensed building professions*. But it is the notion that their *conclusions* are vetted and supported by 1,600 building professionals is the flawed *appeal to authority* argument in play.

We need to vet and drill down into the provenance of the *data* and statements which are at the foundation of, or make up the various *explanations* of what happened on 911.

It is heartening to see that someone is trying to vet the statement about insertion of data into ATC radar on 911... which seems possible conceptually, but is it actually possible and has it been done historically for any reason?

Thank you.
kawika
QUOTE (SanderO @ Oct 23 2011, 08:50 AM) *
I, for one, know next to nothing about aviation issues, and look to those who do for their expertise on these matters. If someone who has professional experience with the ATC system offers an opinion or a statement about the ATC system I can only assume it to be accurate. But perhaps not. People make mistakes. Maybe it needs to be verified by another person if the statement is key to some important larger argument.. a piece of a large puzzle...


...We need to vet and drill down into the provenance of the *data* and statements which are at the foundation of, or make up the various *explanations* of what happened on 911.

It is heartening to see that someone is trying to vet the statement about insertion of data into ATC radar on 911... which seems possible conceptually, but is it actually possible and has it been done historically for any reason?

Thank you.


Here is confirmation from another ATC professional who worked in the NE sector USA.

Question:

Are the FAA and NORAD radar data processing and presentation systems "compatible",...meaning could they DIRECTLY SHARE their independently PROCESSED AND DISPLAYED RADAR DATA STREAMS?

Answer:

They cannot. They only share the basic raw radar data that is in the radar data pipelines from the selected radar antennae sites.
Therefore, ONLY NORAD [NEADS etc.] can have such radar data and alpha-numeric data displayed on its own scopes...and the same goes for the FAA...ie: only FAA radar data-alpha-numerics which have been processed by the FAA's RDP [Radar Data Processing] can be displayed onto FAA radar scopes. MEANING...there were NO RADAR INSERTS ON FAA RADAR SCOPES.


This incorrect assumption was begun by early researchers who failed to verify.


The only places that the FAA has the capacity to "insert" target and alpha-numeric data is in the simulations used for training...and we do not believe that this capability is available at the various ATC facilities around the country..They are concentrated at the FAA ATC Training facilities.



So there you have it from two independent professionals familiar with the FAA radar systems. The answers were obtained without either one having access to the other's thoughts on the matter.

My opinion is that the ATCs have been unfairly maligned. It was the military response side that was confused, failed to act in a timely manner, sent fighters away from the action, were not armed in advance and prepared to swing into action quickly.

We have all the FAA records. All we need is for researchers to pour over them and pull out the relevant facts from the day. The 9/11 Commission is the only entity that has so far had the same access. Their skewed story prevails.

It is incumbent upon us to provide the balance, refute their bare assertions and get busy prosecuting those responsible for the crimes of 9/11. 19 Muslims couldn't possibly accomplish what we witnessed. No, the ones who made this happen are alive and well. We need to root them out! No government investigation will do this for us.

Thank you for your continued interest.
Craig Ranke CIT
QUOTE (kawika @ Oct 25 2011, 03:03 AM) *
For too long I have been hearing the story about SIMS being injected onto the ATC screens and absolutely confounding the controllers.


I don't doubt that someone may have suggested this in the past but since you are claiming this is a repeated (yet incorrect) meme can you please cite some examples with quotes where some researchers have published something stating this happened?

Also, just curious, if the anonymous alleged ATC's you spoke with were not part of the operation, why is it logical to assume they would understand the full capabilities of whomever was in control of a black operation of this magnitude?

To be clear I'm not personally suggesting they "inserted" anything on that day (nor have I ever that I can recall). I'm just curious about the logic you are using to come to your conclusion.
kawika
QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Oct 23 2011, 12:47 PM) *
I don't doubt that someone may have suggested this in the past but since you are claiming this is a repeated (yet incorrect) meme can you please cite some examples with quotes where some researchers have published something stating this happened?

Also, just curious, if the anonymous alleged ATC's you spoke with were not part of the operation, why is it logical to assume they would understand the full capabilities of whomever was in control of a black operation of this magnitude?

To be clear I'm not personally suggesting they "inserted" anything on that day (nor have I ever that I can recall). I'm just curious about the logic you are using to come to your conclusion.


The one that immediately comes to mind is Michael Ruppert. I am not suggesting he is part of any cointelpro because I can't wrap my mind around all that constantly changing possibility. I defer to you who know more about the underpinnings of disinfo and how to recognize it.

I think this misconception is generally the conclusion of many people. My opinion only.

I am basing my conclusion on what I have read and heard in the new FAA records, which is by no means a comprehensive search. I am seeking assistance.

As for the ATCs who offered their expertise on the question of inserts, of course I cannot be absolutely sure of their integrity. I am a trusting person. I ask a simple question and I expect an honest answer. The answer makes sense to me. Determining the completeness of the answer is part of the task here. Your insight is valuable too.

Your point about the ATCs not understanding the capabilities of a larger operation that they might have been a part of asks me to go beyond what is available for me to study at this time. It is entirely possible they were unwitting players. There are too many possibilities for consideration. And analyzing their motives is not the subject of this thread. The subject is whether there is evidence of ATCs having to deal with phantoms on their screens.

Thank you for touching on it anyway. Maybe we need another thread devoted to finding evidence to determine whether or not the ATCs were part of the black operation.
Craig Ranke CIT
Right, well I was just trying to understand your logic here or why you would pursue this line of inquiry in the first place.

I'm personally not aware of anyone stating that false blips known to the ATC's as being part of an exercise were a cause for confusion so if Michael Ruppert or anyone else has made that claim I'd like to see the quotes and the source to see if they provide any evidence to back it up. Do you have any quotes?

However, regardless, we still have no way of knowing whether or not false blips were inserted in real-time on that day. Assuming your off the record email discussion was with honest people, it certainly does not rule out this possibility.



kawika
QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Oct 23 2011, 02:11 PM) *
Right, well I was just trying to understand your logic here or why you would pursue this line of inquiry in the first place.

I'm personally not aware of anyone stating that false blips known to the ATC's as being part of an exercise were a cause for confusion so if Michael Ruppert or anyone else has made that claim I'd like to see the quotes and the source to see if they provide any evidence to back it up. Do you have any quotes?

However, regardless, we still have no way of knowing whether or not false blips were inserted in real-time on that day. Assuming your off the record email discussion was with honest people, it certainly does not rule out this possibility.


Here is one quote from Crossing The Rubicon

One of the components of this drill included "false blips" (radar injects simulating aircraft in flight) placed on FAA radar screens. [21] At one point FAA head Jane Garvey said they suspected up to 11 hijackings on 9/11. Was she saying they couldn't determine which were real, which were simulated, and which were [i]live-fly military exercises?[/i]

Another one.
There were likely false blips on screen even [i]after 9:16. The Kean Commission's report introduced "phantom flight-11" as being reported by the FAA at 9:25 on 9/11. The FAA reported flight 11 was heading to Washington D.C. at that time when in fact it had already struck the World Trade Center. The Kean Commission's report stated they were "unable to locate the source of the mistaken FAA information." [23][/i]

"Phantom flight-11" was a false blip, but since the war games are classified, specific information on "false blips" and other details can't be reported.

Now imagine being an air traffic controller with both real planes and "false blips" simulating hijackings on your screens when suddenly there are real, multiple, hijackings. Where do you send the few Air Force fighters that you have? You can't guess wrong, you don't have enough assets for that. The FAA doesn't even make that decision, the military does. The Kean Commission managed to scapegoat the FAA in their report, but the Air Force itself confirmed the FAA did its job properly on 9/11 in [i]Air War Over America. [24][/i]

Source:


http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...lify_case.shtml
Craig Ranke CIT
Great thanks for that.

Kane certainly is suggesting in that article that false blips were definitely known to be "one of the components" of Northern Vigilance.

He cites page 339 of Crossing the Rubicon for this.

Do you have the book so you can check to see what evidence Ruppert cites for this or whether or not Ruppert is as certain about this as Kane leads on?



amazed!
I have read Ruppert's book, so maybe that's where I read about it, but it seems that I also read it in other sources, years ago. I take some notes, the old fashioned pen & paper way, but have no notes on that.

As I recall it was in the mainstream media, perhaps in conjunction with the 911 Commission, that they were experiencing phantom targets EVEN AFTER the skies were cleared of all aircraft but military.

To me the concept is simple. If indeed this was an inside job, and if most parts of the Pentagon were complicit, it seems obvious to me that they were going to tell as few people as possible about it.

Whether they actually had the power to "inject" the FAA system without the controllers knowledge seems obvious to me. We know that some management level FAA types were involved, because we know that some tapes were destroyed by management level FAA types.

Spoofing the system was the way the entire day was started, and the way that innocent FAA types were used as pawns to start the game.

It seems logical to me.

But who knows, maybe the OCT is right, and maybe those Boeing were really flying 150 knots over Vne?
woody
QUOTE (kawika @ Oct 25 2011, 05:02 PM) *
Here is one quote from Crossing The Rubicon

One of the components of this drill included "false blips" (radar injects simulating aircraft in flight) placed on FAA radar screens. [21] At one point FAA head Jane Garvey said they suspected up to 11 hijackings on 9/11. Was she saying they couldn't determine which were real, which were simulated, and which were [i]live-fly military exercises?[/i]

Another one.
There were likely false blips on screen even [i]after 9:16. The Kean Commission's report introduced "phantom flight-11" as being reported by the FAA at 9:25 on 9/11. The FAA reported flight 11 was heading to Washington D.C. at that time when in fact it had already struck the World Trade Center. The Kean Commission's report stated they were "unable to locate the source of the mistaken FAA information." [23][/i]

"Phantom flight-11" was a false blip, but since the war games are classified, specific information on "false blips" and other details can't be reported.

Now imagine being an air traffic controller with both real planes and "false blips" simulating hijackings on your screens when suddenly there are real, multiple, hijackings. Where do you send the few Air Force fighters that you have? You can't guess wrong, you don't have enough assets for that. The FAA doesn't even make that decision, the military does. The Kean Commission managed to scapegoat the FAA in their report, but the Air Force itself confirmed the FAA did its job properly on 9/11 in [i]Air War Over America. [24][/i]

Source:


http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...lify_case.shtml


This "phantom flight 11", reported to NEADS at 9:21 by our buddy Colin Scoggins, was certainly no radar insert, but just a misinformation. Scoggins himself belonged to Boston Center, which is not responsible for the Baltimore airspace, and he himself was not looking at a radar screen, but just transmitting information from the Boston TMU or, possibly, the military. I personally believe that Scoggins' misinformations (the phantom flight 11 is just one of them) were part of the ongoing exercises to confuse NEADS and test their ability to react in a non-standard situation. Also, this phantom flight 11 is not reported with one word by Washington Center, the FAA center in charge for the area.

Regarding Ruppert (I read Crossing the Rubicon years ago, but haven't got it now), I remember that his insert theory was based on only one article of a a certain newspaper (Toronto Star?). And shoestring's interpretation of the "sim switches" as radar inserts is not necessarily right. "sim switches" could also have been switches to expose live-fly hijack simulations or any other input related to the exercises.

My opinion is that there may have been radar inserts or not, but that they're not really important, compared to the huge evidence for real live-fly hijack simulations/swapped planes, as revealed by the pilots, CIT, myself, and others. But they get a great welcome by the Hoffman/911blogger gang because they're compatible with their LIHOP scenario.








amazed!
My opinion is that the inserts, assuming that they actually did happen, were the first domino in the very long line of dominos that subsequently fell. I think think they were critical to the initiation of the day's events, primarily because they were the mechanism by which many many innocents within the ATC system were made pawns in the game. Playing the game and executing the plan, all with no knowledge of their role.

As planned, everything else fell into place.
kawika
QUOTE (amazed! @ Oct 26 2011, 12:30 PM) *
My opinion is that the inserts, assuming that they actually did happen, were the first domino in the very long line of dominos that subsequently fell. I think think they were critical to the initiation of the day's events, primarily because they were the mechanism by which many many innocents within the ATC system were made pawns in the game. Playing the game and executing the plan, all with no knowledge of their role.

As planned, everything else fell into place.


I have seen nor hear heard any references to confusion by FAA controllers due to SIMS. That is the focus of the study. If another study is necessary to determine NEADS confusion then I am asking it be kept separate, until such time as the two can be linked in a credible fashion.

The assumption that FAA was subjected to false inserts is a huge leap I am not willing to make. But I agree that it appears NEADS was being confused and that was enough to get the jobs done.

More study is required.
rob balsamo
I havent come across any evidence of radar "inserts" on live FAA ATC radar in which FAA ATC knew such "inserts" were present in the form of a simulated test. This doesn't mean there weren't "inserts" placed into live ATC radar without the knowledge of ATC, although that would be pretty hard to do without someone in ATC knowing. Or, (just speculating here) it could be done with the controller thinking he was working a real airplane, but the airplane was an "insert", while thinking he was communicating with the pilots of the airplane, but instead he was talking with some "operative" in some command and control center.

As pointed out by woody, the phantom target reports caused a lot of confusion in the system, stalling response time for intercept. Convenient for the govt story, there isn't any direct source of the misinformation/disinformation, the trail stops at Colin Scoggins. Read more here in my exchange with Colin on this matter...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10799146

With that said, according to NEADS audio, NEADS did have simulated inserts on their radar. We captured the sound bite. "Turn off those damn sim switches", in 9/11: Intercepted when they were looking for their tankers TEAM 23.
SanderO
I have no experience or knowledge of how the ATC system works. Having said this... ATC screens, Radar and so forth are all digital media.. and subject to *hacking* at least conceptually.

The data that radar and the ATC system uses is received on ground based antenna and then transferred via land lines through processing equipment and then presented on the ATC screens. When someone looks at an ATC screen, a computer screen they have no idea of the origin of the image they are seeing, where it came and how it got on their screen. We CAN and DO know how it supposed to work, and how it normally does work. This is not a mystery. What we may not know is how data can be over laid or added to an ATC screen... or if there is even evidence of these *inserted* targets.

The same issue attends to radio communications. One cannot know with certainty who they are speaking with and where the communications originated.
amazed!
I think we are in general agreement on this.

We know that 1 FAA supervisor destroyed audio tapes in front of others. Who knows what other records might have been destroyed? Destruction of evidenced is one of the hallmarks of illegal government behavior.
kawika
QUOTE (amazed! @ Oct 27 2011, 01:12 PM) *
I think we are in general agreement on this.

We know that 1 FAA supervisor destroyed audio tapes in front of others. Who knows what other records might have been destroyed? Destruction of evidenced is one of the hallmarks of illegal government behavior.


What I find damn curious is that this story stands alone. Nobody has tried to bring those employees back together to reconstruct what they said for the recording.

I am pretty sure we could get pretty close by looking at the relevant transcripts and listening to the audios carefully.

I believe this was NY center in Ronkonkoma. We have a lot of the records, including employee time sheets that might show the names.

Can we do a better job than the 9/11 Commission Teams did? I believe we can.
SanderO
There is woefully little fundamental research re 911. There is a hell of lot of theorizing... repeating what others say... building a case on evidence which has not been vetted.

CIT actually did fundamental research... rather unusual. Others have to deal with the vids and so forth which is in the public record and as has been pointed out that evidence is often tainted, fiddled with, incomplete and so forth and so you really can't build a case on a foundation of unreliable evidence. At best you can falsify the official case.

And this doesn't even go to the issue that most people simply haven't looked carefully at the visual record flawed as it may be... careful enough to general real data from it. We need to really hit the ground and dig up more evidence...
amazed!
I disagree SanderO--there has been very much research done regarding the events of the day and surrounding circumstances, and it has ALL been done by private citizens, NOT the government.

To me, that point is crucial.

Call it all circumstantial evidence if you wish, but there has been very much evidence uncovered by private citizens. Consider Craig Ranke as but 1 example. The folks who gathered and analyzed the dust created in Manhattan. The folks who have studied and analyzed the roles and relationships between the various Bush family members, Paul Bremer, Dov Zakheim and many many others.

The circumstantial case is HUGE, and we are not in a court of law, we are in the court of public opinion.

Keep in mind that the ONLY jury to ever hear the case against James Earl Ray found that he was NOT the killer.

I say that any jury to hear all the evidence gathered, circumstantial and otherwise, would find that the OCT is a damn lie.
kawika
QUOTE (amazed! @ Oct 28 2011, 02:02 PM) *
I disagree SanderO--there has been very much research done regarding the events of the day and surrounding circumstances, and it has ALL been done by private citizens, NOT the government.

To me, that point is crucial.

Call it all circumstantial evidence if you wish, but there has been very much evidence uncovered by private citizens. Consider Craig Ranke as but 1 example. The folks who gathered and analyzed the dust created in Manhattan. The folks who have studied and analyzed the roles and relationships between the various Bush family members, Paul Bremer, Dov Zakheim and many many others.

The circumstantial case is HUGE, and we are not in a court of law, we are in the court of public opinion.

Keep in mind that the ONLY jury to ever hear the case against James Earl Ray found that he was NOT the killer.

I say that any jury to hear all the evidence gathered, circumstantial and otherwise, would find that the OCT is a damn lie.


I concur.

The investigation MUST be conducted by WE THE PEOPLE. Nobody in a position of authority can be trusted to do it for us. They are too easily compromised, threatened with loss of career, income and position.

We have plenty of data to scrutinize. Grab some and start looking for evidence. It doesn't have to be perfect, just thorough.

CSI is Hollywood. Entertainment for the masses to convince them someone is protecting. Baloney. The truth is, the protectors have become predators.

PM me your email and I will send you the list of FAA files.
kawika
QUOTE (kawika @ Oct 28 2011, 02:29 PM) *
We have plenty of data to scrutinize. Grab some and start looking for evidence. It doesn't have to be perfect, just thorough.

PM me your email and I will send you the list of FAA files.


Almost a month has gone by and no takers.

I think there is much to be gleaned from the records. If nothing else, a greater understanding for the future, should any research be done.

Seems like everyone is satisfied with the level of understanding and don't want to probe any further.
tumetuestumefaisdubien
I would suggest a practical test of the hypothesis.
In the military radar data from 9/11 there are very obviously really many targets which are highly suspected to be the injects - identifiable with consistently invalid validation bits - they contain (invalid) secondary radar parameters which otherwise usually originate in a plane's transponder and are validated, and which then largely cease to occur in the record after 14:00 UTC. So I would think that if we would search in the available civilian radar records and compare whether there consistently is an equivalent of this "clouds" of invalid targets we see in the military data, it could maybe sufficiently answer the question whether there indeed could be confirmed the same phenomena in the civilian radar data or not.
I was just really briefly trying such a comparison and I still didn't find in the civilian data any of the suspected injected targets I see in the military data.
If somebody wants to research this thoroughly and verify or refute this my very preliminary find I'm able filter and export the long list of the invalid targets records from the military radar data for comparison with the civilian records.
Sergio
Fine to see you here again, tume.
bambooboy
Hi all
a "simple" question or my 2 cents

during all these years lots of times we "heard" about "beep injections", "live-fly exercices", "military drills" and so on.
we also "heard" about black-boxes, and radar tracking datas (ntsb, 84thrades).
We all dig this sh*t deep looking for any anomalies

ok. So the question is:
and if all were right, but wrong at the same time?
I mean:

why we ever never focus on the the fact that electronical warfare and stealth counter measures mean that radars can be fooled be showing tracks moving with speeds totally different from the one the real planes have?
this is the base of "stealth flight": ATC see a bleep, but they see the bleep pretty much far away from where it really is. they can calculate trajectory and estimate times and routes, but in the meanwhile plane is totally somewhere else (making plane stealthy)

I mean, why we should take true as gold what they show us in the "official" radar tracks?
yes we have 4 planes NTSB radar tracks analyzed, but.... what if if they were fooled too?
bambooboy
Hi Tume

on this thread
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10803532
Woody was trying to contact you.
amazed!
QUOTE (bambooboy @ Jan 13 2012, 05:46 PM) *
Hi all
a "simple" question or my 2 cents

during all these years lots of times we "heard" about "beep injections", "live-fly exercices", "military drills" and so on.
we also "heard" about black-boxes, and radar tracking datas (ntsb, 84thrades).
We all dig this sh*t deep looking for any anomalies

ok. So the question is:
and if all were right, but wrong at the same time?
I mean:

why we ever never focus on the the fact that electronical warfare and stealth counter measures mean that radars can be fooled be showing tracks moving with speeds totally different from the one the real planes have?
this is the base of "stealth flight": ATC see a bleep, but they see the bleep pretty much far away from where it really is. they can calculate trajectory and estimate times and routes, but in the meanwhile plane is totally somewhere else (making plane stealthy)

I mean, why we should take true as gold what they show us in the "official" radar tracks?
yes we have 4 planes NTSB radar tracks analyzed, but.... what if if they were fooled too?


Good questions and observations, Bamboo. I agree with your larger point--I think the radar data must be suspect. Though it might be right, it might be wrong. Certainly the high speeds derived from it suggest that it's not all that accurate.

Having never been involved in radar spoofing, my understanding (very limited) is that with "injects", they can insert targets and tracks that don't really exist. It's rather an elaborate video game.

As for stealth technology, such an aircraft is designed to deflect, or not return, radar signals. Also used for that is RAM, radar absorbent material, though it has other problems, like falling off the airframe and being damaged by rain.
SanderO
I have mentioned in the past that the data which appears on a screen such as PC or a radar in ATC is electronic / digital data which at some point is conveyed over wires and in the case of supposed radar and radio communications via radio frequencies sent from a transmitter to an antenna before it is converted to wire line signals.

We've been told that there is / was the capability to insert simulated data into ATC radar screens. If true this seems to suggest that almost all digital / electronic data could be *simulated* and inserted. No radar screen is technically *real world* as it is only a presentation of data on a screen... assumed to be transmitted etc. from the real targets... a facsimile of the real world.

The same can be said for radio transmissions... and perhaps telephone transmissions. One can't identify the source. I am not familiar with telephone technology but if there is no record of the switches and routers for a given call creating the actual path of the call, the could be made from the room next door to the person receiving it... the receiver has no way of knowing. Likewise if one has the radio frequency is seems one could game that system too rather easily. You just don't know where the signal is coming from.

It seems like the capability to fake this electrical and radio transmission data, while not perhaps rocket science is more an intel-military type capability. If it can be established that the digital/electronic/communications data was faked/simulated and/or inserted into the civilian *system* it strongly suggests an intel-military type operation and not a 19 hijacker one.

One of the main problems about the understanding of the events of 9/11 is having reliable data to work with. If the evidence of data is suspect, tampered with, simulated that you have little real data to reconstruct the event. This DOES seem to be a problem for investigators. The black boxes should reveal reliable data. But could a black box be programed in advance and substituted so that it would/could be found and the data assumed to accurate.

Once you suspect data as being faked or simulated you are very slippery grounds as far as determining exactly what occurred. If you can prove it to be faked it certainly puts those who provided this data in the hot seat. What we have seen is the officials have controlled the evidence and in many cases not made it available to the public using the *national security* card as the reason. In some cases this defies credulity completely. Of what national security interest concerns are the construction plans to the destroyed World Trade Center? Of the numerous videos from the Pentagon on 9/11.

It's pretty obvious that the official *investigations* were largely cover stories of cover ups. But can we tell what they were covering up? Like the official narrative... the alternative narrative seem to be largely based on speculation and unreliable unvetted data. All the accounts have a level of internal logical consistency to them. But all seem to share the element of suspension of disbelief. All of the explanations, including the OCT share elements which defy credulity on one level or another.

All criminals and conspirators would seek to divert attention away from them and on to others as the culprits. This IS part and parcel of criminal behavior...except for some terrorist acts where the terrorists apparently have claimed credit to advance some political agenda. The acts always are followed by the issuance of demands or statements by the group... or in the case of suicide bombers vids they made before their crime. The 9/11 events seem to not follow this pattern.

The whole event is a paradox wrapped in an enigma.
amazed!
I think you have touched upon the heart of the matter, SanderO.

The cellphone calls, upon which so much of the OCT is based, are easily faked, especially when one has access to the C-130 that is jammed with nothing but radio equipment and designed to disrupt and overpower the enemy's communications abilities.

Anybody with a handheld radio can make "fake" transmissions, and it has been reported in the news for years.

Good post.
SanderO
If the "electronic" and digital data is unreliable and could be faked by intel/military/media and was used to create what we know to be the OCT... what IS the data which is available which IS reliable? And what can we deduced from it?

Pilots have pointed out the flight profiles for the commercial airliners supposed involved. For the WTC would a *normal* commercial jet flying under normal conditions be able to create the observed damage and deliver the fuel to lead to the weakening and collapse of the top sections of each tower?

Is it technically possible for the twin towers to collapse if the top 16 floors collapse (tower 1)? What would the failure mode be?

Is it possible for building 7 to collapse as was observed? What would the failure mode be?

Is it possible for a commercial jet to crash into a field and leave as little plane debris as seen in the photos of the site immediately after the event?

Is it possible for a wide bodied plane to cause the impact damage to the pentagon seen on photos taken directly after the "event" showing destruction of the facade?

Much of the understanding about 9/11 has to be based on what we DO know about the performance of planes and buildings in general... and digital *systems*.

Unfortunately we have precious little actual reliable data from the events of 9/11.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.