Missile or Plane? I can't take it any longer!

[Maxel]

Yes, I know, this is my first post and I'm already complaining! I have been lurking and reading and I'm to the point that if I don't say something I'm going to blow a gasket or an artery or something.

I would like an explanation from those who continually beat the drum of this topic. But first, a little factual background.

When an aircraft goes to make a flight, the following happens: (let us all pretend that we are hypothetically speaking of the real aircraft here that crashed into the pentagon)

Prior to the flight a flight-plan must be filed, including particulars such as destination, fuel, requested route, AIRCRAFT TYPE, etc.

When it is ready to depart, the aircraft comes on the "ground control" frequency of the air traffic control tower. (there are several people working in a tower specially a major tower at a major city) The pilot requests his clearance and his permission to taxi.

The controller looks around, sees the aircraft at the "gate" and if there are no conflicts gives the permission.
The aircraft then taxiis into position and is given the frequency for "local control". This is the person that gives aircraft the clearances to land or to take off. He must visually see the aircraft.

The aircraft is given his clearance to take off, the controller keeps an eye on it until it is far enough to clear another one for take-off or for landing. The aircraft is then given the frequency to go to for departure-control.

A TRACON or terminal radar area aproach and departure control is a darkened room usually collocated with the tower where the controllers sit at their radar consoles. The original aircraft comes up on their frequency and is verified on radar.

Now here let's make a distinction: There is primary radar and secondary radar. A primary radar site will send out radar waves that "bounce" back to the antenna, thus giving the equipment range and azimuth. In other words the aircraft position. It can also pick up showers, thunderstorms. large flocks of birds, missiles, etc.

A secondary radar operates on a different principle. As it scans the sky it "interrogates" the transponder aboard the aircraft or the IFF on military aircraft (Identification Friend or Foe). This radar cannot pick up objects that do not have a transponder.

The radars at Tracons are almost always BOTH. (I don't know of any that are not, but there may be, but certainly not at a major terminal)

Now back to our aircraft: It will be cleared to a specific point/altitude and told to contact "Center" (Air Route Traffic Control Center- a building with several hundred people working there) at a specified frequency. The Center operates with secondary radar unless it's an emergency (Secondary radar Outage) (The aircraft has been on radar and has been followed/monitored by a controller THE ENTIRE TIME.

The aircraft continues along its cleared path and contacts the center frequency: Something such as "Center, this American 321 with you on 132.5." The controller responds with: "American 321 Washington Center, RADAR CONTACT. (or Boston Center or whatever). That means the controller has verified the aircraft is on his radar scope and he has assumed responsibility for the aircraft. The pilot is then given any further clearances.

Our aircraft continues its climb along its route and suddenly things start to go wrong. The airplane begins to turn, change altitude and direction etc. The controller attempts to talk to the pilot with limited success. The closest facilities with primary radar are alerted (both civilian and military).

This aircraft who has been followed/tracked the entire time then flies towards Washington and crashes into the Pentagon. It is all on radar tapes that can be played back (and voice tapes as well)

Can somebody explain to me how a missile was substituted for the aircraft and where the real airplane went?

 

[Joe]

Can somebody explain to me how a missile was substituted for the aircraft and where the real airplane went?

secondary radar on Flight77 was switched off out over Pennsylvania, meaning, as you have stated, that it could not be identified as anything but a blip with speed direction etc, but no detailed ID of what plane it was. Soon thereafter it was flown to an AFB, perhaps in Ohio, and landed. In the meantime, a global hawk entered the approximate airspace of Flight 77 at the time its transponder was switched off and took its place. The Global hawk completed Flight 77's mission into the Pentagon, firing a missile into the pentagon seconds before impact in order to create damage of the extent and shape that one would expect of a Boeing 757. But not exactly, hence the discrepancies.

I suppose you are going to ask what happened to the passengers on Flight 77 after it was landed, but for once I would like the questioner to suggest an answer. It ain't too hard to come up with something. So have a go.

Joe

 

[Maxel]

"secondary radar on Flight77 was switched off out over Pennsylvania, meaning, as you have stated, that it could not be identified as anything but a blip with speed direction etc, but no detailed ID of what plane it was"

First off, secondary radar cannot be "switched off". Maybe the transponder was switched off aboard the aircraft, but guess what that does? I t sends a huge red flag to the controller saying "something is wrong". 1. By the time that had happened other facilities had been alerted. 2. the computer at center still retains the info of last position and can even show a projected track. 3. The controller paints a secondary echo at let us say BOS270175. Did other facilities see a target from that position to "an AFB"? No! Did other facilities besides the center pick up primary returns from that position to the pentagon? Yes! Does playing back the radar tapes confirm this? YES!

Your theory would only hold water if the airliner was carrying the Global Hawk and immediately upon launching it it "cloaked" itself and became invisible to radar. The radar returns show what a couple of minutes before was showing up on the scope as a secondary return AT THE SAME POSITION turn into primary returns (plural, more than one radar) all the way back to the pentagon. With no other returns near it!

Try again.

 

[Joe]

"secondary radar on Flight77 was switched off out over Pennsylvania, meaning, as you have stated, that it could not be identified as anything but a blip with speed direction etc, but no detailed ID of what plane it was"

First off, secondary radar cannot be "switched off". Maybe the transponder was switched off aboard the aircraft, but guess what that does? I t sends a huge red flag to the controller saying "something is wrong". 1. By the time that had happened other facilities had been alerted. 2. the computer at center still retains the info of last position and can even show a projected track. 3. The controller paints a secondary echo at let us say BOS270175. Did other facilities see a target from that position to "an AFB"? No! Did other facilities besides the center pick up primary returns from that position to the pentagon? Yes! Does playing back the radar tapes confirm this? YES!

Your theory would only hold water if the airliner was carrying the Global Hawk and immediately upon launching it it "cloaked" itself and became invisible to radar. The radar returns show what a couple of minutes before was showing up on the scope as a secondary return AT THE SAME POSITION turn into primary returns (plural, more than one radar) all the way back to the pentagon. With no other returns near it!

Try again.

okay, it should have been obvious that by "secondary radar switched off" I meant "transponder switched off leaving secondary radar interrogation of transponder impossible, leaving only primary radar." But i'll give you one point on the legalistic nickpicking scale if you want.

Anyway, the point you are missing is that when the transponder on Flight 77 was switched off a red flag did go up, but Flight 77 was "hijacked" in an area of limited radar coverage, meaning that when the transponder went off, the plane was invisible to ATCs in that area, "that area" being the radar installation near Parkersburg, W. Va.

Basically, when the transponder was switched off, the controller monitoring Flight 77 at the Indianapolis center was left blind. Also, according to the FAA, air traffic controllers in Ohio did not have access to primary radars, and it is a well-known AFB in Ohio that we suggest as the landing site for Flight 77.

Your comment:

Did other facilities see a target from that position to "an AFB"? No! Did other facilities besides the center pick up primary returns from that position to the pentagon? Yes! Does playing back the radar tapes confirm this?

does not consider the fact that confusion reigned that morning, not least because there were many training programs underway that simulated hijackings on test planes, leading several ATCs to have to ask whether the reports of hijackings were "real world" or "simulation".

And I find it humorous that you have confidence in the radar tapes that the FAA was allowed to release.

Joe

 

[Maxel]

First of all, I don't think it is legalistic "nickpicking" to be accurate. Sloppiness leads to errors, errors lead to false conclusions.

Secondly, by the time the transponder was shut off, as I said before, other facilities had been alerted. There are NO blind spots to Norad composite radar at the altitude the aircraft was at. Other facilities did pick up the returns on their primaries. The whole area was examined on reconstruction for echoes. Especially when the false accusations that the military had shot down the aircraft over Penn. started to come out.

Third, think about the amount of people that would have to be co-opted for this to occur as you say. The most obvious are: The civilian controllers. The military controllers at the Air Force Base. The rest of the people that saw this airliner landing at a military base. I've been stationed at USAF bases, and can tell you that would have attracted LOTS of attention. All of the people involved in hiding or disposing of the airplane after the fact. The people at FAA who looked at all of those tapes before anybody else. The National Transportation Safety Board who investigated, and of course, the pilots, crew and passengers aboard the aircraft. Did I leave anyone out? I'm sure I did. That is simply not credible that that many people would have "gone along with the program" or have been eliminated.

Fourth, I am not an expert on missiles ot Global Hawk but I know the payload capacity is not high enough to have carried a missile large enough to have caused the damage at the pentagons, nor have carried the amount of flammable material that caused all of those extensive fires. A Hellfire missile or similar type which the Global Hawk CAN carry is simply not capable of causing that much damage.

I have come to believe there well may be a conspiracy, but not this one. It's called barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Maxel]

Could you please explain your statement:
"air traffic controllers in Ohio did not have access to primary radars"

What controllers are those? Where did you get that information/ is a reference available?

 

[Russ]

I have come to believe there well may be a conspiracy, but not this one. It's called barking up the wrong tree.

What do you believe to be the correct tree?

 

[Laura]

From "Comments on the Pentagon Strike"

Flight 77 took off at 8:20 a.m.

The pilot had his last routine communication with the control tower at 8:50 a.m. "At 9:09 a.m., being unable to reach the plane by radar, the Indianapolis air controllers warned of a possible crash," the Washington Post reported. Vice-President Dick Cheney would later explain that the terrorists had "turned off the transponder, which led to a later report that a plane had gone down over Ohio, but it really hadn't." [Meet the Press, NBC, 16 Sept 2001]

On 12 September it was learned that the transponder had been cut off at about 8:55 a.m., rendering the plane invisible to civilian air controllers. During this period of invisibility, the plane was said to have made a U turn back to Washington. This is, of course, an assumption. The information that the plane turned around has no known source.

The problem is: turning off the transponder, under the conditions that prevailed that day, would have been the best way of raising an alert.

The procedures are very strict in the case of a problem with a transponder, both on civilian and military aircraft. The FAA regulations describe exactly how to proceed when a transponder is not functioning properly: the control tower should enter into radio contact at once with the pilot and, if it fails, immediately warn the military who would then send fighters to establish visual contact with the crew. [see FAA regulations: http://faa.gov/ATpubs]

The interruption of a transponder also directly sets off an alert with the military body responsible for air defenses of the United States and Canada, NORAD.

The transponder is the plane's identity card. An aircraft that disposes of this identity card is IMMEDIATELY monitored, AUTOMATICALLY.

"If an object has not been identified in less than two minutes or appears suspect, it is considered to be an eventual threat. Unidentified planes, planes in distress and planes we suspect are being used for illegal activities can then be intercepted by a fighter from NORAD. [NORAD spokesman: http://www.airforce.dnd.ca/athomedocs/athome1e_f.htm]

See also Facing Terror Attack's Aftermath,
Boston Globe, where you will read: "Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its fighters routinely intercept aircraft."]

Thus, according to the official version, considering the conditions that prevailed on September 11, 2001, the "terrorists" actually gave the alert that SHOULD have led to almost instant interception FORTY minutes before the plane struck the Pentagon.

In certain regions, ari traffic contrllers do have radars, called "primaries," that are able to detect movement in the air. But, the radars they normally use are called "secondaries" and are limited to recording signals emitted by the transponders of airplanes which tell them the registration, altitude, etc. Turning off the transponder permits an aircraft to vanish from these "secondary" radars. Such an aircraft will only appear on "primary" radars. According to the FAA, the air traffic controllers did not have access to primary radars in Ohio.

See: Pentagon Crash Highlights a Radar Gap, where you will read:

"The airliner that slammed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11 disappeared from controllers' radar screens for at least 30 minutes -- in part because it was hijacked in an area of limited radar coverage. [...]

The aircraft, traveling from Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles, was hijacked sometime between 8:50 a.m. -- when air traffic controllers made their last routine contact with the pilot -- and 8:56, when hijackers turned off the transponder, which reports the plane's identity, altitude and speed to controllers' radar screens.

The airliner crashed into the Pentagon at 9:41 a.m., about 12 minutes after controllers at Dulles sounded an alert that an unidentified aircraft was headed toward Washington at high speed.

The answers to the mystery of the aircraft's disappearance begin with the fact that the hijacking took place in an area served by only one type of radar, FAA officials confirmed. Although this radar is called a "secondary" system, it is the type used almost exclusively today in air traffic control. It takes an aircraft's identification, destination, speed and altitude from the plane's transponder and displays it on a controller's radar screen.

"Primary" radar is an older system. It bounces a beam off an aircraft and tells a controller only that a plane is aloft -- but does not display its type or altitude. The two systems are usually mounted on the same tower. Primary radar is normally used only as a backup, and is usually turned off by controllers handling aircraft at altitudes above 18,000 feet because it clutters their screens.

All aircraft flying above 18,000 feet are required to have working transponders. If a plane simply disappears from radar screens, most controllers can quickly switch on the primary system, which should display a small plus sign at the plane's location, even if the aircraft's transponder is not working.

But the radar installation near Parkersburg, W. Va., was built with only secondary radar -- called "beacon-only" radar. That left the controller monitoring Flight 77 at the Indianapolis center blind when the hijackers apparently switched off the aircraft's transponder, sources said."

The only effect, then, of turning off the transponder at that precise point was to make the plane invisible to only CIVILIAN aviation authorities. One wonders how the "terrorists" knew that this act would make them invisible to the civilian air traffic controllers. Again, under the conditions prevailing that day, and as a general routine, turning off the transponder SHOULD have brought the aircraft to the direct attention and scrutiny of the Military Defense Systems of the United States AUTOMATICALLY. It is therefore a near certainty that, at all times, it was visible and monitored by the Military.

According to the statement of General Myers, the military waited three quarters of an hour before ordering fighters to take off. [Senate hearing, 13 Sept. 2001]

Two days later, on 15 September, NORAD issued a contradictory press release. It said that it hadn't been informed of the hijacking of flight 77 until 9:24 a.m. and had then immediately given orders to two F-16s to take off from Langley, 105 miles from the Pentagon, instead of Saint Andrews, only 10 miles from the Pentagon. They were in the air by 9:30, much too late... the object that impacted the Pentagon arrived at 9:37.

This version puts all the blame on the FAA for waiting.

But this is implausible due to the established procedures that were automatic.

The question that needs to be asked, considering all that WAS known at that claimed "late moment" of awareness is: why were fighter jets sent instead of a missile?

The fact is, independently of the interception of flight 77, the crisis situation that existed that day demanded maximum air defense protection over Washington. This activity would have fallen to Saint Andrews Air Force Base, just as General Eberhart, CO of NORAD had already activated the SCATANA plan and had taken control of the New York airspace in order to position fighters there.

For the military, from the moment they were alerted of flight 77s disappearance, which was, indeed, the moment the transponders were turned off, and NOT when the FAA supposedly got around to calling them, it was not a question of speculating that they were dealing with a mechanical failure. The Facts on the Ground were rather precise: shortly after two airliners were flown into the WTC towers, the transponder of another plane was cut off and the pilot failed to respond to radio contact. The job of the military could not have been clearer: shoot down the plane that was claimed to have been headed for Washington.

These facts show clearly that the U.S. Military had NO INTENTION of shooting down whatever was heading for the Pentagon despite the menace it represented.

On 16 September 2001, Dick Cheney tried to justify the military's failure by claiming that the shooting down of a civilian airplane would be a "decision left up to the president." He played on the sympathy of the American people, saying that the president just couldn't take such a decision hastily because "the lives of American citizens were at stake."

However, Cheney's claims are disingenuous. He equated the interception of the aircraft with the decision to shoot it down.

Interception is merely establishing visual contact, giving orders with light signals, and being ready to take action. A shoot down means that the fighters are already positioned to receive the order.

Further, it is incorrect that this decision can only be made by the President. The interception of a suspect civilian aircraft by fighters is automatic and does not require any kind of political decision making. It should have taken place on 11 September when the transponder was cut off. The fighters should have taken off immediately - unless they were ordered to "stand down."

Again, let me reiterate the fact that the flight 77 was invisible ONLY to CIVILIAN aviation authorities. The fact that the transponders were turned off automatically alerts military air defense.

 

[Joe]

First of all, I don't think it is legalistic "nickpicking" to be accurate. Sloppiness leads to errors, errors lead to false conclusions.

in your case it was nitpicking since you clearly came here with an agenda to prove a theory wrong.

Secondly, by the time the transponder was shut off, as I said before, other facilities had been alerted. There are NO blind spots to Norad composite radar at the altitude the aircraft was at. Other facilities did pick up the returns on their primaries. The whole area was examined on reconstruction for echoes. Especially when the false accusations that the military had shot down the aircraft over Penn. started to come out.

Not according to official reports. There WERE blind spots, and these were specifically chosen for a "hand over". You say that "the whole area was examined on reconstruction for echoes". By whom? You appear not to understand the nature of a conspiracy.

Third, think about the amount of people that would have to be co-opted for this to occur as you say. The most obvious are: The civilian controllers. The military controllers at the Air Force Base. The rest of the people that saw this airliner landing at a military base. I've been stationed at USAF bases, and can tell you that would have attracted LOTS of attention. All of the people involved in hiding or disposing of the airplane after the fact.

we get this argument a lot, and not just in relation to 9/11 but any alleged conspiracy. What about JFK, think about all the people that would have to be co-opted to keep the truth from ever being officially told. Amazing, eh? Musta been the magic bullet after all then. A plane landing at an USAFB would have attracted lots of attention?? If, as stated the civilian controllers in the area could not see it, that left only the military men and women who knew that a plane landed and only the military ATCs who knew where it came from via the secondary radar. I assume you are familiar with the military and the type of men and women it produces? The ones that are trained to take orders, not to think, the "patriots" who would do anything for their nation, and who if told it was a serious matter or national security would take their secret to their graves.

As for civilian ATCs, emergency workers and anyone else involved, you think these people could not be convinced that this was a matter of national security? And that if they were to divulge ANYTHING they would be facing long prison terms, or worse? You think such people would be willing to take that risk and try to take their piece of information, that they "saw a plane land", or "something strange went on", "or our boss told us not to say that..." and go to...well, go to WHO exactly? The mainstream media?? You think CNN is gonna run a story that exposes 9/11!

Please use a little critical thinking here.

The people at FAA who looked at all of those tapes before anybody else. The National Transportation Safety Board who investigated, and of course, the pilots, crew and passengers aboard the aircraft. Did I leave anyone out? I'm sure I did. That is simply not credible that that many people would have "gone along with the program" or have been eliminated.

Please try to think here. How many of these people were in a position to actually know with certainty that something was definitely NOT the way the official story records? How many of them had access to "smoking gun" information? The only people who know what happened are the pilots crew and passengers of Flight 77, and they aren't in a position to talk.

Fourth, I am not an expert on missiles ot Global Hawk but I know the payload capacity is not high enough to have carried a missile large enough to have caused the damage at the pentagons, nor have carried the amount of flammable material that caused all of those extensive fires. A Hellfire missile or similar type which the Global Hawk CAN carry is simply not capable of causing that much damage.

The global hawk in its current configuration is not capable of carrying ANY missile. However, initial designs included the possibility for it to carry three to six missiles. The global hawk theory suggests that the craft was modified specifically for the attack on the Pentagon. This modification could fairly easily have involved the addition of a missile with a shaped charge that cut the hole in the pentagon and a secondary warhead to complete the interior damage.

I have come to believe there well may be a conspiracy, but not this one. It's called barking up the wrong tree.

You have done the work to break through to the reality based community and can see that there was a conspiracy, but you need to think more critically about the nature conspiracies, how and why they are successful, and how so very malleable the mind of the average human being is.

Joe

 

[Joe]

Could you please explain your statement:
"air traffic controllers in Ohio did not have access to primary radars"

What controllers are those? Where did you get that information/ is a reference available?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A32597-2001Nov2&notFound=true

 

[Maxel]

Well, I would have liked responding much sooner, but here is what happened: Suddenly, during the discussion I was no longer able to log in. The message I was getting said my password was not good. It was, however, the same password I had been signing in with. Regardless, I requested a new password. I tried to log in with the new password, but, got the same message: password not good. I then tried to write to the administrator to let them know I couldn't log in. But of course, you can't write to the administrator unless you log in. Finally, I wrote a letter to PunBB and asked them to pass a message. Lo' and behold, today I was able to log in (with a third password). Hmmm.

Anyway, back to the business at hand. First, to you Joe: I have really tried to remain civil throughout this conversation but your continued, increasingly hostile tone makes it difficult to remain so. Your comments such as:
""in your case it was nitpicking since you clearly came here with an agenda to prove a theory wrong"" ""You appear not to understand the nature of a conspiracy"". ""Please use a little critical thinking here.""""And I find it humorous that you have confidence in the radar tapes that the FAA was allowed to release."""

These are AT BEST condescending, and could easily be interpreted as insulting. I have not attacked you personally, but rather have tried to point out the many many fallacies of your theory and tried to correct your misunderstandings as to how the system works since you obviously have no experience with something like that. If you would like to take my observations as from someone who was in the system for 30 years, that's great. If not, and you insist on constructing theories from the outside looking in while disregarding other perspectives, well that's up to you, but maybe some others would benefit from being exposed to a different point of view. I thought that is what boards like this were all about. Maybe I'm wrong.

Now as to facts. Since I will be answering your and Laura's point in these comments (since they are inter-related) one post may turn out to be too long. I will try to divide it into two. The first thing you need to understand is that the media gets almost everything wrong. While you may be amused that I find the FAA people that I worked with credible, I find it even more amusing that you are relying MOSTLY on media reports in the construction of your conspiracy theory.

From Laura"""""The pilot had his last routine communication with the control tower at 8:50 a.m. "At 9:09 a.m., being unable to reach the plane by radar, the Indianapolis air controllers warned of a possible crash," the Washington Post reported. Vice-President Dick Cheney would later explain that the terrorists had "turned off the transponder, which led to a later report that a plane had gone down over Ohio, but it really hadn't.""""

When a controller is following an aircraft on radar and the transponder goes out the immediate response is to try to establish communication with the pilot. Sometimes it's a mechanical malfunction. If the pilot does not respond the controller doesn't immediately push the panic button. Perhaps they are busy up there, perhaps they are trying to reset it. Perhaps the co-pilot is on the company frequency and the pilot is flying the airplane. The controller will continue to try. if after several attempts he/she (from herein referred to as "she" or "her") will call the supervisor and inform her. The supervisor, and the the controller if she has the time, will start contacting other facilities to coordinate and gather information. It is not unusual at all for this to take a few minutes. If, after 19 minutes contact has not been re-established, it would also not be unusual for a controller to refer to the aircraft as a possible crash while trying to gather information. Our illustrious Washington Post reports this as: """being unable to reach the plane by radar, the Indianapolis air controllers warned of a possible crash,"""" It is not until later that the record is corrected by Cheney to reflect that the turning off of the transponder may have led somebody to refer to it as a possible crash. Notice also the reference to ""air controllers"" What the hell is an air controller? They control air? They are air traffic controllers. But the Post doesn't really worry about being accurate about much anything.

I'm glad that Laura was kind enough to BOLDEN the type on this next one since it is very important."""All aircraft flying above 18,000 feet are required to have working transponders. If a plane simply disappears from radar screens, most controllers can quickly switch on the primary system, which should display a small plus sign at the plane's location, even if the aircraft's transponder is not working.""" Keep this in mind it becomes important. Now combine it with this from apparently the Boston Globe:"""According to the FAA, the air traffic controllers did not have access to primary radars in Ohio.""" a more ambiguous statement would be hard to conceive. First of all, there is great overlap in radar coverage. You can't draw a straight line and say the radar coverage for Indianapolis begins here and all others end there. As your own research shows the capability is there to switch to primary. Additionally many facilities in Ohio DO have primary radar. Don't take my word for it, RESEARCH IT!
Some of these are the following towers Cleveland (CLE), Covington, (CVG), Wright-Patterson AFB. In fact Wright- Patterson has PAR (Precision Approach Radar) one step ABOVE primary whn it comes to bouncing radar waves off an object. I'm sure ther are others as well. There is also an EnRoute Center at Cleveland which has some radar overlap with Indianapolis. Why is all of this important? Because all of those facilities saved their radar tapes and they were used in the reconstruction. Let's go back to Laura's own research: Quote"""The only effect, then, of turning off the transponder at that precise point was to make the plane invisible to only CIVILIAN aviation authorities."""Unquote. We'll talk about the reconstruction later. So what we have here is another case of the media reporting something they don't understand and making it sound like something it isn't.

Now let's talk about NORAD. They rely on a combination of their own radar picket fence, FAA radar, and in some cases tethered balloons aloft equipped with radar sensors. They have complete coverage of the U.S. AT CERTAIN ALTITUDES, and extensive radar coverage at the other lower altitudes. At the altitude this airliner was flying they certainly had coverage in that area, as Laura points out. They even have the ability to have their computer gather all of the information from all of the radars in use and display the entire picture up on a giant screen.

There is so much disinformation in the rest of these posted news article I hardly know where to go next.

 

[Maxel]

Part II

I guess we'll start with the procedures in place BEFORE 9/11 and those that were developed POST 9/11.
There is a great mixing of the two in Laura's and Joe's postings. BTW Laura almost every link you provided gives me an error "not available" message.

////"""The interruption of a transponder also directly sets off an alert with the military body responsible for air defenses of the United States and Canada, NORAD.
The transponder is the plane's identity card. An aircraft that disposes of this identity card is IMMEDIATELY monitored, AUTOMATICALLY."""///

While the above MAY be true now, it was certainly not true prior to 9/11. Check it yourselves. Procedures are public record. Prior to 9/11 the military relied STRICTLY on the FAA VERBAL notification. there was no such thing as an "automatically", neither was there a system for setting off an alert with the military. That is why, the record clearly shows, NORAD learned of all this from the FAA. And to be frank, I don't think even today the military would be interested or capable of visually monitoring the thousands of flights aloft all at the same time sqwaking transponder codes. I would bet money that they wait to be notified by the FAA before they go on alert. JMO on this one though.

///"""See also Facing Terror Attack's Aftermath,
Boston Globe, where you will read: "Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its fighters routinely intercept aircraft."]
Thus, according to the official version, considering the conditions that prevailed on September 11, 2001, the "terrorists" actually gave the alert that SHOULD have led to almost instant interception FORTY minutes before the plane struck the Pentagon."""///

Now on this one the header says it all: "Facing terror attack's AFTERMATH!. Why is it that a NORAD spokesperson talking about "" its fighters routinely intercept aircraft."" AFTER 9/11 be construed to mean """that SHOULD have led to almost instant interception FORTY minutes before the plane struck the Pentagon""" Apples and Oranges. Hype! Prior to 9/11 intercepts b y the military were for the most part along our border areas, especially the southern and southeastern and southwestern borders. Military intercepts were extremely rare in the interior of the country.

///"""The question that needs to be asked, considering all that WAS known at that claimed "late moment" of awareness is: why were fighter jets sent instead of a missile?"""///
Are you kidding me? Prior to 9/11 the only other intercept/shootdown of a civilian airliner had been the Korean Airlines flight the Soviet Union shot down. Do you remember the World reaction to that? Some items of interest.
1.The USA is a signatory participant in ICAO. (International Civil Aviation Organization).
2. ICAO procedures for military intercepts are very specific and published in their "Flip" manual, which itself widely distributed and easily obtainable.
3. Those procedures DID NOT INCLUDE the shootdown of a civilian airliner.
4. Prior to 9/11 it was VERY unclear in any written regulation who had the authority to order the shootdown of a civilian airliner. Of course, the Commander in Chief has it, but how low in the chain of command was that delegated? No one knew. I can just see the faces of those pilots, ground intercept controllers, etc "You want me to do WHAT?"

You do recognize that an intercept was the only way to shoot that airplane down, RIGHT? This country does not have anti-aircraft missile batteries on alert in Peoria or Pittsburgh or something waiting to shoot down an airplane.

In the same post. Quote////""These facts show clearly that the U.S. Military had NO INTENTION of shooting down whatever was heading for the Pentagon despite the menace it represented.
On 16 September 2001, Dick Cheney tried to justify the military's failure by claiming that the shooting down of a civilian airplane would be a "decision left up to the president." He played on the sympathy of the American people, saying that the president just couldn't take such a decision hastily because "the lives of American citizens were at stake."""""////Unquote

Instead of the above position you are advocating: Quote///"""why were fighter jets sent instead of a missile?"""///Unquote. Can anybody say smoke and mirrors?

Quote////"""Further, it is incorrect that this decision can only be made by the President. The interception of a suspect civilian aircraft by fighters is automatic and does not require any kind of political decision making. It should have taken place on 11 September when the transponder was cut off"""////Unquote

Nothing could be farther from the truth as things stood on 9/11. That's not an opinion, that's a verifiable fact. Go read the FAR's that existed prior to 9/11. Have you read the 9/11 commission report where it addresses the lack of clear guidance or are your only sources media outlets such as the Post and the Globe, those paragons of American journalism?! Research, research, research!

I'm going to try to wrap this up here because it's getting too long. As for the comments by Joe:
1. ///"""And I find it humorous that you have confidence in the radar tapes that the FAA was allowed to release"""////

If you had ever worked within the system, Joe, you would know that the very first people that review tapes such as this are the ordinary watch supervisors and controllers that are there when the tapes are "pulled".

Sometime later, the middle management people come in, and finally upper management, perhaps the next day. Then they are turned over to another agency, the National Transportation Safety Board. Copies are kept and sometimes widely distributed to the Department of Transportation and others. If there is reason to believe there was foul play, the FBI and other agencies are cc'd as well.

2.///"""Not according to official reports. There WERE blind spots, and these were specifically chosen for a "hand over". You say that "the whole area was examined on reconstruction for echoes". By whom? You appear not to understand the nature of a conspiracy.'""////
You haven't shown me any "official reports" unless you consider newspaper accounts "official". In fact, the real official results, derived from after-the-fact review of the tapes of all facilities, especially those that had picked up primary echoes, show that the poor ATCS that was following the flight lost coverage on his secondary radar, but the position of the aircraft can be tracked at all times on the reconstruction. Research, Research, Research.

3. ////"""As for civilian ATCs, emergency workers and anyone else involved, you think these people could not be convinced that this was a matter of national security? And that if they were to divulge ANYTHING they would be facing long prison terms, or worse? You think such people would be willing to take that risk and try to take their piece of information, that they "saw a plane land", or "something strange went on", "or our boss told us not to say that...""//// Yes, easily. You don't understand human nature.

Your comments again show a deep misunderstanding of how the real world works. Have you ever hard of PATCO, Joe? The current controllers union has become as powerful or maybe more so. Because of the sensitivity of a controller being caught up in a controversy and being wrongly accused of doing something wrong, they won the right to have a Union rep present at the review. In order for your theory to fly you would have to co-opt the union representative on duty during the review. You don't think the Union would love to expose the FAA in a cover-up? Now THAT is humorous! Besides, I was once one of those guys, and I can tell you that with maybe one or two exceptions, as there are in everything, those people are not the kind to be threatened or intimidated into doing something. Look at how many walked out and gave up their jobs over something they believed in.

And this is perhaps your most offensive comment of all:
4. Quote////"""A plane landing at an USAFB would have attracted lots of attention?? If, as stated the civilian controllers in the area could not see it, that left only the military men and women who knew that a plane landed and only the military ATCs who knew where it came from via the secondary radar. I assume you are familiar with the military and the type of men and women it produces? The ones that are trained to take orders, not to think, the "patriots" who would do anything for their nation, and who if told it was a serious matter or national security would take their secret to their graves."""////Unquote.

When you say """the military and the type of men and women it produces? The ones that are trained to take orders, not to think""" I can feel my hackles going up. I got news for you the type it produces are the honorable type. The type that would never stand for a cover up if they had any inkling at all that it was going on.

"""I assume you are familiar with the military"""" Yes, you may assume that. I spent a few years of my life in the military. I would be willing to bet money you didn't. Did you?

Let's see, your scenario goes like this. I'm an airman stationed at an USAFB in Ohio. I've been trained not to think. So, I see this huge airliner landing at my base. I find that highly unusual. But I don't know where the aircraft came from because my radar didn't reach very far. Even though all civilian aircraft have to have a PPR # before being allowed to land at a military base, and this one doesn't, my supervisor (who has been co-opted) told me to let him land. He also told everybody else in the tower to keep their mouths shut.

So, later we're at the NCO club having a beer and my buddy from the tower says: what the hell was that all about? I say I don't know. He says: Yeah, well there's people all over the base asking questions about it. Suddenly another guy walks up and says,: hey I hear you guys were in the tower when that American Airlines landed. Man, I was working in the hanger and they offloaded evrybody and too them someplace in buses and then the chief says to get all the torch equipment ready 'cause we're gonna cut that sucker up! What the hell? He told us it's a matter of National Security and we'd be in Leavenworth the rst of our lives if we talked about it.
But some of the guys were watching the WTC thing on TV and the say some American Airlines planes crashed into the towers and the pentagon? And now this? What the hell is going on? But, I guess we better not tal about huh?
YEAH, RIGHT!, Joe.

And you want ME to learn how to think! Now THAT is even MORE hilarious!

BTW if you could put a "shaped charge" on a light missile or bomb and have it cause the damage evidenced at the pentagon, why would we need 2,000 lb bombs or 10,000 lb bombs? Hell, just use a "shaped charge"!
It's all a matter of: you want more bang, you gotta have more explosives and more weight. It's called physics.


I won't be posting on this particular thread anymore (unless it's to answer any attacks that may come my way) because you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. And you give me the impression of not being a very thirsty horse.

I will tell you this, though: Accept the fact that they were all real airplanes and move on. Start asking WHY the government may have played a part. That is the right tree. You've been duped, Joe. They have thrown a red herring your way and your malleable human mind has bought it hook line and sinker. All of your effort is wasted on this.

NOW you can ban me.

 

[noise]

Maxel Wrote:

Especially when the false accusations that the military had shot down the aircraft over Penn. started to come out.

For your false information information your seemingly mistaken I believe. Rumsfeld himself admitted that the plane over pennsylvania was shot down. Maybe your partially correct, "the military" in terms of how we know, love and understand it didn't shoot it down, but it was obviously shot down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0v0_HDwg84&eurl=

And there is a gaggle of supporting testimony all over the net. Now lets turn to big time wrestling for a second. If any of the match is fake, it is all fake, no matter how realistic it appears to be.

Sorry I just had to chime in with that.. man.. looking at your last post one has to wonder how thick is the insulation in that concrete your carrying on those shoulders. Maybe you should find a forum where everyone just bans each other so that your sure fired tested and true (copy paste?) sounding statements will be met with like minded people who aren't thinking for themselves or sharing observations. These statements are what you have chosen to believe and locked in on. Don't you see how limited of a possibility your "fact" finding may be causing you? Are you only solid but never vapor or liquid?

What your missing out in all of this forum is that there is nothing here in solid stone. Lets say I had all the facts about 9-11, I could not PUSH them on people hear, it might become a working hypothesis but it has to move forward with a scientific method. Let's not wear our beliefs on our shoulders, lets drop beliefs and research the truth. Something so solid as beliefs usually are what cause conflict(s). I'll shut up now, hat tip on the distraction, I was hoping to add (to) my own observations and check out some good, conscious, logical debate.

Edit: The second and third link had "]" attached, So yes there was "1" link that seems not to function.

 

[anart]

Maxel, you've lost your grip, and revealed, very clearly, your basic training. You are also, at this point, writing with the kind of desperation that is born from very real fear - fear that all you believe in and understand might not be what it seems to be - so you're striking out with closed eyes and clenched fists - I feel for you in that regard, but if you are unwilling to open your eyes and really learn to use your mind, then nothing that is presented here will penetrate your belief system - thirsty horse or not. This forum has been very patient with you thus far, but insults and rudeness are things we do not tolerate, so please keep this in mind, if you intend to return to any part of this forum in the future. If you do not intend to return, then we can help you with that as well; it's up to you.

 

[Maxel]

Quote"""///Maxel, you've lost your grip, and revealed, very clearly, your basic training. You are also, at this point, writing with the kind of desperation that is born from very real fear -"""///Unquote

Quote///"""man.. looking at your last post one has to wonder how thick is the insulation in that concrete your carrying on those shoulders."""///Unquote


Quote///"""insults and rudeness are things we do not tolerate"""///Unquote

Care to explain the dichotomy?

Do as we say, not as we do?

Or is it your fear that I might cause you readers by a logical explanation of facts? Should I just be your sheple and accept everything you say without question? Or do I have no right to my opinion as well?

It seems your emotional marriage to this conspiracy theory is clouding YOUR judgement, not mine.