Confirmed: 9/11 Planes Were Tracked even With Transponders Turned Off

Originally posted by apex
Well most if not all civilian radar for tracking planes is ground based, right?

But you do know that some radar is joint FAA and NORAD correct?

reply to post by IvanZana

I think you should be banned for even trying to accuse me of being anti-semitic. Not once in my threads have I blamed the Jewish people, they are a religion. I am a Jewish you ignorant .....

I really could care less about what you think. Ignorant what?

That old tactic of bashing the good jewish people of what the terrorist state of Israel does is a sign of complete and utter lack of intelligence. Boone?

I'm not bashing Jews.

Now back to facts. Israel help 911 happen, are you happy? not the jews, israel.

Yes, back to the facts please.

PAVE PAWS?
Sophisticated radars at the bases overflown by flight 77?
Source for the White House and Pentagon being the most protected buildings on earth?
Official source stating that the flights couldn't be tracked?

I pointed out several errors that you made in the OP, are you going to address them or continue to spread lies and misinformation?

reply to post by ULTIMA1

So again how did the hijacker know how to aviod the radar ?

Who said that he knew how to avoid the radar?

If he was trying to avoid being detected by primary radar, then why didn't he drop a lot of altitude to avoid primary for a longer period of time?

reply to post by Boone 870


you do admit that the plane was off radar for a period of time (whichever you choose)?

reply to post by talisman

you do admit that the plane was off radar for a period of time (whichever you choose)?

Yes. According to the commission, it was not displayed on the Indianapolis control center screens for eight minutes and 13 seconds. When it reappeared on Indy's radar the controller didn't notice it because he was looking for flight 77 east of where it was last seen.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by apex
Well most if not all civilian radar for tracking planes is ground based, right?

But you do know that some radar is joint FAA and NORAD correct?

No, didn't know that, mainly since I don't pretend to be an expert on radar in the USA. But even so, do air traffic controllers get fed through airborne radar such as AWACs when they share information?

No. The information goes the other way. Most radars in the US are FAA Air Traffic Control radars. The military uses reapeaters to see what they see in NORAD. The military doesn't transmit anything back to the FAA. AWACS systems are still considered close hold information as far as what they can and can't do, so they won't transmit them for everyone to see.

Exactly, so if it were too low for ground based, no one would see it, at least not the controllers since they don't see what the military sees from above. As I understand it, the area a radar system sees isn't a perfect hemisphere and has limited visibility to the lower angles of elevation, creating a minimum height for visibility.

At least, thats why I assume military pilots do all that low flying practice.

reply to post by IvanZana


Your off on what was the problem. The problem is not that our radars could not pick it up or that our defense is weak. The problem is that every morning we have around 3000 commercial flights alone in the sky and probably half of them are in that general area. When they turn off their transponder and then change course they become lost in the soup and this is even more aggravated when they cross between radar tracking stations.

Awac's can barely control our own military craft. in the past mont we've had 5 near misses while AWACS "controlled" our area.

also it's radar can track speed and heading in relation to Awacs. that's it...no hieght.....

Originally posted by apex
No, didn't know that, mainly since I don't pretend to be an expert on radar in the USA.

Well then i suggest you do research before psoting about something you know nothing about.

Due to member demand, the 9/11 forum is now under close staff scrutiny.
Terms And Conditions Of Use

Announcement: Civility & Decorum are Expected



[edit on 29-3-2008 by DontTreadOnMe]

I found this as another clue........
At the Dulles tower, O'Brien saw the TV pictures from New York and headed back to her post to help other planes quickly land. "We started moving the planes as quickly as we could," she says. "Then I noticed the aircraft. It was an unidentified plane to the southwest of Dulles, moving at a very high rate of speed ... I had literally a blip and nothing more." O'Brien asked the controller sitting next to her, Tom Howell, if he saw it too. "I said, 'Oh my God, it looks like he's headed to the White House,'" recalls Howell. "I was yelling ... 'We've got a target headed right for the White House!'" At a speed of about 500 miles an hour, the plane was headed straight for what is known as P-56, protected air space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol. "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." The plane was between 12 and 14 miles away, says O'Brien, "and it was just a countdown. Ten miles west. Nine miles west ... Our supervisor picked up our line to the White House and started relaying to them the information, [that] we have an unidentified very fast-moving aircraft inbound toward your vicinity, 8 miles west." Vice President Cheney was rushed to a special basement bunker. White House staff members were told to run away from the building. "And it went six, five, four. And I had it in my mouth to say, three, and all of a sudden the plane turned away. In the room, it was almost a sense of relief. This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital, and to protect our president, and we sat back in our chairs and breathed for just a second," says O'Brien. But the plane continued to turn right until it had made a 360-degree maneuver. "We lost radar contact with that aircraft. And we waited. And we waited. And your heart is just beating out of your chest waiting to hear what's happened," says O'Brien. "And then the Washington National [Airport] controllers came over our speakers in our room and said, 'Dulles, hold all of our inbound traffic. The Pentagon's been hit.'"
www.abcnews.go.com...

So only if others could start putting the facts together, maybe the american people can get their day to show all the lies regarding the 911 subject.

It seems that the government have not be playing truthful to the public for which it serves for a very long time. Also a good point to make is that what this all shows is that when we wake up and look at things not as we have been told by the so called authority, but rather we use our brains and look at life with open eyes, we will then see lots of truths that will just jump out right in front of us and have been there all along.

Kudos on discovery of thruth!

Originally posted by Jonar
So only if others could start putting the facts together, maybe the american people can get their day to show all the lies regarding the 911 subject.

The problem is getting the facts. Even FOIA requests are getting denied whan trying to get facts from the agencies involved.

Originally posted by IvanZana
Chinese pilot can invade undetected if he just turns off his transponder? Darn! Why didn't we think of that?!

transponders are only in north amrican aircraft

AWACS Should Have Tracked Planes

that's all fine and dandy, if only someone notifiyed NORAD to get an AWACS UP THERE

The military should have had the pilot track all planes moving in and around the White House-Pentagon corridor. That would have been standard military protocol: to protect the command and control structure of the U.S. government and military.

that would've been great too if he wasn't commanded to turn off all equipment before the aircraft got into his radius

Andrews Air Force Base is only 10 miles from the Pentagon, and has doppler radar even for public weather monitoring www.tenc.net...(if the base has doppler for something as mundane as weather monitoring, doesn't it make sense that the air force base closest to the Pentagon and White House would have sophisticated radar to protect the White House and Pentagon? Or do they just monitor the weather?)

actually doppler radar is ONLY used for monitoring the weather

Wow. You couldn't be MORE wrong on a couple of those. ALL aircraft use transponders, no matter where they are built or where they fly.

Pulse Doppler radar has been used in fighter aircraft for YEARS, as well as on the AWACS. It's one of the best radars to use and gives outstanding detection capabilities.

Who actually said that the flights that day were off radar? The commission report?NORAD?FAA? NORAD and FAA are fighting over what actually happened that day..which one i lying? I cant believe it was confusion because they can sift through all the messages that were sent chronologically (they were recorded no?) or do we believe the commission which for me now has to be totally discredited on all counts...look who was running the show,ommitting what was damaging(wtc7, insider trading brushed aside,countless testimonies,etc) If you believe all this was down to incompetence or ´glitches´in the system youre determined to be blind to the truth.

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by talisman

 

you do admit that the plane was off radar for a period of time (whichever you choose)?

Yes. According to the commission, it was not displayed on the Indianapolis control center screens for eight minutes and 13 seconds. When it reappeared on Indy's radar the controller didn't notice it because he was looking for flight 77 east of where it was last seen.

I did a detailed radar analysis and confirmed that ZID (Indianapolis) did indeed have a "hole" in its coverage as described by the Commission. I won't repeat it here, but readers may link to it here. Although not on the ATC screens, the flight path was indeed covered by radar (the FAA QBE site near Bedford, VA).

Once "lost" by ZID controllers, it was not visually acquired again until it reached the Dulles (IAD) ASR-9 radar coverage. Estimates for first contact range from 9:25 - 9:33, but by the time it was actionable, it was in Reagan's coverage area just before beginning its 330 degree loop.

So to be technically correct, AAL77 was at ALL times being tracked by radar. For technical reasons, the returns associated with it were not available to the ZID controllers and they lost contact. By the time it was re-acquired by controllers, it was in IAD's coverage area, closing fast on the Pentagon.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by apex
No, didn't know that, mainly since I don't pretend to be an expert on radar in the USA.

Well then i suggest you do research before psoting about something you know nothing about.
[edit on 29-3-2008 by DontTreadOnMe]

And you are an expert on FAA and NORAD radar Ultima1?

Simple answer to your question transponders are used to help the FAA system track aircraft if there system looses a transponder near a major city the system assumes it landed And it comes off the screen. Looks invisible to air traffic control. The Norad installations could have tracked it but they would have had to know there was a problem and still would have lost it when it entered New York airspace. And went below 1000 ft.