9/11 Radar Tracking

If the war had gone longer then yes, they WOULD have needed them for the war. But the war ended just before the program was up and running. And they DID still need tankers, so they went forward with it.

You're at it again ultima. Trying to prove a different point from the one you started with.

Yet again, we all know the VUlcans were converted because of the war. In case you have forgotten, your original point was that they were used during the war.

They weren't.

This is now so far off topic that you look like someone who is desperately trying to be right about *something*. And failing

Back onto the topic of RADAR coverage on 9/11.......

Primary RADAR can ONLY provide positional information. RADAR = RAdio Detection And Ranging.

It bounces a signal, and from that can determine its range from the RADAR head. This is then fed into a computer system which knows where the RADAR is, which way the head was pointing when it radiated, knows how long it took the "blip" to return, and from that, can draw the picture of the airspace. The picture is drawn every 6 seconds (due to the rotational speed of head).

The system can NOT determine altitude information from this on its own.

The secondary RADAR is actually a secondary surveillance RADAR system and does NOT rely on reflections like primary RADAR. It interrogates transponders of aircraft as if it was a RADAR. The transponder returns heading, speed and altitude information. Together with Primary RADAR, this provides the complete ATC picture.

External Source

How is a transponder turned off? Is there a switch? If so why? Is it a crawl under and clip wires thing? Is it that easy? Should the hijackers have known how?

There is a STBY switch on the unit. Setting it to standby switches it off. The "why" is because when aircraft are on the ground, they don't need to transmit their heading/speed/altitude to ATC.

Regarding "all the green blips": I'm amazed at just how backwards these systems can be. Whilst there is an ability to filter air traffic out based off information returned from the transponder (e.g. altitude filters etc), the older RADAR systems don't have much capability to filter traffic. If it meets certain criteria, then it appears.

Because the hijackers switched off the transponders, they would lose the "data tag" (the name given the the bits of info seen by ATC on their displays). They would become a green trail.

Whilst there would be lots of aircraft, most would have a data tag associated with them, so spotting an aircraft without a data tag would be actually be easier than is claimed.

I can't believe that for all the technology, that they would not be able to tell their RADAR systems to drop all aircraft that DO have data tags (e.g. drop all aircraft between 0ft and 40,000ft), because those few aircraft without any altitude information would still display as the system does not know their altitude, and thus will continue to draw them. The lack of a transponder code should actually have helped.

As for dropping off of primary RADAR: unless they left RADAR coverage (I'd put the chance of this at close to 0% considering they were tracking everyone else without issues), the only way they could have lost RADAR contact is if they descended below RADAR, or entered a shadowed area from RADAR. Outside of this, they couldn't have been the only aircraft to disappear in their respective areas without other aircraft disappearing with them (and this would have been noticed).

From the FDR of Flight 77 (the Pentagon aircraft), it did not really descend until they got close to the Pentagon itself.

[edit on 31-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 31-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

As for disappearing it's a lot easier than you make it out to be. The US primary radar coverage has large holes in it. In fact right near where I THINK it was flight 77 was hijacked there's a big hole. Indianapolis has a primary, but the next primary antenna isn't until somewhere on the East Coast. Not all radars are primary antennas.

Thanks for clarifying that point.

Before 8:46 – Sliney later described “an unidentified aircraft,” that is, with no transponder, “at 16,000 feet approaching New York City from the northwest at a pretty moderate ground speed of 300 knots. No one was working and we did not know who the aircraft was.” [6] Without transponders, we're told, it was hard to tell one of the thousands of blips from the next (which, if true, made the system completely useless)

CL: This is a quote from your front page. With no transponder, how did they know this?!

If you have a return, you can estimate speed based on the range the screen is set for. If your screen is set for 200 miles and it crosses the entire screen in an a certain amount of time, you can make a reasonable estimate of the speed of the plane.

Good point (it's getting very late here, heh). What about the altitude?

[edit on 31-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

That I don't know about. Unless they had another plane that reported or there's some other way they estimated his height. It could be that they looked at his decent rate and turn rate and estimated it later, and just said at the time of the interview he was at 16,000 based on that.

Decent rate based on where he was first noticed on radar, and impact with the Pentagon, not from radar data. You can get a turn rate from the radar, but the decent rate would be an estimate based on other data.
[edit on 3/31/2007 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 3/31/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by waynos
Yet again, we all know the VUlcans were converted because of the war. In case you have forgotten, your original point was that they were used during the war.

Well i have not been proven wrong. As stated the Vulcans were converted to tankers because they were needed for the war.

I proved you wrong that they were used IN the war in the first post I made on it. They may have been converted for use in the war, but the war ended before their first use. They were not used IN the war.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
They may have been converted for use in the war, but the war ended before their first use. They were not used IN the war.

Thanks for proving i was right that they were converted for use in the war as i stated.



[edit on 31-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

No, you said they were *USED IN* the Falklands. It's amazing how your position changes over and over again to meet what we prove. I've been saying all along that they were converted BECAUSE OF the Falklands, but weren't used IN the Falklands.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
No, you said they were *USED IN* the Falklands. It's amazing how your position changes over and over again to meet what we prove. I've been saying all along that they were converted BECAUSE OF the Falklands, but weren't used IN the Falklands.

Oh and you know for sure that they were never used even once during the war? I guess they just made them not to use even if they needed them.

They were used as BOMBERS in the Falklands War. What part of "the only squadron to use them began flying them on June 21, 1982" are you not understanding? If you're going to claim that they used them, where's *YOUR* proof they DID? You haven't shown a SHRED of proof that they were used as anything but bombers.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
They were used as BOMBERS in the Falklands War. What part of "the only squadron to use them began flying them on June 21, 1982" are you not understanding? If you're going to claim that they used them, where's *YOUR* proof they DID? You haven't shown a SHRED of proof that they were used as anything but bombers.

Becasue the proof is that they needed them for tankers and would not have converted them without using them. COMMON SENSE.

Plus the fact i was stationed in England during the Falklands and heard of the Vulcans being brought back for use bombers and tankers.

I will have to see if i can dig up a photo i have of a Vulcan that stopped at the base i was on and see if it was conversion.


[edit on 31-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

I'm aware that they needed them. That was why they were converted. But if they used them in the war, then why did the first squadron start using them AFTER the war. If they used them DURING the war they would have said they used them during the war. Many planes have been developed because of a war, or converted to other use because of a war. There is not ONE document that I have found to date that said they used anything but Victors as tankers in the Falklands, and the Vulcan K.2 was only an interim until the VC-10 fleet came online.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
then why did the first squadron start using them AFTER the war.

If you know anything about aircraft you would know that thier would have been conversions made and flown before the squadron officially formed.

At RAF Alconbury we were the first base to get the TR-1. We had TR-1s arriving for several weeks. Then months later the wing and squadron was officially formed.


[edit on 31-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

I know perfectly well that they could have. But there still would be records of when the first flight was. And there is NOTHING showing that ANY Vulcan K.2 flew in the Falklands. There were, I think, 5 B.2 missions flown, but they all used Victor tankers to refuel.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I know perfectly well that they could have. But there still would be records of when the first flight was. And there is NOTHING showing that ANY Vulcan K.2 flew in the Falklands. There were, I think, 5 B.2 missions flown, but they all used Victor tankers to refuel.

I guess all those TR-1s i saw landing never were thier untill after the squadron was formed.

[edit on 31-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Will you please READ what I'm saying. I'm not saying that they don't fly them until the squadron is stood up. I'm saying that even if they fly them BEFORE the squadron is stood up, there would be records of it. There are no records of a Vulcan K.2 flying until the squadron started flying them a week after the Falklands ended.