Air Traffic Controllers and Holograms

Anyone happen to know if the air traffic controllers working the skies on September 11th have records of the "planes" and their flight paths as they headed towards the towers? If there is such a record, would this be possible if the planes were holograms?

Originally posted by OpenMind88

Anyone happen to know if the air traffic controllers working the skies on September 11th have records of the "planes" and their flight paths as they headed towards the towers? If there is such a record, would this be possible if the planes were holograms?

I believe that they were working 'primary' targets. Primary targets are the actual radar reflection of the airplane skin as opposed to the 'secondary' target which is the transponder transmitted target which appears on the radar scope with the flight number, aircraft type, heading and altitude. If the transponder is turned off (acutally set to 'standby' I don't think there is any 'off' position) Air Traffic Control has to use the 'primary' target to track the airplane.

If a holographic image was used it would probably be used only within 3 or 4 miles of the target, not from the point of the alleged hijack.

To simulate a 'primary' target a small jet-propelled vehicle could be remotely controlled to travel the intended flight path and 'broadcast' a primary target.

I have also considered that the techonolgy might be available to 'hack' into ATC radar and simulate a 'primary' target. This in my opinion is probably easier and more practical to do than the use of an actual flying vehicle.

Hacking into the Air Traffic Control radar wouldn't be any more difficult than 'hacking' into the television news feed with CGI of other false images of an airplane flying into the building.

I am waiting for confirmation on the exact time that the witnesses saw the airplane pass north of the Citgo Station. The reason that this is important is because I belive that the original controlled demolition at the Pentagon occurred at 9:31 as indicated by the clock at the helipad and April Gallops watch.

The problem with this time is that ATC tracked the alleged Flight #77 primary target which made the right turn over the Pentagon and crashed at 9:43 which is the official original logged time, 12 minutes after the original explosion. This time has 'officially' been backed off to 9:37 but is still 6 minutes after the original explosion. But the original ATC logged time was 9:43.

Any comments would be greatly appreciated as I am in the middle of writing "911:Command and Control" my opinion of how they pulled it all off using 1 and possibly as many as 3 E-4's (Boeing 747) with advanced technolgy to simulate aircraft and hack into news feeds and to activate the controlled demolition and Directed Energy Weapons used on the World Trade Center towers.

Thanks for the thread OpenMind88, I am sure it will generate a lot of comment.

Thank you Mr. Lear for your explanation. I better understand how this aspect could have been controlled - made to appear "normal" irrespective of the events as they were unfolding. I long for the day that we know the truth - once and for all - of what happened 9/11!

reply to post by OpenMind88

This time, the hijackers had tried a different tack, or perhaps made a mistake. Rather than turn off the transponder and leave controllers with little information, they turned it off for about 30 seconds, then retuned the transponder to a signal that was not designated to any plane on that day.

A transponder must be tuned to a specific four-digit code, called a "squawk," that is programmed into air traffic computers. This allows the computer to identify the plane and display its information on radar screens.

Whatever the hijackers were trying to accomplish, the bogus squawk allowed controllers to track the intruder easily, though they couldn't identify it.

washingtonpost.com

Flight 175 was tracked on secondary radar all the way to the World Trade Center.

NTSB recorded radar data study can be found at this link (PDF) from wtc7lies.googlepages.com.

reply to post by OpenMind88


Using scalar technology, it would be completely possible to return both the primary and secondary signals. if you have a pseudosolid mass of water floating through the air, for example, it would return a radar signal, would it not?

returning a specific frequency using a Woodpecker Grid type system is not nearly as difficult.

Originally posted by Boone 870

This time, the hijackers had tried a different tack, or perhaps made a mistake. Rather than turn off the transponder and leave controllers with little information, they turned it off for about 30 seconds, then retuned the transponder to a signal that was not designated to any plane on that day.

A transponder must be tuned to a specific four-digit code, called a "squawk," that is programmed into air traffic computers. This allows the computer to identify the plane and display its information on radar screens.

Thanks for the post Boone. That must have been one crazy hijacker. Here he is is in control of a Boeing 767 for the first time, ready to kill himself and all the other passengers and crash into the World Trade Center and here he is fiddling with the transponder. WOW! It makes you wonder how he knew what code to put in that wasn't assigned to any other airplane?

No matter, as long is the transponder is on they will receive the beacon. But how did he know what code to put in that wasn't assigned to any other airplane? And to what purpose? And if he turned it off why would he have turned it back on? Wasn't he planning on crashing? The story doesn't make much sense from a pilot's standpoint of view.

But thanks for the post and information.

reply to post by johnlear


Who is behind all of this ?? Was it Bush is this his orders for alternative 1 ??
as alt 2 and 3 have been already accomplished.

Originally posted by johnlear
It makes you wonder how he knew what code to put in that wasn't assigned to any other airplane?

Ummm......Just enter a random four digit code and chances are that it will not be assigned to a aircraft in your vicinity.

reply to post by johnlear


Who knows. Maybe the same reason that flight 11 and flight 93 hijackers mistakenly transmitted to air traffic control instead of the cabin. They weren't professionals.

You may have to help me out on this one. Aren't there 10,000 different frequencies to squawk? Doesn't every center have a block of numbers assigned only to them to prevent confusion while handling aircraft that are within transponder range of other centers and their various sectors? That part of the country has an awful lot of centers and sectors.

If the center that was tracking him had 1000 different possibilities for transponder codes and they were all assigned to aircraft, which is highly unlikely, that would leave 10 to one odds. Those are pretty good odds not to set the transponder to an already assigned squawk code.

I read in several places that as part of the ' games ' being played that day by NORAD, etc. there were falsew ' b;ips ' placed on the ATC radar screens, there was comments about how some air traffic controllers actually had to ask " Is this real or exercise ? " because they had been looking at added blips already.

What perfect timing!! On a day when the games are being held that place false blips on the radar screens at the will of those in charge those A-rabs sure got lucky,eh? Yeah, sure..Dick Cheney in that bunker ' fully in charge ' according to Mineta's testimony, and giving orders NOT to stop the incoming craft with defensive weapons. Cheney was the inside man for the executive, all agencies had one or more players, dedicated Neocons or far right wing religious nuts, and of course those beholden to the corporate cabals.As ususal.

But for sure there was the fact of false blips placed on 9-11 as a part of the games, and that was more cover for the perps, and more control over the finished product, a winning situation for them.

Hi John. Sorry I seem to have misrepresented your opinion of the CIT witness flight path. I think I got mixed up and was thinking of your dismissal of Dark Blue Sky's north-then-south path, which seems not only aeronautically impossible but near geometrically impossible to go from Lagasse's position to the first light pole.

Anyway, I have a question about this statement:

I am waiting for confirmation on the exact time that the witnesses saw the airplane pass north of the Citgo Station. The reason that this is important is because I belive that the original controlled demolition at the Pentagon occurred at 9:31 as indicated by the clock at the helipad and April Gallops watch.

The problem with this time is that ATC tracked the alleged Flight #77 primary target which made the right turn over the Pentagon and crashed at 9:43 which is the official original logged time, 12 minutes after the original explosion. This time has 'officially' been backed off to 9:37 but is still 6 minutes after the original explosion. But the original ATC logged time was 9:43.

You might want to see this post of mine:
Elastic timeline - 9:43 evidence

If you have a source for ATC logging the impact at 9:43 I'd like to see it to update my article. So far all I can see happening at that time is a big secondary explosion several minutes after impact, that got tagged as crash time by mass error. If you have a solid source for that, or any at all, it would be much appreciayed if you shared it here. Thanks.

reply to post by johnlear


Hi John, I have a few pictures that I posted in the 9/11 thread but the thread had little traffic.
I found four or five pictures taken from a base across the water from the Pentagon and it shows a Park helicopter and the C-130 as well as a black helicopter.
It's clear in the photos that the explosion has happened and there is a lot of black smoke.
The pictures under "properties" shows the camera used and times of 8:33,8:34 and 8:38.The helicopter picture doesn't have any information.It was taken from a base and the name eludes me at this time.
If you're interested in them send me a U2U and I can email them to you.I can post them here if the information will show up on the site.


Edited to add. Perhaps the one hour discrepancy in the camera time is due to the owner not resetting daylight savings time or standard time.It's just a guess.
I found it on a 9/11 memorial site and I can't see the owner deliberately playing with the time given the unexpected nature of the event.

[edit on 19-11-2007 by citizen truth]

[edit on 19-11-2007 by citizen truth]

[edit on 19-11-2007 by citizen truth]