10:28AM EST Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport

reply to post by Griff


We better hope Russia or China are not reading this eh?

Or maybe more terrorists?

If they new it was that easy to fool the great satans defenses?

reply to post by ANOK


I'm just having a hard time buying it. Obviously the ATC was in contact with at least some part of the military. Or how could they be speaking with the pilot of the C-130, asking him to ID the plane (flight 77)?

reply to post by ipsedixit

I wonder if Doppler images from Reagan Airport are archived. I'm assuming that such archives, if they exist, would be in the form of digital information on a harddrive somewhere.

Yes, the radar data is available to the public. This is a post from 911files.info that has the archived radar returns overlaid on a Google Earth map. John Farmer, the owner of the site, has all the information available to download.

What you say is true. But it is a little odd don't you think that there is no tape out there of ATCs at Reagan Airport trying to get in radio contact with an incoming airliner, at low altitude and way off the normal approach flightpath. I'd never thought of it before, but that really makes me wonder.

Some of the air traffic control recordings are available. Go to aal77.com and you will find all of the ATC recordings that have been released, so far. The most relevant recording is "1 DCA 108 TYSON", it is the sector that handled the C-130.

I have to disagree with you about the Reagan controller trying to contact the unknown, incoming aircraft. Chris Stephenson, Reagan Tower controller, said, "I knew what had just happened in New York. I had a pretty good idea what was up." If he knew what was up, I don't believe he would have wasted time trying to contact Flight 77, he would've been more concerned with the aircraft that he had control of.

reply to post by Griff


Civilian ATC doesn't pick up all modes off a transponder. If the military planes were flying MARSA then the civilians won't control them. On 9/11 all military fighter flights would have been under MARSA which puts them under military control. The military would coordinate with the civilians to clear blocks of airspace, or corridors, but that's all that would happen. If a fighter forgot to turn the transponder onto the civilian mode as well as the military mode, which could have happened with all the adrenalin going on that day, then the civilians would have only seen a skin paint.

But the point that I was making was that all they saw in DC was a skin paint, so they didn't KNOW it was an airliner coming their way. It could have easily been someone with their IFF out. And the whole thing happened in a matter of just a couple of minutes from the time they saw it. The controllers DID say later they thought at first it WAS military, because it was making maneuvers that weren't considered safe for civilian planes.

[edit on 10/3/2008 by Zaphod58]

reply to post by Griff


Military flights ARE under civilian control under normal flight conditions, until they reach the base they're landing at. So the ATC does talk to them. But in a national emergency the fighters go MARSA, and they talk to military controllers, and not ATC because ATC wouldn't know where they needed to be, or what information they needed quickly enough.

reply to post by Boone 870

Thanks for your responses. I'll check out the links you suggested. I've just been asking questions that might occur to a layman.

I don't have any expertise whatsoever in this area, but I would think that archived radar data, if it has not been tampered with in some way might be able to settle the question of whether there was an overflight of the Pentagon at a low altitude that day. I doubt if radar could tell us if the plane was north or south of the Citgo station.

On some sites, Doppler radar images used for tracking weather patterns are available at hourly intervals. I'm not sure if continuous data is archived for every second of the day and night. Another point would be whether it would be possible to tell exactly what kind of plane was leaving the radar trace.

I know for some people these questions have obvious answers. I hope more technically minded people also check out your links.

I have to disagree with you about the Reagan controller trying to contact the unknown, incoming aircraft. Chris Stephenson, Reagan Tower controller, said, "I knew what had just happened in New York. I had a pretty good idea what was up." If he knew what was up, I don't believe he would have wasted time trying to contact Flight 77, he would've been more concerned with the aircraft that he had control of.

Obviously these things are judgement calls in an emergency. Virtually everyone has been in a real emergency at one time or another and knows how quickly time can go by when your not having fun. I'll just have to listen carefully to whatever tape is out there.

Of course, I come from a position that there was treason going on that day.



[edit on 3-10-2008 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by Zaphod58

Military flights ARE under civilian control under normal flight conditions, until they reach the base they're landing at. So the ATC does talk to them. But in a national emergency the fighters go MARSA, and they talk to military controllers, and not ATC because ATC wouldn't know where they needed to be, or what information they needed quickly enough.

I think you pretty much nailed it Zaph, with the exception of MARSA. NEADS declared AFIO (Authorization for Interceptor Operations) for the fighters headed to Washington, DC. MARSA and AFIO appear to be very similar, though.

Flight 77 was first noticed by Danielle O'Brien at approximately 9:32 a.m., but NEADS was unaware of the unknown aircraft (Flight 77) until 9:36 a.m. when Boston Center called:

09:36:23
NASYPANY: O.K., Foxy [Major Fox, the Weapons Team head]. I got a aircraft six miles east of the White House! Get your fighters there as soon as possible!
MALE VOICE: That came from Boston?
HUCKABONE: We're gonna turn and burn it—crank it up—
MALE TECH: Six miles!
HUCKABONE: All right, here we go. This is what we're gonna do—
NASYPANY: We've got an aircraft deviating eight [sic] miles east of the White House right now.
FOX: Do you want us to declare A.F.I.O. [emergency military control of the fighters] and run 'em straight in there?
NASYPANY: Take 'em and run 'em to the White House.
FOX: Go directly to Washington.
CITINO: We're going direct D.C. with my guys [Langley fighters]? Okay. Okay.
HUCKABONE: Ma'am, we are going A.F.I.O. right now with Quit 2-5 [the Langley fighters]. They are going direct Washington.Vanity Fair

As the article explains, O'Brien was watching the events in New York unfold live on television. Her assumption that Flight 77 was actually a fighter headed to the Capitol seems reasonable enough.

MARSA and AFIO are almost identical. MARSA would be used for interception and surveillance, and AFIO would be used if they thought that a weapons free situation MIGHT ensue. From what I know of it, AFIO basically clears a chunk of airspace that might have weapons launched in a real world situation.

I've been looking at some of the links posted by Boone 870 and I realized that I've inadvertently wandered into a heavily pockmarked battleground that has already been fought over in great detail by the pro and anti CIT forces.

I believe there have already been allegations that the radar data in question has been tampered with. I can't judge that but I think I've come to the end of whatever useful comments I could make about radar.

I tried to listen to tape of ATC radio transmissions at Reagan airport, but there is so much static on the tape it is very difficult to hear the transmissions. I will persist.

The link to the Reagan airport ATC's recollections of 9/11 are interesting and tend to support assertions by John Lear and other pilots that no newbie was at the controls of Flt. 77 that day.

www.usatoday.com...

About 9:30, the phone that connects his tower to the Secret Service rang. A voice on the other end said an unidentified aircraft was speeding toward Washington. Stephenson looked at the radarscope and saw that the jet was about five miles to the west.

I think this portion of the account speaks for itself. It's very difficult to accept this as a plausible sequence of events. The Secret Service calls to inform the ATC of an aircraft speeding toward him, which is only five miles away. At 500 miles an hour, they are giving the ATC 36 seconds advance notice of an incoming rogue. Why bother? It looks like fake due diligence to me, particularly since it is known that they had been tracking this aircraft for a much longer period.

The airplane was completely out of place. "I knew what had just happened in New York. I had a pretty good idea what was up," he said.

He looked out the tower window and saw the jet turning to the right and descending. The jet did a full circle and whoever was flying knew what he was doing. The wings never rocked or oscillated, Stephenson said.

It's worth noting that he doesn't claim to have actually seen the impact. The whole point of CIT's investigations being that something of an illusion was pulled off that day.

The jet disappeared behind a building in nearby Crystal City, Va., and exploded into the Pentagon. A fireball blew several hundred feet into the air. For several minutes, a huge cloud of debris — paper, insulation and pulverized building materials — hung in the air.

Stephenson and the others stood in stunned silence for several seconds. But then the phones started ringing again and they got back to shutting the airport down.

I still have lingering questions about the radar issue, but I don't have the technical education to pursue them intelligently or to understand responses I might hear.

When transponders are deactivated, the plane cannot be identified automatically. It remains visible on the primary radar returns and can be tracked that way if you already know which of the returns it is. I believe on 911 after turning off the transponders, the planes were almost immediately turned around and as such were hard to locate. I know very little about this though, just thought I would chip in with what little I know.

would seem perfectly logical to me that thats one of the main reasons they grounded all planes ASAP, so they could easily get a blip. Theres hundreds (thousands?) of blips on a normal morning (radar) map of north america. Some one posted a flash or youtube link to what it looks like, the radar screen is literally littered with blips.

Anyway all planes being grounded ASAP would make rouge flights easier to identify w/o the transponder signal.

That might not be a case of conspiracy, just epic failsauce as they say on the 'net.

reply to post by Reheat

source?

forgive me for not taking your word for it.

Here's the FACET animation for a normal day, and for 9/11.


Normal:
www.edwardtufte.com...

9/11:
www.edwardtufte.com...

Just to clarify a couple of misnomers and misunderstandings discussed above.

1 - Civilian Radars can not detect/display the Military Only Mode 4 (IFF) of Military Only Transponders. Civilian Aircraft do not have or use Mode 4. There is no way that any of the Fighter or other Military Aircraft would have turned off Mode 3 (ATC Mode of Transponders). Mode 4 is separate and used only by the military. It is the Identification Friend or Foe (Mode 4) of Military Only Transponders. It is a separate switch. Mode 4 is used in a COMBAT TYPE HOSTILE environment ONLY.

2 - MARSA - (Military Assumes Responsibility for Separation of Aircraft) is only used for the separation of military aircraft from other military aircraft. Although not called formally by the term MARSA, any time more than one aircraft are in formation those two or more aircraft are under MARSA. It is only used to separate military aircraft from other military aircraft, not separation of military from civilian - NEVER. It's most common FORMAL use is in two areas. Military Operating Areas (MOA's) which are designated restricted airspace for Military Only Training. Civilian Aircraft are restricted from entering these areas. In some areas ATC still controls separation of the military aircraft unless the aircraft request MARSA. MOA's have letters of agreement with the FAA and not all of them are exactly the same in terms of who is responsible for separation. Another area - is when the military is moving large numbers of aircraft trans oceanic and an Altitude Reservation (ALTRAV) is received from ATC. The military has that block of airspace as a unit and is responsible for the separation of all military aircraft within it. MARSA is NEVER used to separate Military Aircraft from Civilian.

ETA: Another area where MARSA is used is during air-to-air refueling. Although it is not formally declared, MARSA, is the operating principle during those operations.

3 - AFIO is quite different from MARSA. AFIO is for Emergency Air Defense Missions ONLY. It is a NORAD term and was used on 9/11. When NORAD declares AFIO, ATC then moves all civilian aircraft out of the way as best they can and the military fighters have priority. So, AFIO is the ONLY situation in which military and civilian aircraft are in a mixed situation and it is used sparingly only during an Air Defense Emergency, period.

I hope this clears up the confusion....

[edit on 4-10-2008 by Reheat]

[edit on 4-10-2008 by Reheat]

reply to post by Reheat

It does. Thanks Reheat.



reply to post by ipsedixit

I think this portion of the account speaks for itself. It's very difficult to accept this as a plausible sequence of events.

There is a more detailed account in the book: Touching History. The phone call that Stephenson received was not from the Secret Service, it came from the TRACON facility below the tower. Dulles called Reagan departure then the departure controllers called Stephenson after Flight 77 turned back to the northeast.

It's worth noting that he doesn't claim to have actually seen the impact. The whole point of CIT's investigations being that something of an illusion was pulled off that day.

I'll post more about this later.

I still have lingering questions about the radar issue, but I don't have the technical education to pursue them intelligently or to understand responses I might hear.

Reagan National Airport has an Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR-9) at the field and it is weather capable.

A couple of additional points to add....

There is mass confusion here on who controls military aircraft within the National Airspace Structure in North America.

When military aircraft are within the National Airspace Structure in NA, the FAA controls them and provides all of the normal services provided to ALL aircraft within that structure. Within normal airspace there is no difference between Civilian and Military Aircraft. All are under the same FAA control.

With the exception of NORAD and AWACS, the military has no high level radars. There are Military Operating Areas (MOA's), Ranges (within those MOA's, Low Level Routes, and Air Refueling Tracks. The FAA controls aircraft within some MOA's and in some the military aircraft are operating under MARSA. For an Air Refueling Track, all aircraft are controlled to and from by the FAA. During actual air refueling the Tanker is still in contact with the FAA and the fighter or bombers are in contact with the Tanker, but under MARSA with each other and the Tanker. Once the fighters or bombers leave the Refueling Track, they are under FAA control again.

Most Air Force Bases have a TRACON which is operated by the military (some are joint and the FAA provides TRACON services to some), but that TRACON (FAA/Military/or joint) controls all low level traffic to and from the Air Force Base, both military and civilian. In a few cases the military provides terminal services to all airports within their coverage. All military controllers have FAA certification as well as military. So, it is a mixed system in some terminal areas, but all of the high level structure is controlled by the FAA with the exceptions I mentioned above.

So, in North America there is no separate military versus civilian control. It is all joined together in a cooperative environment for all aircraft to operate safely. Many military aircraft operate with UHF only radios, whereas nearly all civilian aircraft operate on VHF. So, in many cases the aircraft will not hear one another, but will hear the controller talking to both. In some areas both UHF and VHF transmission are heard on both bands.

NORAD is a special case. Normally, all aircraft scramble and are under FAA control until such time as NORAD declares AFIO. Usually, that is only for the final portion of the Intercept and by that time the FAA has cleared all conflicting traffic. Since most Intercepts are over water off of the coastal areas, that is not normally a problem.

The United Kingdom has a separate military/civilian system. Military aircraft and civilian aircraft talk to different controllers, frequently collocated within the same facility, sometimes in a separate facility. Most of the European Continent has a system similar to North America.

Asia is a mixed bag with differences in each Country. It's too complicated to talk about here and it's not pertinent to the topic anyway.

reply to post by Boone 870


Boone, it might be worthwhile to mention that all of the radar records from all facilities in the Washington, DC area for 9/11 are available on Farmer's site.

That includes the radars at Dulles, Baltimore, Andrews AFB, and Reagan National. I believe he has then all posted for download now....

reply to post by Boone 870

Thanks for the responses. I'll look into the info, as best I'm able.

reply to post by ipsedixit

It's worth noting that he doesn't claim to have actually seen the impact. The whole point of CIT's investigations being that something of an illusion was pulled off that day.

The impact point at the Pentagon is not visible from Reagan Tower, but the east side of the building is.



If there was a flyover Chris Stephenson would have witnessed it.



[edit on 5-10-2008 by Boone 870]

[edit on 5-10-2008 by Boone 870]

reply to post by Boone 870


Do you know if anyone has actually put the question to him?

I've heard of news reporters talking to witnesses in court cases where the witness failed to deliver crucial testamony on the stand, being told by the witness. "Nobody asked me that question."

Judging by the photo posted he definitely should have seen it, unless of course his eyes were craning upward to see how high the debris would blow.

It would be interesting to hear his specific response to that question.



[edit on 6-10-2008 by ipsedixit]