It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How did the government not know the planes changed course?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
TL

posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   
With so many radars and satellites, and even the airport, how could people have not been warned? Wouldn't the airport have said that their planes were dramatically changing course? But supposedly "no one" knew until they saw the planes hit the towers. They could have monitored the new courses the planes were taking and evacuated "targets of terrorist interest".




posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by TL
With so many radars and satellites, and even the airport, how could people have not been warned? Wouldn't the airport have said that their planes were dramatically changing course? But supposedly "no one" knew until they saw the planes hit the towers. They could have monitored the new courses the planes were taking and evacuated "targets of terrorist interest".


The ATC saw Flights 11 and Flight 175 on radar all the way into the towers. They tracked Flight 93 all the way until it crashed. They somehow lost Flight 77 from radar near Kentucky, and didn't spot it again until it was 50 miles outside of Washington D.C.

Curiously, even though they never lost Flight 11 from radar until it hit WTC1, the FAA told NEADS that Flight 11 did NOT hit WTC1 and was heading south towards Washington. This caused NEADS to scramble jet AWAY from the hijacked airliners.

Here's a thread that talks in more detail about this subject:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

UPDATE:

The FAA did NOT track Flight 93 until it crashed. They lost track of Flight 93 from radar at 9:49 am, 14 minutes before the crash, because the FAA ordered the air traffic controllers out of the ATC towers in Pittsburgh and Cleveland.



[edit on 17-2-2007 by nick7261]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by TL
With so many radars and satellites, and even the airport, how could people have not been warned?

Please explain why it should've been.
Planes are not continuously monitored every inch of their journey, and certainly not be a single source. When they are monitored, its through a transponder, not a radar, and the information is being passed off from one center to the next.


Wouldn't the airport have said that their planes were dramatically changing course?

The airports that they left from weren't concerned, nor should they be, with where the planes are after they leave their airspace. THe airports work the planes taking off and landing.


They could have monitored the new courses the planes were taking and evacuated "targets of terrorist interest".

You couldn't tell what the target was simply by drawing a line straight off the plane, there'd be thousands of buildings along that line. You'd've had to evacuate the entire eastern seaboard. And no one ever suspected that those planes were going to purposely crash into buildings. When the first one hit, everyone thought it was an accident, let alone a hijacking.



nick7261
Curiously, even though they never lost Flight 11 from radar until it hit WTC1, the FAA told NEADS that Flight 11 did NOT hit WTC1 and was heading south towards Washington

Thats because the planes aren't tracked by a single radar source. They send transponder to different centres, and those centres have to communicate with one another to put their information together. You siad it yourself, they got a REPORT that the plane was still in flight, they weren't radar tracking it every inch of the way.






[edited to correct quote coding -nygdan]

[edit on 17-2-2007 by Nygdan]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Planes are not continuously monitored every inch of their journey, and certainly not be a single source. When they are monitored, its through a transponder, not a radar, and the information is being passed off from one center to the next.


I'm suprised that your post is filled with misinformation. Planes are monitored through radar. The transponders add additional information to the radar image, including flight numbers and altitude. Turning off a transponder does not make a plane disappear from radar.


Wouldn't the airport have said that their planes were dramatically changing course?

The airports that they left from weren't concerned, nor should they be, with where the planes are after they leave their airspace. THe airports work the planes taking off and landing.


Wrong again. Somebody from the Cleveland control tower DID tell the Johnstown controllers that Flight 93 was dramatically changing course. First they told Johnstown that Flight 93 was heading north, coming in from the south, at 20 miles outside of Johnstown (which was incorrect) and then dramatically changed course to head back south again when Flight 93 was 15 miles south of Johnstown.

It is completely false to imply that the controllers weren't concerend about the hijacked planes. Why post something that's so blatanly false?



You couldn't tell what the target was simply by drawing a line straight off the plane, there'd be thousands of buildings along that line. You'd've had to evacuate the entire eastern seaboard. And no one ever suspected that those planes were going to purposely crash into buildings. When the first one hit, everyone thought it was an accident, let alone a hijacking.


Again, why put out such misinformation? It is completely false that "everybody" thought that Flight 11 was an accident. The FAA knew that Flight 11 was a hijacking almost immediately after it was hijacked. They also knew that there would possibly be more hijackings. Remember the whole, "We've got some planes" thing the hijackers said?

In fact, the FAA knew that all 4 planes were hijackings well in advance of their crashes. The controllers watched both on radar, and visually, as Flight 175 crashed into WTC2.

Further, the FAA did suspect that Flight 93 might crash into "some buildings." The FAA even ordered the Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Johnsotwn ATC towers evacuated. The FAA also knew that both WTC1 and WTC2 were already hit at 8:46 and 9:02, and that the Pentagon was hit at 9:37.

So 26 minutes after the THIRD hijacked plane crashed into the Pentagon, and 29 minutes after the FAA was informed that it was hijacked, Flight 93 was still flying over Pennsylvania unimpeded without a jet fighter anywhere near it.



Thats because the planes aren't tracked by a single radar source. They send transponder to different centres, and those centres have to communicate with one another to put their information together. You siad it yourself, they got a REPORT that the plane was still in flight, they weren't radar tracking it every inch of the way.


This defies any logic whatsoever.

How could the FAA get a "report" or anything else from Flight 11 when the transponder was turned off, AND the plane had already hit WTC1? Where would the "report" come from?

You don't really believe that there's somebody writing up reports from transponder signals and sending them back and forth to ATC centers, do you?

The centers in question all had radar. Lack of a transponder signal does NOT make a plane mysteriously disappear from radar. If that were the case, why bother with spending billions on stealth bombers.

Flight 93 was tracked on radar until the FAA told the controllers to evacuate the control towers. Hence, when the FAA needed to inform NEADS of Flight 93's location, FAA Command Center stated that the controllers lost track of Flight 93's location.

Of course the controllers "lost track" of Flight 93 -they were ordered out of the control tower by the FAA. Curiously, the USX Tower in Pittsburgh, just a few miles from the airport wasn't evacuated, nor was any warning given to evacuate the nuclear power plant a few miles from the Pittsburgh Airport.

But the places where ATCs could actually track the flight path of Flight 93 WERE evacuated. And you think this makes sense?

More importantly, as a forum moderator, I would expect that you would hold yourself to a higher standard before posting blatant nonsense like, "When the first one hit, everyone thought it was an accident, let alone a hijacking."

Nobody at the FAA or ATC thought this was an accident.

At 8:25 Boston Center knew Flight 11 was a hijacking.

At 8:37 NEADS knew that Flight 11 was a hijacking.

At 8:46 Flight 11 crashed into WTC1

At 8:55 am FAA knew that Flight 175 was a hijacking.

At 9:03 Flight 175 crashed into WTC2

At 9:05 AM it was known that Flight 77 was hijacked.

At 9:34 AM it was known that Flight 93 was hijacked.

At 10:03 AM:

* 1 hour and 38 minutes after the FAA was aware of the first hijacking, and
* 29 minutes after Flight 93 was known to hijacked near Cleveland, and
* 29 minutes after the WTCs and Pentagon were known to have been attacked...

...there was still not a military response to Flight 93 flying over Pennsylvania.

Why?


TL

posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   
They actually told people to go back to the other tower when the first tower was hit saying it was "safer to stay inside". Couldn't they see the other hijacked plane coming?



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261
It is completely false to imply that the controllers weren't concerend about the hijacked planes. Why post something that's so blatanly false?

Its not blatantly false, its not the job of the airport that they leave from to make track them as they cross the country.

First they told Johnstown that Flight 93 was heading north, coming in from the south, at 20 miles outside of Johnstown (which was incorrect) and then dramatically changed course to head back south again when Flight 93 was 15 miles south of Johnstown.

Which, agian, shows that the planes aren't tracked every step of the way, and also shows that the airport they leave from doesn't track them the whole way either.

It is completely false that "everybody" thought that Flight 11 was an accident. The FAA knew that Flight 11 was a hijacking almost immediately after it was hijacked.

Yes, I am corrected. The public in general didn't knwo what what going on, and even NYC controllers werent' aware of what was going on, and Norad didn't know at the time either. Some people at the airline and in the FAA knew.
The air traffic controllers clearly weren't in any position to order evacuations of every building in the plane's flight path, especially given that no one knew that the planes were going to be used as suicide bombs.

and 29 minutes after the FAA was informed that it was hijacked, Flight 93 was still flying over Pennsylvania unimpeded without a jet fighter anywhere near it.

Thats an entirely seperate issue.

How could the FAA get a "report" or anything else from Flight 11 when the transponder was turned off, AND the plane had already hit WTC1? Where would the "report" come from?

You just said that they received reports about the planes.

You don't really believe that there's somebody writing up reports from transponder signals and sending them back and forth to ATC centers, do you?

Writting reports and mailing them? Clearly not. And its pretty clear that tracking these planes isn't as simple as it sounds, NY flight controllers thought that Flight 11 was still in the air AFTER it had hit the WTC. THats on the location, and they don't know what is going on.

Of course the controllers "lost track" of Flight 93 -they were ordered out of the control tower by the FAA.

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that.

The centers in question all had radar. Lack of a transponder signal does NOT make a plane mysteriously disappear from radar.

And the mere fact that some centers have radar doesn't mean that every plane in the air is allways tracked by radar.

hour and 38 minutes after the FAA was aware of the first hijacking[...]there was still not a military response to Flight 93 flying over Pennsylvania. Why?

How could there be? They didn't know that there was going to be a hijacked plane over that part of PA at that time.


www.cooperativeresearch.org.../11
] Boston flight controller Mark Hodgkins later says, “I watched the target of American 11 the whole way down.” [ABC News, 9/6/2002] However, apparently, NEADS has different radar. When they are finally told about the flight, they cannot find it. Boston has to update NEADS on Flight 11’s position periodically by telephone until NEADS finally finds it a few minutes before it crashes into the WTC

If tyhey can't even find one plane that thy know is hijacked and is being tracked by another station, then how can it be expected that they'll identifiy, track, and be able to intercept, any other planes that may be hijacked?
The Norad system wasn't created to track jetliners, it was created to coordinate overall north american air defense, not tell individual jets when to turn left and right.

And:

www.cooperativeresearch.org.../11
at “[a]bout 8:30, 8:35” he receives a phone call from one of the sergeants, informing him of the h[they suit up, get breifed and ready...]About 4-5 min. later, we got the scramble order and took off.”

And they still couldn't catch up with the jetliners.


And as far as knowing what was going on:

www.cooperativeresearch.org.../11
[8:34 am]
Flight controllers hear a hijacker on Flight 11 say to the passengers: “Nobody move, please, we are going back to the airport. Don’t try to make any stupid moves.”


and

www.cooperativeresearch.org.../11
[8:37 am]
Flight 11 passes from Boston flight control airspace into New York flight control airspace. Flight controller John Hartling takes over monitoring the plane. However, when a colleague tells him the flight is hijacked, he is incredulous: “I didn’t believe him.

The reponse was so uncoordinated because there IS no system in place to alert every air traffic controller and jet pilot as to what is going on. When the Airlines decided to get a message out to their other jets, there wasn't an automatic alert sent out, individual controllers had to contact individual pilots and tell them what was going on.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TL
They actually told people to go back to the other tower when the first tower was hit saying it was "safer to stay inside". Couldn't they see the other hijacked plane coming?

Air Traffic Controllers in NYC airports didn't even know what was going on, how would workers in an office building have any idea? Norad didn't even know, and one military command center started ordering fighters to go after Flight 11, not even aware that it had already crashed.

We're talking about minutes in most of these cases. All the planes were hijacked, taken off course, and hit their targets or were crashed, in a little more than an hour, all of them. Each individual event happen on a much shorter time scale, with multiple groups with no centralization giving conflicting reports and confused orders.

Thats because there is no central authority which tracks all planes via radar in the US, and even the high military air authorities were unable to accurately track some of the flights.

Its a lot of sky, hijacked planes don't flash as big mean red triangles with lines pointing to their target, norad doesn't talk to fighter pilots on the ground in new york and direct their actions.

THe US is powerful, but it sure ain't all powerful. There's no real way to prevent an attack like 911, short of having batteries of sam launchers in the middle of every city.
And as we can see, even if that was the case, someone has to tell the people on the scene what to do, that takes time, too much time.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   


The reponse was so uncoordinated because there IS no system in place to alert every air traffic controller and jet pilot as to what is going on.


The FAA has redundant systems in place on how to handle hijackings, including notifying NEADS immediately.

There is no need to notify EVERY ATC, or EVERY jet pilot.

To the extent that the response was uncoordinated, it can all be traced back to two places: FAA Command Center (Ben Sliney) and FAA Headquarters.

But it goes far beyond an "uncoordinated" response. It goes to the point of the FAA failing to provide both NEADS and ATC with accurate locations of two hijacked flights (Flight 11 and Flight 93) and failing altogether to notify NEADS that Flight 77 was a possible hijacking.

Instead of telling NEADS that Flight 77 was a possible hijacking, FAA Boston Center told NEADS that Flight 11 did NOT hit the WTC1 and was heading south out of NY.

Likewise, the FAA told Johnsown ATC that Flight 93 was heading north towards them. If Johnstown ATC would have asked for military help, they would have had Flight 93 coming in from the wrong direction just like what happened when NEADS scrambled fighters away from Flight 77.

The real mystery isn't about uncoordinated responses, it's about how the FAA could provide affirmative information to NEADS and to ATCs that was entirely false.

Saying, "I'm not sure where the planes are..." is a huge difference from saying, "I'm sure Flight 11 did NOT hit WTC1 and is heading south towards Washington D.C."

An "uncoordinated" response would not have lead to reports with such specificity, e.g., a "report" that Flight 11 did NOT hit WTC1, and was over NJ heading towards Washington, or Flight 93 was 20 miles south of Johnstown heading north, and then suddenly turned back south 15 miles south of Johnstown.

(Note: Don't confuse ATCs with FAA officials. They're not the same. It was the FAA who provided the misinformation, not ATCs. )



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261
The FAA has redundant systems in place on how to handle hijackings, including notifying NEADS immediately.

The FAA didn't even notify its own command until well into the situation.


The real mystery isn't about uncoordinated responses, it's about how the FAA could provide affirmative information to NEADS and to ATCs that was entirely false.

Its called 'errors'. Are you alleging that the individual employees at the FAA were 'in' on the terror attacks?


Saying, "I'm not sure where the planes are..." is a huge difference from saying, "I'm sure Flight 11 did NOT hit WTC1 and is heading south towards Washington D.C."

They gave conflicting reports, and they did that because they were getting conflicting information. Crap in, crap out.

The ATCs didn't even know what was going on:

www.cooperativeresearch.org.../11=&startpos=100
I have a burning building and you have a missing airplane. This is very coincidental.” The assumption is quickly made at New York and Boston flight control centers that Flight 11 has hit the WTC



Don't confuse ATCs with FAA officials. They're not the same. It was the FAA who provided the misinformation, not ATCs



www.cooperativeresearch.org.../11=&startpos=200
Boston Air Traffic Control Center Mistakenly Tells NEADS Flight 11 Is Still Airborne

ATC Scoggins decided that it was still in the air, extrapolated its flight path, discussed it with a supervisor, and reported it to the military. He says he overheard 'someone' on a teleconference call with the FAA say Flight 11 was still in the air, and went on from that.
Looks like, in reality, he made a mistake.


www.cooperativeresearch.org.../11=&startpos=100
“Okay. This is New York [flight control]. We’re watching the airplane [Flight 11]. I also had conversation with American Airlines, and they’ve told us that they believe that one of their stewardesses was stabbed and that there are people in the cockpit that have control of the aircraft, and that’s all the information they have right now.” The manager is unaware Flight 11 has already crashed.




[edited to correct ex tags -nygdan]

[edit on 17-2-2007 by Nygdan]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TL
With so many radars and satellites, and even the airport, how could people have not been warned? Wouldn't the airport have said that their planes were dramatically changing course? But supposedly "no one" knew until they saw the planes hit the towers. They could have monitored the new courses the planes were taking and evacuated "targets of terrorist interest".


The official excuse--cover-up-out was that they turned off the transponders which generate radio-signals. The were tracked 0.5 seconds later on visible radar because this appeared odd. Norad picked up, thought it was a drill for 5 minutes, and wouldn't acknowledge the Presidential Order given to intervene.

Close-by bases were alerted. Of them, 2 F-16s scrambled. Pursuit was given, a request was made after the first tower was hit to fire on the 2nd plane. There was no acknowledgment.

To this day, the best we've got to prevent a similar occurence is the hopes that the de-funct Norad system will be replaced. And standing orders issued.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Norad wasn't notified until well into the event.

And, agian, norad exists to coordinate multiple groups of fighters, bases, missile batteries, etc, over the entire continent, not monitor, direct, and communicate with a single aircraft. Those reponsibilties are futher down the chain. The system is to defend against a soviet first strike, not a hijacking.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Well, I'll disclude your last statement with the assertion that when Norad was operating during the "Red Menace", it was assumed the most feasible attack would be from bases that had been established within the borders. This philosophy never failed.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by nick7261
The FAA has redundant systems in place on how to handle hijackings, including notifying NEADS immediately.

The FAA didn't even notify its own command until well into the situation.


The real mystery isn't about uncoordinated responses, it's about how the FAA could provide affirmative information to NEADS and to ATCs that was entirely false.

Its called 'errors'. Are you alleging that the individual employees at the FAA were 'in' on the terror attacks?


Saying, "I'm not sure where the planes are..." is a huge difference from saying, "I'm sure Flight 11 did NOT hit WTC1 and is heading south towards Washington D.C."

They gave conflicting reports, and they did that because they were getting conflicting information. Crap in, crap out.

The ATCs didn't even know what was going on:

www.cooperativeresearch.org.../11=&startpos=100
I have a burning building and you have a missing airplane. This is very coincidental.” The assumption is quickly made at New York and Boston flight control centers that Flight 11 has hit the WTC



Don't confuse ATCs with FAA officials. They're not the same. It was the FAA who provided the misinformation, not ATCs



www.cooperativeresearch.org.../11=&startpos=200
Boston Air Traffic Control Center Mistakenly Tells NEADS Flight 11 Is Still Airborne

ATC Scoggins decided that it was still in the air, extrapolated its flight path, discussed it with a supervisor, and reported it to the military. He says he overheard 'someone' on a teleconference call with the FAA say Flight 11 was still in the air, and went on from that.
Looks like, in reality, he made a mistake.


www.cooperativeresearch.org.../11=&startpos=100
“Okay. This is New York [flight control]. We’re watching the airplane [Flight 11]. I also had conversation with American Airlines, and they’ve told us that they believe that one of their stewardesses was stabbed and that there are people in the cockpit that have control of the aircraft, and that’s all the information they have right now.” The manager is unaware Flight 11 has already crashed.




[edited to correct ex tags -nygdan]

[edit on 17-2-2007 by Nygdan]


Thanks for the links. I don't have time to look at them now, but I'll look at them later!



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Just a quick question; do large passenger planes have any kind of 'emergency button' like they do in banks?

Or maybe not a big red emergency button, but some kind of trouble signal that would quickly alert the air traffic control that something is wrong?



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Its funny how those hi jackers managed to fly the planes to their destinations without any kind of control tower help, they didnt speak english, how could they have read the little nobs!

Its also funny, because according to NORAD, whenever a plane loses contact with the control tower, they are required by their own policy, you can go see it on their website, to scramble planes to intercept that plane and find out whats going on. On that that, in those crucial 2 hours, 4 planes lose contact and are hi-jacked, and nothing is done? Oh my, what a security failure, we need more money and power so we can better protect you! What nonsense.

These questions exist because the government hasnt answered them, so until they do, I will have no choice but to believe they are complicit and are covering it up.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by LightWorker13
Its funny how those hi jackers managed to fly the planes to their destinations without any kind of control tower help, they didnt speak english, how could they have read the little nobs!

Some of them had been training in flight schools, in the US, for 10 years.


whenever a plane loses contact with the control tower, they are required by their own policy, you can go see it on their website, to scramble planes to intercept that plane and find out whats going on.

Now that is the case.


These questions exist because the government hasnt answered them, so until they do, I will have no choice but to believe they are complicit and are covering it up.

What problems do you have with the current explanations of what the fighter jets were doing?



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by LightWorker13
Its funny how those hi jackers managed to fly the planes to their destinations without any kind of control tower help, they didnt speak english, how could they have read the little nobs!


You know, it's funny, and ill-spoken of, but it's assumed that they used there GPS enabled cell phones that were calibrated to show current status.
They just flew to the general area, then flew, at on time passing around, into the buildings.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by malganis
Just a quick question; do large passenger planes have any kind of 'emergency button' like they do in banks?

Or maybe not a big red emergency button, but some kind of trouble signal that would quickly alert the air traffic control that something is wrong?


They use audible clues. Keywords like hijacked, no control. The towers also, at the indication of trouble, flip on a monitoring microphone. The recordings are established to be in existance, but have never been released. To much cantoring-bantoring.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bothered
You know, it's funny, and ill-spoken of, but it's assumed that they used there GPS enabled cell phones that were calibrated to show current status.

?
Pilots don't need a control tower to tell them how to get anywhere. Also, the pilots could've flown the jets torward NYC and DC, if they thought it was just a hijacking, they'd expect to be re-directed to a different airport.


The towers also, at the indication of trouble, flip on a monitoring microphone.

Do you have a citation for that? The stuff I have been reading has said that the pilots were periodically turning the recorders on and off as they could while the hijacking was going on.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by bothered
You know, it's funny, and ill-spoken of, but it's assumed that they used there GPS enabled cell phones that were calibrated to show current status.

?
Pilots don't need a control tower to tell them how to get anywhere. Also, the pilots could've flown the jets torward NYC and DC, if they thought it was just a hijacking, they'd expect to be re-directed to a different airport.


It was learned in WWII that flying by the seat of your paints often ended up in the wrong target being reached.




The towers also, at the indication of trouble, flip on a monitoring microphone.


Do you have a citation for that? The stuff I have been reading has said that the pilots were periodically turning the recorders on and off as they could while the hijacking was going on.


If by citation you mean audio or transcripts, no. All I have is to offer the Media sensationalized screaming they got to hear in the cabins.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join