9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 I quote, "But for 8 minutes and 13 seconds, between 8:56 and 9:05, this primary radar information on American 77 was not displayed to controllers at Indianapolis Center." Was their any other center that had the radar information? If not that means flight 77 was off radar.

Again reading the entire article/report/paper is often beneficial. In this case, even the entire paragraph will be sufficient to understand the issue here.

"But for 8 minutes and 13 seconds, between 8:56 and 9:05, this primary radar information on American 77 was not displayed to controllers at Indianapolis Center."

Information was not displayed, but was collected. Also information not displayed at Indianapolis does not mean that it may not have been displayed at other centers. It certainly doesn't mean the information did not exist.

" Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56."

This occurs right before the statement you chose to cite. Explaining that it was tracked. Yet you ignore it in favour of misinterpreting the statement it precedes.

"...the FAA ATC software did not allow the display of primary radar data from the "tertiary" and "quadrary" radars."

This statement occurs immediately after your statement but you also choose to ignore it because it contradicts your claim. It clearly provides an further explanation for the fact that it did not appear: that radar data existed and was not displayed at Indianapolis. Again you have ignored it, in my opinion willfully, because it doesn't support your claim. Instead, you have picked out one statement in a paragraph and built up an argument around it, deliberately obfuscating the fact your premise isn't true and is shown false by your own citation. We call that "dishonesty." It is a common theme in your "research" -- in fact, it may be the defining theme in your "research." [edit on 17-5-2008 by _Del_]

Originally posted by Boone 870 I quote, again, "Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56.

Originally posted by _Del_ Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56

Radar reconstructions after the fact means that it was not tracked in real time on radar screens. So that meanss it was off radar at that time on that day. [edit on 17-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1 ULTIMA....you are arguing a fine point of semantics, there. Reconstruction means that while ONE controller at ONE screen lost the target....the target was always being tracked somewhere else! In the fog of confusion, and mis-communication, one person at one screen at one facility lost it....but it was picked up somewhere else, unbekownst to the person that lost it originally, until the tracks could be put back togeter again...with the added component of calm, and time to re-construct. Does this make sense? I'd invite you to research the facilities of the Air Traffic Control system more deeply in order to gain a fuller understanding of how they operate.

Originally posted by weedwhacker ULTIMA....you are arguing a fine point of semantics, there. Reconstruction means that while ONE controller at ONE screen lost the target....the target was always being tracked somewhere else!

So it must be the officail story that has it wrong then when they state it was OFF RADAR?

reply to post by ULTIMA1 Please, ULTIMA....I have called a truce!! I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop taking a sentence or two from what I've written before, and throwing it into your new post!! I don't do that to you....why do you do it to me?? Besides, people can read up in the other posts, to get the full context....so it's not fooling anyone!!! Leave the 'spinning' to WH Press Secretary Dana Perino, please!! This thread is titled..."9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon" Please, let's discuss that. I have an NTSB report that follows the AAL77 Autopilot and Navigation Equipment....usage, per the DFDR that was recovered in the wreckage of AAL 77 at the Pentagon. I will alter the title of the NTSB report...not officially, of course, but to clarify...when it discusses the 'Autopilot' it actually refers to the 'Autoflight' system....so I use those two terms...'Autopilot' and 'AutoFlight' sometimeas interchangeably....hope it's not too confusing... WW Oy! words are missing....the Mods are working on it, but hopefully you get the drift? [edit on 5/17/0808 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker Please, ULTIMA....I have called a truce!! I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop taking a sentence or two from what I've written before, and throwing it into your new post!! I don't do that to you....why do you do it to me??

Well maybe you and other believers should practice what you preach. So please explain to me why experienced pilots have stated that the turn before hitting the Pentagon (where the made no corrections and came oyt perfactly lined up with the Side of the Pentagon) would have been hard for them let alone a person with barely 100 hours of flight time.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 ULTIMA.....I'm not sure what you are referring there.....but I can read between the lines. What is at issue is....the dis-connect between the 'possibility'....or.....'impossibility'....of these hi-jackers to fly the airplane(s) in the manner determined by the 'official reports'...am I correct in assuming that? OK, if we take only one airplane at a time, and we are focusing, on this thread, about AAL77 and the Pentagon....can we 'ignore' all the other airplanes, and just focus on this one? I will qualify, at the outset, that I have two biases....since I knew the F/O of AAL77, David Charlebois. And, secondly, I lived about 3or 4 NM away from the Pentagon, on the date in question....11 September, 2001. I am attempting to provide my professional expertise, given the caveats I have just mentioned, to the best of my abililty. What I have, is the NTSB report, dated February 13, 2002. It is signed by:: Daniel Bower, Ph.D Senior Aerospace Engineer NTSB, RE-60 490 L'Enfant Plaza E, SW Washington, DC 20594 and... John O'Callaghan National Resource Specialist - Aircraft Performance NTSB, RE-60 These are the two specialists who 'signed off' on this NTSB Report. I can answer your questions about the AutoFlight system....here and now...

reply to post by weedwhacker Had to reply to myself, not only for ULTIMA....but for all who will read this post!! As I've said, I have the NTSB Report....about how the hi-jackers knew how to program the AUTOFLIGHT system....I mean, I told you how easy is was/is....ULITMA, given the chance, I could teach you how to fly a B757 into the target of your choice...if only you would agree to meet, and fly the Sim!!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker ULTIMA.....I'm not sure what you are referring there.....but I can read between the lines.

It was a simple queston, what about the turn that was made without any corrections and come out lined up almost perfectly with the side of the Pentagon? Doesn't your NTSB report state about the turn, the animation (that NTSB created from the FDR data) i have talks about it.

Originally posted by weedwhacker if only you would agree to meet, and fly the Sim!!!

I would agree to meet, with the condition that the sim be programmed with all the proper data and not just what you think happened. Because a video i have seen of people in the sim leave out the big turn. [edit on 17-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1 ULTIMA....have you ever flown a plane?? If not....let me take on a lesson or two....and I will show you how a person, even with just 100 hrs....which isn't proven, can fly a plane!!! ULTIMA....did you know, that as an Instructor, I could 'Solo' a student after only ten hours???? Did you know that? Please....go learn to fly, then come back to this board, and tell us how much you know!!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker ULTIMA....have you ever flown a plane?? If not....let me take on a lesson or two....and I will show you how a person, even with just 100 hrs....which isn't proven, can fly a plane!!!!!!

1. I took my first ride in a plane when i was barely in my teens. I have had the chance to fly a Piper Cherokee 140B for a few minutes (pilot left me take the controls) and i have flown in front seat of 2 seat sailplane. I have a background in aviation from the Air Force and have been in planes so i do know something about flying. 2. You might want to do some more research there are sources that state at least 1 or 2 of the supposed pilots only had 100 hours of flight time. 3. You did not answer me about programming the proper data into the sim.

reply to post by _Del_ Very interesting info on the radar tracking So that means that the plane with the transponder IDing it as AA77, prior to the transponder being disabled, was actually tracked on radar all the way to the Pentagon. Can I take it to mean that it was only absent from the screens at Indianapolis and the reconstruction is based on real data?

Originally posted by Pilgrum Can I take it to mean that it was only absent from the screens at Indianapolis and the reconstruction is based on real data?

Yes i would also like to see this so called data , when it was collected and if any other radar screens show the plane that day at that time.

reply to post by Pilgrum Primary Radar Data would be anything the radar "paints". It sends out a signal which bounces back to the receiver to display range and bearing. It means radar in the classical sense. Secondary surveillance radar is a type of radar used for ATC (they of course use both). Secondary surveillance radar also interrogates the responder. If a target does not respond it is not displayed on SSR. It is essentially a civil version of IFF. This way an ATC screen isn't cluttered with mountains, buildings, rain, birds, etc. A controller may switch between modes or use both at the same time. Ultima's source says that primary radar data ("skin paints" if you will) were available from atleast two other sources but not displayed. It lists these sources as "tertiary" and "quadrary" radars. This means that when it disappeared from the SSR screen (when they turned off the transponder), there were still radars painting the plane, even if the data wasn't displayed in (or gathered from) Indianapolis. Indianapolis could only display aircraft with a transponder on or that its own radar was painting.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 Hani Hanjor's instructor said that he was indeed capable of doing what he did. Others without experience have flown the sims . [edit on 18-5-2008 by ThroatYogurt]

Originally posted by _Del_ Primary Radar Data would be anything the radar "paints". It sends out a signal which bounces back to the receiver to display range and bearing.

Nice post, but as usual not what i asked for and no evindece to support the claim.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_ Primary Radar Data would be anything the radar "paints". It sends out a signal which bounces back to the receiver to display range and bearing.

Nice post, but as usual not what i asked for and no evindece to support the claim.

Right. I only used your source for the info. My mistake. Please feel free to point out any errors I made.

Originally posted by _Del_ Right. I only used your source for the info. My mistake. Please feel free to point out any errors I made.

Please be adult enough to anser the question , or everyone will see that you cannot prove your claim.

Yes i would also like to see this so called data , when it was collected and if any other radar screens show the plane that day at that time.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 Yes i would also like to see this so called data , when it was collected and if any other radar screens show the plane that day at that time.

You are free to contact the FAA if you do not believe the source that you cited.