• There is a problem with the forum sending notifications via emails. icerat has been informed. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

America- In the age of no primary radar

Non Believer

Critical Thinker
N
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
257
Do any of you have any concerns over the fact that our top military officials are quoted as saying we really had no ability to track aircraft over the U.S once their transponders were turned off. Or how about the fact that Andrews was always quoted as responsible for our nations defense before 9-11, but after 9-11 its website was changed to claim this was not the case
 
No concern here, but then I'm not American. So are you enjoying your school holidays?
 
So go to college, get a degree, and fix it. Why just whine about it.

TAM:)
 
They were always on normal radar, just not identified because the transponders were turned off.
 
Non Believer said:
Do any of you have any concerns over the fact that our top military officials are quoted as saying we really had no ability to track aircraft over the U.S once their transponders were turned off. Or how about the fact that Andrews was always quoted as responsible for our nations defense before 9-11, but after 9-11 its website was changed to claim this was not the case
Click to expand...

I don't really have that much concern over in-country ability to skin track. Since most threats have in the past been most likely to come from outside, there is that ability along the borders, but any skin-track radar can be defeated by flying where it can't see--like behind hills, at low altitude, and all that sort of stuff. Additionally, stealth technology beats it. Apparently, the new home-builts that use a lot of composite materials are hard to track, and are becoming a favorite of smugglers, so the technology is rapidly becoming obsolete.
Additionall, skin-track cannot identify which aircraft that is--only that it is an aircraft.
What we need is a way to make sure the transponder cannot be turned off in flight-or that if it is, an emergency transponder comes on and broadcasts a problem...
 
Non Believer said:
Do any of you have any concerns over the fact that our top military officials are quoted as saying we really had no ability to track aircraft over the U.S once their transponders were turned off.
Click to expand...
It depends what you mean by concern. Should we be concerned? Is it a capability that the US millitary should be expected to have? Why? Why not? What are the technical difficulties involved in the implementation of this capability? Can these difficulties be surmounted? Does the cost of surmounting them justify the expected benefit?

Did you perform a ROI analysis of the cost of a nation-level radar monitoring and tracking capability versus it's usefulness?

Have you thought about all that or are you basing your concern on a "common sense" ultimately based on ignorance? Or maybe you think that it is not necessary, that complex and costly systems should always be implemented as long as someone somewhere is "concerned"?

Did you see the Simpsons episode with the Bear Patrol?
 
Non Believer said:
Do any of you have any concerns over the fact that our top military officials are quoted as saying we really had no ability to track aircraft over the U.S once their transponders were turned off. Or how about the fact that Andrews was always quoted as responsible for our nations defense before 9-11, but after 9-11 its website was changed to claim this was not the case
Click to expand...



Do you enjoy lying, or does it occur involuntarily?

-Gumboot
 
Pretty amazing. It's either no big deal, or it wouldn't help. You really think somebody could hide a 767 from a functioning radar over this country(and its nation capital no less) for 40 minutes. how many pilots on here think this is a question that should be "looked at". The nation obviously does have the capability to track airliners after the transponder is off, so the point is moot. the question is why did they lie about it.Oh, the military has not lied about 9-11, is just that virtually every claim they made turned out to be untrue. Anything, on Andrews, I should have said that it had benn tasked with the nation's capital air-defense.
 
Non Believer said:
Do any of you have any concerns over the fact that our top military officials are quoted as saying we really had no ability to track aircraft over the U.S once their transponders were turned off. Or how about the fact that Andrews was always quoted as responsible for our nations defense before 9-11, but after 9-11 its website was changed to claim this was not the case
Click to expand...

Take a look at this symbol:
?
It is a revolutionary new way of expression. Try and use it.
 
Non Believer, are you concerned that US citizens did not received a mandatory week-long training in how they should react in case of a bioterrorist attack? I'm sure it would certainly help save many lives if such situation ends up happening. Why haven't the government implemented such a plan? Don't they want to save lives?

Would you care that much about the US military radar coverage had the 9/11 attacks never happened? Or are you simply a victim of the "think of the children" syndrome?
 
Non Believer said:
Pretty amazing. It's either no big deal, or it wouldn't help. You really think somebody could hide a 767 from a functioning radar over this country(and its nation capital no less) for 40 minutes. how many pilots on here think this is a question that should be "looked at". The nation obviously does have the capability to track airliners after the transponder is off, so the point is moot. the question is why did they lie about it.Oh, the military has not lied about 9-11, is just that virtually every claim they made turned out to be untrue.
Click to expand...


Why do you think a 767 with its transponder turned off would be lost for 40 minutes?



Non Believer said:
Anything, on Andrews, I should have said that it had benn tasked with the nation's capital air-defense.
Click to expand...


After 9/11 the 121st Fighter Squadron's website changed to reflect its new role as the "Capital Guardians" (this nickname comes from the 113th Wing's motto "Custodes Pro Defensione" (Guardians for Defense) which came from the original 352nd Fighter Group of WWII (famous for their blue-nosed aircraft). The 352nd FG were redesignated the 113th FW at the end of the war).

Our mission is to be Capital Guardians who provide our nation fighter forces capable of global employment; to provide air sovereignty forces to defend the Nation’s Capital; to employ our forces with mastery and lethality, if required; and to enhance the community with support and good will.

District of Columbia Air National Guard Website
Click to expand...

This is because after 9/11 the number of NORAD alert bases was increased, and CAPs were established.

On 9/11 NORAD had seven alert bases, and they didn't include Andrews AFB.

-Gumboot
 
Non Believer; said:
Do any of you have any concerns over the fact that our top military officials are quoted as saying we really had no ability to track aircraft over the U.S once their transponders were turned off. Or how about the fact that Andrews was always quoted as responsible for our nations defense before 9-11, but after 9-11 its website was changed to claim this was not the case
Click to expand...

Prior to 9/11, I would have been more concerned if they did. A statement like "The US military monitors and tracks every single aircraft over the US for deviation from flight plan. In the event that a deviation is detected, multiple, armed, intercept, military aircraft will be scrambled at a moments notice, with permission to treat as hostile" etc. would have freaked me out. Would have done wonders for Greyhound. And Andrews is responsible for the nations defense against what? Canada? Sounds like a cushy job that would get eliminated at the first budget cut. That's the way I see these things.
 
Non Believer said:
Because according to the latest version of the official story flight 77 was.
Click to expand...
Do you understand why? Do you understand that primary radar is available to controllers, but was not normally used, and why? Do you have any clue about how difficult a controller's job would be if he depended on primary radar?
 
Non Believer said:
gumboot said:
Why do you think a 767 with its transponder turned off would be lost for 40 minutes?
Click to expand...



Because according to the latest version of the official story flight 77 was.
Click to expand...



AA77 was a Boeing 757, not a Boeing 767. Your account also isn't entirely true. AA77's transponder was turned off at 0856EDT, and it crashed into the Pentagon at 0937EDT. That's 41 minutes. Looks good so far for you right?

Not quite. AA77's transponder was turned off in a part of the USA with no primary radar coverage. Yes, that right, there's gaps in the primary radar coverage. With simultaneous loss of communications and transponder, the ARTCC controller rightly assumed the aircraft had crashed.

Indianapolis Centre then followed correct procedure and notified surrounding ARTCCs so airspace along AA77's flightpath could be sterilised. Meanwhile, of course, AA77 had turned around and was heading east, not west. When it entered an area with primary coverage at 0905EDT, no one noticed because they were looking west.

At 0908EDT Indianapolis Centre activated the USAF's Search and Rescue units at Langley AFB, to commence a search for AA77's wreckage.

By 0920EDT, Indianapolis Centre staff had learned that there were multiple suspected hijackings in progress. At this moment they began to suspect AA77 may have not crashed, but been hijacked.

At 0921EDT the FAA began searching for AA77 on radar, and Dulles TRACON were notified of suspected hijackings. They were directed to check all unknown radar contacts.

At 0932EDT Dulles TRACON located AA77 (although they didn't know it was AA77).

At 0934EDT NORAD hear about the unknown contact being tracked by Dulles TRACON, and direct fighters to intercept it.

At 0936EDT an ANG C-130 departs Reagan, and Tower controllers direct the aircraft to follow the radar track located by Dulles TRACON.

At 0937EDT the ANG C-130 reports that the aircraft has hit the Pentagon.

Thus by my calculation AA77 was hijacked for 41 minutes, which comprised of:
24 minutes during which the aircraft was believed to have crashed
12 minutes during which the aircraft was missing and suspected of being hijacked
5 minutes during which the aircraft was a suspect hijack but being tracked on radar

-Gumboot
 
Non Believer said:
Do any of you have any concerns over the fact that our top military officials are quoted as saying we really had no ability to track aircraft over the U.S once their transponders were turned off. Or how about the fact that Andrews was always quoted as responsible for our nations defense before 9-11, but after 9-11 its website was changed to claim this was not the case
Click to expand...
But what about now.

9/11 the military did not track planes of the United States, there was no real network. However, there are plenty of radars that can track everything down to a bird, they belong to the FAA. I bet there is now a system that shares data, from radars.

In addition, we have AWACS we can track and target stuff. We have mobile systems to track objects.

This is a stupid question, since you did zero research to see where we are today. Zip. Please find some facts and have something before you make up statements with no value.
 
Non Believer said:
Do any of you have any concerns over the fact that our top military officials are quoted as saying we really had no ability to track aircraft over the U.S once their transponders were turned off.
Click to expand...

Enroute ATC uses secondary radar exclusively in its day-today activity. This is the radar that uses the aircraft transponder. They are uninterested in the primary radar returns as aircraft at the altitudes they are concernerd with must all have transponders. secondary radar then shows them only the aircraft they are concerned with pushing around the sky and not all the VFR traffic, ground clutter, flocks of birds and heavy clouds that show up on primary.

Civilian primary radar does not and never has covered the entire country, its cost vs. utility would have been too high.

NORAD and the US military was concerned with attacks originating from outside the country and thus military radar focused on what was coming accross the borders and over the north polar region.

When a transponder goes off the controller will, when he notices that his plane has gone off the screen will switch to primary in areas of the country in which primary radar is available and look along the expected flight path of the no-transponder aircraft. If the plane instituted a hard turn as soon as it went off secondary radar then the controller is now looking in the wrong place.

Radar is also line of sight. There is a radar installation both 125 miles west of here and another 90 miles east of here and both have primary capability. However due to topography and the earth's curvature the lowest that ATC can guide an aircraft to the local airport is to around 5000 asl(approx 4000 agl) so any aircraft below that level will not show up on any screen. This is a rural area and most of the air traffic around here is VFR and Flight Services keeps track of them and it is up to pilots to keep FSS and all other traffic informed as to where they are and to keep an eye out for each other. No one has hit each other for a long time.

NORAD however can see aircraft in this zone though. They utilize an over the horizon radar (and as Beachnut says, there is also AWACS)that follows the curvature of the earth and we just happen to reside NORTH of the USA/Canada border. In fact I have been witness to civilian aircraft being intercepted by an F-4 out of Minnesota. (in the mid 1980's) This occurs when an aircraft is approaching the US border without having filed a flight plan or checking in with FSS. It occurs because an American pilot who has been fishing or hunting north of here is returning to the states and has never had to file a plan before because this is his first time north of the border. In trips within the US borders this simply is not a problem.

For such a pilot it comes as a bit of a shock to have a fighter suddenly appear on his wing.
 
Last edited:
So what was my lie, that it went untracked for 36 minutes instead of 40. I don't know if I can give you credit for the 5 minutes of tracking since the military believed it was tracking flight 11(that sure is believable). as for your claims for a dead zone, prove it. The military ran drills that assumed hijacked planes as weapons, so dom't tell me they had no reason to consider a hijacked plane mioght turn off its transponder. God you guys have nothing on this
 
gumboot said:
. Yes, that right, there's gaps in the primary radar coverage. With simultaneous loss of communications and transponder, the ARTCC controller rightly assumed the aircraft had crashed.

Right even though he was wrong ? Give me a break they knew of at least two other hijackings, and they would assume this one had crashed. Beyond belief that you guys actualy believe you don't sound ridiculous with this stuff
Click to expand...
 
Non Believer said:
So what was my lie, that it went untracked for 36 minutes instead of 40. I don't know if I can give you credit for the 5 minutes of tracking since the military believed it was tracking flight 11(that sure is believable). as for your claims for a dead zone, prove it. The military ran drills that assumed hijacked planes as weapons, so dom't tell me they had no reason to consider a hijacked plane mioght turn off its transponder. God you guys have nothing on this
Click to expand...

Are you accusing the US military of being involved in mass murder of 3000 people on 911?
 
Last edited:
Non Believer said:
gumboot said:
. Yes, that right, there's gaps in the primary radar coverage. With simultaneous loss of communications and transponder, the ARTCC controller rightly assumed the aircraft had crashed.
Click to expand...

Right even though he was wrong ? Give me a break they knew of at least two other hijackings, and they would assume this one had crashed. Beyond belief that you guys actualy believe you don't sound ridiculous with this stuff
Click to expand...

And where did the 2 known hijackings land safely?
Oh--that's right--they CRASHED into a couple of big buildings.
Assuming a crash means looking for what it crashed in to--mother Earth, or some part of it sticking up?
He could not possibly know he was wrong until afterwards. That is the usual case, although your postings make a lie of that statement. You know you are wrong, but go ahead anyway.
Don't pose stupid questions just for the sake of it.
 
Last edited:
You guys love to try to go to other subjects, when you are caught. Stay on track. I don't have to answer every aspect of 9-11 when I point that one part does not make sense.
 
So J.D we can only track planes that continue in the same direction. Not very helpfull. I guess we need anothe 5 trillion to secure our airspace.
 
Non Believer said:
You guys love to try to go to other subjects, when you are caught. Stay on track. I don't have to answer every aspect of 9-11 when I point that one part does not make sense.
Click to expand...
"Caught"?
How?
I caught you in a couple of lies--see previous post by me--and you change the subject. Nice weasel attempt.
Respond, please. Where did those 2 known hijackings at the time of AA77's disappearance land safely?
C'mon, now--you can do it....
 
Non Believer said:
Do any of you have any concerns over the fact that our top military officials are quoted as saying we really had no ability to track aircraft over the U.S once their transponders were turned off. Or how about the fact that Andrews was always quoted as responsible for our nations defense before 9-11, but after 9-11 its website was changed to claim this was not the case
Click to expand...

Do you want the goverment to be able to track the movements of every civilian vehicle that could potentially be used by terrorists? Somehow I suspect you don't.
 
Non Believer said:
So J.D we can only track planes that continue in the same direction. Not very helpfull. I guess we need anothe 5 trillion to secure our airspace.
Click to expand...
The system works extremely well for what it was designed to do, Air traffic control. You don't see planes flying into each other do you? The problem wasn't with radar it was that they hijacked the planes in the first place. Steps have been taken to solve THAT security problem.
 
Non Believer contradicts himself

Non Believer said:
You guys love to try to go to other subjects, when you are caught. Stay on track. I don't have to answer every aspect of 9-11 when I point that one part does not make sense.
Click to expand...

I am afraid I caught you, Non Believer, right in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2702547&postcount=16

Let me repeat, since you dodged the point and can now address it here:

Originally Posted by Non Believer
You know the part where he is in the bunker with Shooter at 9.25 and a kid is coming in with reports that the plane is 50 miles out, 40 miles out, etc, and asks your hero do the orders still stand.
...

NB, how does "the plane is 50 miles out, 40 miles out, etc," square with your belief that the flights were not tracked because the transponders were off?
Click to expand...
 
Non Believer said:
Do any of you have any concerns over the fact that our top military officials are quoted as saying we really had no ability to track aircraft over the U.S once their transponders were turned off.
Click to expand...

No.

The FAA ATC system was not designed to handle large numbers of commercial aircraft without the transponder. Pity the poor controller having to use primary radar to track and control his charges. How would he know who he was telling to "turn left to 270" since it would just be a dot on the primary screen.

To convert this into an Air Defense system, which would not be concerned with aircraft separation, approach or departures from airports, and stacking or unstacking aircraft waiting to land, after all that's the ATController's problem not Air Defense, the air defense coordination center would be concerned with tracking all airborne objects such as aircraft. It wouldn't care whether there was a transponder on the aircraft for any aircraft could be hostile or become hostile. This activity would have to go on 7x24 and be ready to ramp up during off-peak periods in case of sudden emergencies. This is all very intensive and very expensive.

Pre-9/11, it would be near unthinkable to have that kind of air defense setup within the continental US. After all, the "threat" was outside presumably inbound not from hijacked commercial aircraft.

Certainly the environment has changed, as it does in the aftermath of a bad situation, though the military and FAA might not be able to do all that much more (lay on more fighters, add more radars, maybe setup CICs for critical areas) the mindset and perceptions will be different.

Or how about the fact that Andrews was always quoted as responsible for our nations defense before 9-11, but after 9-11 its website was changed to claim this was not the case
Click to expand...

Fact? And how would this "fact" change anything?
 
Non Believer said:
Or how about the fact that Andrews was always quoted as responsible for our nations defense before 9-11, but after 9-11 its website was changed to claim this was not the case
Click to expand...

You presumably did research what units are stationed at Andrews AFB and what their functions were in 2001, so could you explain to the rest of us what role Andrews AFB should have played on 9/11?
 
Non Believer said:
Right even though he was wrong ? Give me a break they knew of at least two other hijackings, and they would assume this one had crashed. Beyond belief that you guys actualy believe you don't sound ridiculous with this stuff
Click to expand...

Have you read this? It might help shed a little light on what the military was doing.
 
Non Believer said:
So what was my lie, that it went untracked for 36 minutes instead of 40. I don't know if I can give you credit for the 5 minutes of tracking since the military believed it was tracking flight 11(that sure is believable). as for your claims for a dead zone, prove it. The military ran drills that assumed hijacked planes as weapons, so dom't tell me they had no reason to consider a hijacked plane mioght turn off its transponder. God you guys have nothing on this
Click to expand...

Prove it.
 
Non Believer said:
So what was my lie, that it went untracked for 36 minutes instead of 40. I don't know if I can give you credit for the 5 minutes of tracking since the military believed it was tracking flight 11(that sure is believable). as for your claims for a dead zone, prove it. The military ran drills that assumed hijacked planes as weapons, so dom't tell me they had no reason to consider a hijacked plane mioght turn off its transponder. God you guys have nothing on this
Click to expand...

Prove it.

("mioght"?)
 
Non Believer said:
You guys love to try to go to other subjects, when you are caught. Stay on track. I don't have to answer every aspect of 9-11 when I point that one part does not make sense.
Click to expand...
You have made no point your statement was wrong, incomplete and had nothing to say. A do over thing.
 
Non Believer said:
So what was my lie, that it went untracked for 36 minutes instead of 40. I don't know if I can give you credit for the 5 minutes of tracking since the military believed it was tracking flight 11(that sure is believable). as for your claims for a dead zone, prove it. The military ran drills that assumed hijacked planes as weapons, so dom't tell me they had no reason to consider a hijacked plane mioght turn off its transponder. God you guys have nothing on this
Click to expand...
Hijacked planes usually did not turn off their transponders, cause they needed the pilots, and the box was the pilots. Are you not even trying to get background before you make statements with no value? It is impossible to figure out what a primary target is, since the primary target does not have any information. How would they know what primary blip was 77 since they were not following 77 for the whole time? Why not stop and collect some information before making a fool of yourself and unable to recognize it since you have zero understanding of radar, the military, and reality.
 
Non believer do you think this forum is filled with idiots? You'd better do your homework if you want to come here and arrogantly proclaim that you've 'figured it all out'.
 
To discover the difference between Primary and secondary radar, read this page in HMTL
 
Oh, and they never believed that the flight they were tracking was 11, although originally NORAD was told that 11 had turned and was heading for DC (after it had crashed into WTC 1) by the time 77 was located, it was known that 11 was down.
 
twinstead said:
Non believer do you think this forum is filled with idiots? You'd better do your homework if you want to come here and arrogantly proclaim that you've 'figured it all out'.
Click to expand...

Arrogance and bluster are all he seems to have. Why do you want to take his only weapon away?
 
Non Believer said:
. . . Give me a break they knew of at least two other hijackings, and they would assume this one had crashed. Beyond belief that you guys actualy believe you don't sound ridiculous with this stuff
Click to expand...


The Indianapolis Center controllers were not aware that any planes had been hijacked until 22 minutes after contact with American 77 had been lost.

From a Washington Post article:

An alert to controllers to watch for planes disappearing from radar or changing to unauthorized courses did not go out until 22 minutes after Flight 77 disappeared, when it was at least halfway back to Washington.
Click to expand...


Do you imagine that when a plane disappears from radar, the controller immediately has someone call FAA headquarters?? The first thing the controller does is attempt to establish radio contact with the aircraft. If that is unsuccessful, the controller may contact other aircraft and ask if they have seen the missing plane, or any evidence of a crash. The controller may also contact other controllers handling adjacent sectors and ask if they can observe the aircraft. Once the controller suspects a crash, the next priority is to alert search-and-rescue units. Then, and only then, will anyone take time to alert FAA headquarters. And even if that had happened, whoever took the report of the suspected crash might not have been aware of the known hijackings.

Frankly, Non Believer, you are the one who sounds ridiculous with your breathtaking displays of ignorance and wishful thinking in your attempts to provide "evidence" of a conspiracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom