Holes in the Radar

I think this article is very interesting and a must read for everybody.


Summary by Frank Levi:


* Within the area that the hijackings took place, there are two
areas with no primary radar coverage that stretch up towards Canada.
* Flight 11 switched off its transponder right next to an area with
no primary radar coverage.
* Flight 77 switched off its transponder right next to an area with
no primary radar coverage.
* Flight 93 switched off its transponder right next to an area with
no primary radar coverage.
* United Flight 175 switched off its transponder next to United
Flight 93.
* We have two incidences where a hijacked plane came very close to a
non-hijacked plane. (What are the odds?) Flight 11(hijacked) meets
Flight 175 (not hijacked). Flight 175 (hijacked) meets Flight 93
(Not Hijacked)

Question 1: How did the "hijackers" know exactly where these huge breaches in air defence were located?

Question 2: Why go to all that trouble when you can take off from Dulles/Newark, hijack the plane and crash it straight away?



Here you find his article:
http://www.the-movement.com/Radar/Radar.htm

to say that everyone reading this should click on the Flight 77 link in the article. It is updated with some very interesting news.
( And to get the full picture of the "Holes in the radar"-article, you really need to read the Flight 77 piece as well. )

If coverage is blocked at 5000 ft due to terrain it may still be longer range at higher altitudes which all the flights were at when the hijackings occured.

"This diagram is for rough planning of radar coverage. It does not consider aircraft size or most environmental influences. The radar performance limitations may be influenced by the radar cone-of-silence and the radar processor range limitations"

These were big airplanes.

Does the FAA say they ever lost primary coverage when they reviewed the tapes? I think not, even for 77 where the coverage is admittedly poor. I recall that 77 didn't show up on the controllers scopes for a time due to a software flaw even though there was a primary return that could later be traced back from DC.

Merc?

PS. One more thing. That site claims the flight tracker software gets radar data from the FAA. If that's the case the HOW HOW HOW did they get the tracks of all those flights with their transponders turned off and no primary return? Doh!
pps. oops, Nevermind. Their tracks just ended when the transponders went off or went into coast mode (in the case of 77).

http://www.cinerhama.com/getsmart/innovations.html




:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Is how did the author of this article gain knowledge of these points? Clearly, it is not such closely held information as to be beyond a diligent amatuer's discovery, else it would not have appeared in the article.

It is both interesting and amusing to watch the process of speculation firming to treatment as something like fact in the article itself. Within a few paragraphs we go from note of these gaps in radar, to these gaps offering opportunity for substitution of drone aircraft for the jetliners, to discussing the events as if they certainly involved remote controlled drone machines as a matter of fact. This is not investigation; it is mere wishful thinking.

with not a single phrase you try to answer the questions raised in the original post.

Question 1: How did the "hijackers" know exactly where these huge breaches in air defence were located?

Question 2: Why go to all that trouble when you can take off from Dulles/Newark, hijack the plane and crash it straight away?


So?

"So" is a note that follows "fa"....

Your questions do not have the same importance to me they evidently have to you. They are asked in an attempt to suggest that some gigantic David Copperfield extravaganza was carried out in the skies, in which remotely controlled drones were substituted for jetliners, that have vanished to heaven knows where, and perhaps had no real passengers but only dummied up identities, or the passengers of which were subsequently killed by secret agents, or some other devilish thing. You seem to imagine that it is a proof of this that transponders were turned off at about the time radar tracking became difficult. This is an idea it is difficult to imagine anyone seriously proposing, and is not really worth engaging as if it were a serious proposition.

The question of how this particular key-board jockey you have quoted came by the information about radar coverage is, on the other hand, a serious question. He presents this information as something that no one could have possibly obtained except by the co-operation of various governmental sources, and so considers the possibility the hijackers possessed it as tantamount to demonstrating they were at the very least assisted by government agents. Yet he himself is possession of it, which must therefore suggest either that he is at least assisted by government agents, or that the information is not so difficult to acquire as he means to suggest it is to the credulous persons around him. My own inclination is to the latter view. This sort of knowledge must be common in professional aviation circles, and within reach of dilligent research in open sources.

"In war, only what is simple can succeed."

Then why was there no investigation into the possibility that some insiders helped the hijackers? Isn't this somthing every American shoumd want to know in order to assure the security of the country?
And how do you explain this insider information in the hands of people that can't even differentiate between talking to their passengers or talking to the tower?
And how do you explain the surprising coordination between different planes although none of them took off at the planed time?

You have yet to provide anything that would serve as even a respectable pretext for investigating "the possibility some insiders helped the hijackers." You have not yet explained how what is available to your favored pulp-fiction artiste above would not be available to anyone else except government minions.

and do me a favour stop giving names to people who do serious research (contrary to some who never come up with a single source).

May I point out to you that the decisivce document in the article that presents the holes in the radar is from May 2002. It's a document dealing with the situation of 911. So today it's easily available.
But was it already before 911?
Maybe this is something you should think about, do some serious research yourself or admit that this is a serious question that deserves investigation. Because only claiming that it might have been easily available to the hijackers is purely specualtive and that's something you claim to dislike a lot.
But there has been no investigation at all about how the hijackers could have had this knowledge. Hijackers that were even lacking the knowledge of how to talk to the passengers from the cokcpit.
And sorry, you completely neglected also the question: How the hijackers managed a very surprising coordination between the four planes. Even more surprising as the planes didn't take off as scheduled. Even more surprising as the hijackers weren't very good pilots.
So, I'm still waiting for something substantila from your side.

That, Sir, is a species unknown entire in these parts. Where the proposition to be upheld is not serious, as is definitely the case here, the best possible characterization of the effort expended in the attempt to uphold it is earnest and dilligent. These are wholly neutral qualities in themselves, and take their color from the end to which they are turned, being admirable in a sensible endeavor and pathetic or worse in a senseless one.

That this gentleman is working from information made public later does nothing at all to advance his argument, or yours. If such information were in fact so closely held, it would never have been made public, for its value would have remained what it was before this incident, and the necessity of guarding it been unchanged. You have not addressed at all the question of what the actual availability of this information, over the previous decade or so, might have been. You have not looked into trade journals of commercial aviation or electronics; you have not attempted to ascertain what an educated person with knowledge of the art might have deduced from the known locations of facilities and the sorts of equipment they would possess; you have made no effort to assess in the slightest what sorts of information might be found in open sources, where it is a fact that virtually all technical informations may be found with a little dilligence. It is odd you have not done so, for the whole weight you wish to ascribe to this point depends upon the belief that this was information that could only have been obtained by co-operation in government circles: without that element, it is merely good planning and care on the part of the attackers, taking advantage of what cover might be available for their enterprise.

If such information were in fact so closely held, it would never have been made public, for its value would have remained what it was before this incident, and the necessity of guarding it been unchanged.
Wrong. The quoted document is from post-911 and it deals with the description of the situation on 911. Therefore it was retroperspective. It describes how the holes HAD been. It doesn't describe how the holes of the radar are.
Therefore in no way can the availability of this document be used as a proof that such information was easily availbale.
Asking me to do research that IT WAS NOT easily available is absurd. Proving the abesence of something makes as much sense as being obliged to prove that the aliens don't exists. Why don't you simply do a bit of research yourself for a change! Try and prove that such information was easily available! Show that you're not only brilliant at ridiculising others but by doing your own research....................................................................


And btw while you're onto it:
Can you please answer the following questions:

You write:
that element, it is merely good planning and care on the part of the attackers
Even if the hijackers would have obtained the infos about the holes without inside help: How can theses hijackers have managed the surprising coordination of the hijacked planes as described in the summary in the original post? Given the fact that each plane was delayed and that they were far from experienced pilots?

Why did they run the risk of going for an attack that would last all in all around 1 1/2h risking to be shot down? Why did they chose extremely bizarre flight paths? What the hell is the advantage for theses hijackers to use the radar holes, to go for an extremely complicated coordination of the hijacked planes that would pose a lot of risks to their success? Why not simply attack the Pentagon right after AA 77 took off? Why not attack New York with a plane taking off from New York.
In short: What is the advantage of using the holes in the radar?

You subscribe to some novel definition of "serious" hitherto unknown to me.

What you are being asked to do, Sir, is to investigate what might have been found concerning this matter in open sources. You are the person promoting the idea the information could not have been garnered by any other means than co-operation from persons within the U.S. government, and since that statement is a principal prop of your over-all position, it really is incumbent on you to demonstrate it. It would, of course, require real research: you would have to consult libraries for preserved publication in several fields; you would have to absorb a good deal of technical material in order to make sense of much that you were reading; you would be well advised, at least, to seek out and interview people active in commercial aviation and electronics during the period in question --- in short, you would have to do some real work, not simply type into a search engine and click a mouse several times. Since the matter is of importance to you, it is something of a surprise you have not exerted yourself in this manner, but it is not incumbent on me to do so for you, for the thing is to me the merest trifle, and there are several instances known to me where technical information presented as closely guarded was in fact available in open sources, in at least sufficient detail to hazard accurate guesses of what the "secret' was. Three noteable instances are ceramic armors, stealth design, and fiber optic equipment, all things with direct and signifigant military bearing, and thus things the government would in fact be at great pains to conceal.

The rest of your complaints are mere caterwauling. You cannot imagine why someone did something. This, you seem to imagine, proves someone else did it. It does not.

"There are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous men."

Earlier in the thread you answered my question why there was no investigation of how the hijacker could have obtained knowledge of the radar holes with

he himself is possession of it, which must therefore suggest either that he is at least assisted by government agents, or that the information is not so difficult to acquire as he means to suggest it is to the credulous persons around him.

But I proved that this document that the author uses for his article was clear post-911 and a document that talks about the situation of 911. So therefore your argument why there is no need for an investigation is baseless. So either you try to find a new reason for the need of an investigation or it's up to you to prove that it was easy for the hijackers to obtain the information. (But seriously, do you believe the FAA telles everybody where the holes in the radar are .....?
And do you have any idea why the Commission report doesn't mention the strange coincidence that all four planes used holes in the radar?

And once again a question you completely ignored:
How did the hijackers manage to have such a coordination between the different hijacked plane?

Does not mean one has not been supplied.

For the assertion that the hijackers could only have gained knowledge of radar coverage patterns by association with U.S. government personnel, the indicated proofs are still required; some real attempt must be made to rule out any other possible sources for the information.

"I will fight it out on this line if it takes all summer long."

I indicated that your argumend for stating that there is no need for any investigation is baseless. Moreover I repeated my question how do you think the hijackers managed such an amazing coordination between the hijacked planes as shown in the article.
Maybe you could be please so kind and answer my questions this time?

Except perhaps a certain doggedness that might be better applied to turning tree-stumps into coffee tables....

You have not demonstrated, or come near to demonstrating, that the information concerning radar coverage could not have been had without assistance from the government. This you must do, if you are to allege it was supplied by persons part of the government, and use this as a central prop of the idea that the government was itself complicit in the attacks.

As to the other, it should come as no surprise to you, or anyone here, that your threshold for amazement is considerably lower than mine....

"One day I woke up and found everything I owned had been stolen, and replaced by an exact duplicate."

I didn't claim that the hijackers received the infos by insiders. I asked for an investigation to figure out how they got it. And your argument that Frank Levi got the document so the hijackers could have got it too is simply baseless as the document is post-911 and written because of 911. So, why is there no need for an investigation. (and why do I alaways have to ask three times before you mind to answer ....?)


And btw I didn't want to know your level of amazement, my question is simple:

How did the hijackers managed such a coordination between the different planes. A repeated pattern is hard to be described as pure coincidence.

And last but not least:
Why did the Commission neither mention the fact that all four planes used the holes in the radar nor does it investigate this phenomen. Why?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You have demonstrated nothing, and nothing about the actions of the hijacked jetliners strikes me as particularly anmazing.

This:
We have two incidences where a hijacked plane came very close to a non-hijacked plane. (What are the odds?) Flight 11(hijacked) meets
Flight 175 (not hijacked). Flight 175 (hijacked) meets Flight 93
(Not Hijacked)

You don't find amazing and worth wondering?

And please can you answer me:

Why is there no need for an investigation how the hijackers figured out the holes in the radar?
Why did the Commission neither mention the fact that the hijackers used the holes nor did they investigate it?

I'm still very interested in your opinion concerning the several questions that I've raised.

you to write me an answer to my questions?

Let me explain.

We know from first hand experience that the "cone of silence" ® exists. This technology has been around since the 60's as evidenced by these images.


The compact version for field covert operations. Note it can be broken down to a salad bowl size for easy transportation.


The group "cone of silence" for large meetings


So that fact that this technology is available is no mere speculation on my part. My speculation is that this existing technology was used by Bush and company to plan and execute the diabolical 9/11 plot.

Now those that hold to some of the more fringe theories cannot even say existing covert technology necessary for their connect the dots type of speculation is even available for use.

They start their speculative theories on hints and whispers, whereas I already know the cone of silence is available and easily fabricated in most home workshops.

So in truth my speculation is of a much higher quality than theirs. In reality it is hardly even speculative to believe that in plotting the 9/11 attacks the "cone of silence" ® was used.

But just to be fair, I'll speculate that Rumsfeld was late in getting to the Pentagon impact area because the impact caused a malfunction of his personal deluxe model "cone of silence" ® and he needed to use the override to escape.


A demonstration of the override feature. Note it is thought that the glass is embedded with aluminized particles that will explode outward under carefully controlled constraints.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108354/


The voices are getting too loud, eh?

What evidence can the fellow marshall to prove your speculation is not hard fact, and the veritable Philospher's Stone of the entire mysterious occurance...?

"They don't take chocolate money out in the big world, Arthur."

and I´m not the one who should answer to all this, but :

One thing that strikes me :

You wrote : > "That site claims the flight tracker software gets radar data from the FAA. If that's the case the HOW HOW HOW did they get the tracks of all those flights with their transponders turned off and no primary return? Doh!"

Wasn´t it only Flight 77 that gave no primary return? And therefore the path of Flight 77, from the transponder was turned off, is not tracked by the flight trackers...

And you wrote : "Does the FAA say they ever lost primary coverage when they reviewed the tapes? I think not..."

But the point that - for example - Flight 77 had its transponder turned off just at the point where it would be lost from radar - that is; from the screens of the people who were meant to stop it -
is still there. It didn´t help them stopping it that they could go back afterwards and see from the radar tapes(?) that it was there.

It´s late. And I guess I missed your point, that it would also be Flight 11, slipping into a zone of no primary return.

I´ll have to get back to this tomorrow, and look at it. If it did not actually slip away from primary return, but still went to that zone for a particular reason. (Easier to execute the swap...)

On edit : Easier for the drone to get unnoticed in there. ( Again, what could be found out later on was not important. By then, the blame would be placed, and the fix would be on.) And easier for the Flight to slip away unnoticed.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml

In Crossing the Rubicon
Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney

by
Michael Kane
Excerpt

Air War Over America it is documented that General Arnold of NORAD didn't pull out of the war game titled Vigilant Guardian until reports of flight 93 being hijacked were coming in. That was at 9:16, a total of 54 minutes after it was known that flight 11 was a hijacking. 22 What took so long? Were there still "false blips" on FAA radar screens at this time?

There were likely false blips on screen even after 9:16. The Kean Commission's report introduced "phantom flight-11" as being reported by the FAA at 9:25 on 9/11. The FAA reported flight 11 was heading to Washington D.C. at that time when in fact it had already struck the World Trade Center. The Kean Commission's report stated they were "unable to locate the source of the mistaken FAA information." 23

"Phantom flight-11" was a false blip, but since the war games are classified, specific information on "false blips" and other details can't be reported.

Now imagine being an air traffic controller with both real planes and "false blips" simulating hijackings on your screens when suddenly there are real, multiple, hijackings. Where do you send the few Air Force fighters that you have? You can't guess wrong, you don't have enough assets for that. The FAA doesn't even make that decision, the military does. The Kean Commission managed to scapegoat the FAA in their report, but the Air Force itself confirmed the FAA did its job properly on 9/11 in Air War Over America. 24

I haven't heard of reports from civilian ATCs saying that any of the exercise affected them in any way.

I don't know for sure, I'm asking.

You wrote :
>"If coverage is blocked at 5000 ft due to terrain it may still be longer range at higher altitudes which all the flights were at when the hijackings occured."

But if I get this right, you can´t tell anything from that.
Because, the idea is like : The plane is hijacked, drone is sneaking into radar shadow ( at low altitude ), drone is going up in altitude, takes place of the plane, takes over the transponder signal, plane is going down in altitude, plane slips away ( at low altitude ), transponder is turned off, but drone still being traced on primary return.

( But it is really late. )

First the transponder is turned off. (No altitude displayed.) Then comes the swap.



This image is from Franks updated piece on Flight 11 ;

http://www.the-movement.com/Radar/flight_11.htm

Another interesting image, showing the topography, how Flight 11 was perfectly lined up to go low through the valley :



And notice also the bottom image on that page: How Flight 11 appeared to be two places at once.

to post it here.

I think it is a good model overall.

But he problem is how do we test it?

in radar coverage, but rather why would they even want to use these holes to turn off their transponders?

Would the hijackers have used these holes because they were worried about getting intercepted by NORAD and wanted to make the plane "disappear"?

But if the hijackers were worried about getting intercepted, then certainly they could have chosen much quicker and shorter flight paths to strike their targets.

On the other hand, having holes in the radar coverage clearly makes sense if you want to turn off a transponder so as to make a plane switch with a remote-controlled drone.

Yup.

It is clear you and Mr. Spooked have not had much practice in deception during your lives, nor much experience with manouvering about bureaucracies, or with calculating to achieve the maximum psychological and destructive impacts from violent actions, and that you have certainly not studied such attempts as have been made along those lines through history.

Spreading confusion is the key to hampering reaction, for the longer an organization is uncertain just what it is reacting to, the greater the delay in its making any reaction at all. Thus, the more oddity that can be contrived to appear in the information available to persons charged with the decision to react and how, the better for the element in the situatioin that knows exactly what will happen, because it is acting in accord with its own plan. An attempt to "disappear" the hijacked machines makes an excellent contribution along these lines. An attempt to take the quickest and most direct course to the initial object would serve to remove all doubt in the minds of those charged with deciding how to react, and thus render them much more efficient in their response. From the point of view of those planning and executing this attack, since several seperate teams had to achieve certain things, a sensible plan would have built in elements of delay, as a guard against the unforseeable cussedness of things, to be sure that all the seperate elements would have achieved their proper status before the final strokes were launched.

One element of the plan executed almost certainly required a substantial delay. You may be aware that in smaller scale attacks, a common feature is a doubled detonation; one to cause a good deal of initial havoc, and one some time subsequently at about the same location aimed at wreaking havoc on the crowd and police and medical personnel responding to the effects of the first detonation. In keeping with the grandiose scale of this attack, it seems clear enough that a variant of this principle was a feature of its planning. Its planners expected that the attack in New York would immediately mobilize a governmantal response, that while it probably would be confused and spasmodic at the operational level, would likely have been quite efficient at gathering high officials at conferences over what to do, and thus, a strike some time after the New York attack aimed at centers of the defense and government organizations would be likely to catch these targets as full of people as they were ever likely to be, and thus possibly succeed in a substantial decapitation of those organizations. It miscarried, to some degree, by failure in the detail of its execution, but that is another matter. Just about every plan miscarries in some of its elements, after all.

the hijackers when it's fairly clear they were a bunch of bumblers. For instance, Mohamed Atta barely made his connecting flight to Boston from Portland-- he would have missed it were it not delayed. Some cunning, eh?

Moreover, it is not clear how the "bureaucracy" would have responded to ligthning quick strikes from hijacked planes. The government simply would not have had time.

But the way the attackers did set up the hijackings, there WAS plenty of time to get air defenses up-- particularly around Washington DC.

Why?

This is garden variety stuff, not advanced much beyond standing behind a man's left and reaching across to tap his right shoulder.

It seems to me that you have very little respect for human potential, and a very low opinion of the capabilities of many of your fellow creatures.

"They are not stupid. They are under-fed and brown and saddled with horrible telephone systems, but they are not stupid."

There really is no way for me to come back from that....

"There's a man who lives a life of danger...."

Map: Hijacked 9/11 Flights and Military Bases

<http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-flightpaths-bases.htm>

And this mailgate report:

"The two aircraft got too close to each other down by Stewart
(International Airport)," in New Windsor, N.Y., said one FAA
employee."

<http://www.mailgate.org.uk/uk/uk.politics.crime/msg06966.html>


Does anyone know the name of the the guy that runs "Stewart Internatinol Airport" in the wake of it's privitzation. I can't find a link.

But I wondered if it was "Frank Lowy". A search gave me this.

AUSTRALIAN NOTES
News Events & Culture
Summer 2001 Vol. 3 Issue 3

On page 4 under "Business News"

New York's tallest buildings, the 110-storey World Trade Center will soon be known as the Westfield Shoppingtown World Trade Centre following a recent deal made by Frank Lowy.

Westfield, the Aussie retail giant, who owns almost 40 shopping centres in the US, has won a 99-year lease and management and naming rights to the lucrative twin towers shopping mall. The buildings, owned by the Port Authority of NY and NJ, were subject to a joint $US3.2 billion bid for control with a local developer.

A pdf.

<http://www.australianyc.org/Newsletter/austnotes_11.pdf>


I hadn't heard about Silverstein's partner, before.

Anybody know if Lowy is in on the Stewart deal? :shrug:

go find a commercial pilot and ask him---or a civilian pilot. ASk them about dos maps thingys that they get.

I think the hijackers may have been Saudi Air force. A lot cheaper than all this hi tech mumbo jombo. It makes the whole job a lot cleaner from a spec. black ops view point. And fits into the Modus Operendi of the Bush Crime family.

I think the hijackers may have been Saudi Air force. A lot cheaper than all this hi tech mumbo jombo. It makes the whole job a lot cleaner from a spec. black ops view point. And fits into the Modus Operendi of the Bush Crime family.

Too many possibilities for procedure screwups. Thuis was totaly controlled from the outside.

All the questions are still unanswered. Any explanations?

"I downloaded an ATC simulation programme that is apparently pretty close to the real thing.

In the sim, if a flight changes its transponder code while you are tracking it, it will change shape to show you what has happened but the plane will keep its original identity.
It does not show up as an intruder (i.e. plane in your airspace not being tracked by you or any other controller)

This would prove that the flight 175 story is bullshit and it was another plane that hit the building.

The controller lost Flight 175, a few minutes later another controller pointed out "an intruder over allentown" that went on to hit the WTC.

This was explained as being Flight 175 changing its transponder code to one not in use that day, but if the sim is true to life then the ATC system would not have labelled it as an intruder."

is from here:

http://www.team8plus.org/forum_viewtopic.php?7.97