Pentagon Fly-Over Caught On Radar

Reheat, that's not what I mean. I mean they had some kind of explanation as to how the C-130 had to be in a certain location based on what the pilot said or some crap like that. I wonder where their placement was in comparison to this. Or how it lines up with what the pilot had said (or course he could also have remembered wrong while decribing the situation too).

Also, if we look closely we can actually see the plane fly over and past the Pentgon. After the pentagon, flight 77 is represented by the black colored blip moving towards the top right. The black blip is a dead give away.
 
Well, yes. They have an explanation for everything, don't they.

I'd say it's going to be extremely difficult to debunk the "flyover" now that there is solid black evidence that it really happened. They've been calling it a "black operation" and now there is radar proof that it was. Great find, 911Files! I see you're not over your "truther" inclination, but this is simply going too far. If you want to belong here you need to make it easier than this....
 
Reheat said:
Great find, 911Files! I see you're not over your "truther" inclination, but this is simply going too far. If you want to belong here you need to make it easier than this....
Click to expand...

Reheat, you are out of line bubba. I don't need your permission to be here and I post the data and leave it up to you to decide what it indicates. And no, I will never be over my "truther" inclination. I still have unresolved questions and I don't wear blinders.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
Reheat, that's not what I mean. I mean they had some kind of explanation as to how the C-130 had to be in a certain location based on what the pilot said or some crap like that. I wonder where their placement was in comparison to this. Or how it lines up with what the pilot had said (or course he could also have remembered wrong while decribing the situation too).
Click to expand...

The CIT has it all screwed up, of course. They place the C-130/Flight 77 convergence northwest of the Pentagon when it actually happened southwest of the Pentagon, just as the radar data shows. The controller directing Gopher 06 turns him to a heading of 080° to follow Flight 77 which also matches the radar data.

Or, you can listen to the audio for yourself:
http://aal77.com/faa/faa_atc/dca/1 DCA 108 TYSON 1325-1348.mp3

The exchange starts at 12 minutes in. 911files has it posted at his website.
 
I don't think it went north of the gas station based on that, so it is obviously data from some other pentagon crash they slipped in there - check your time stamps.
It is a red blip because the terrorists are in control of it, right? Look at all the other red blips! Why doesn't the government controlled media tell us about all the other red blips??? :rolleyes:
 
WildCat said:
I didn't realize that smoke showed up on radar before.
Click to expand...


I was intrigued by this as well (so much so that I decided to register :)).

Several eyewitnesses mentioned that it rained shrapnel after the plain impacted. See e.g. 911research dot wtc7 dot net slash pentagon slash evidence slash witnesses slash bart dot html. (I cannot get at the primary source at the moment due to an uncooparative proxy. Oh, and I cannot post url's yet.).

This is an article I found on the subject of smoke showing up on radar: www dot radar dot mcgill dot ca slash paint_fire dot html. (the url thingy again).

In 1996 the smoke of an indutsrial fire in Canada showed up unexpectedly on radar:

Unexpectedly, the plume was detected and tracked by the McGill's weather radar, wind profiler radar, and X-band Vertically Pointing Radar (VPR).
Click to expand...


In discussing the weather radar images it notes:

The radar clearly is detecting something in the smoke plume from the fire, which is unexpected because smoke particles are too small to be seen by this type of radar.
Click to expand...


On an image that shows the VPR echoes it says:

Notice that the echoes have a spotty nature which indicates that we are seeing a small number of largish particles (probably ash), rather than a large number of tiny particles.
Click to expand...


So it appears smoke is visible on types of radar where it isn't expected to show up, due to the presence of larger particles.

(Note that I'm not knowledgable about radar types, I quoted them to provide context :))

Could it be the confetti like bits from the aircraft and the pentagon that the witnesses mention, possibly drifting away with in the smoke column, is what we are seeing here?
 
NutCracker said:
Could it be the confetti like bits from the aircraft and the pentagon that the witnesses mention, possibly drifting away with in the smoke column, is what we are seeing here?
Click to expand...

Sounds similar to radar jamming by using chaff - small air-dropped pieces of radar-reflecting material that give a confusing signal or multiple signals. Suitable sized pieces of airliner skin ought to give a similar result.

911files, do you know the wavelength of the primary radar signal?

Dave
 
NutCracker said:
Could it be the confetti like bits from the aircraft and the pentagon that the witnesses mention, possibly drifting away with in the smoke column, is what we are seeing here?
Click to expand...

Nut,

I drove past the building at about 9:50 that morning (I saw the initial fireball from the 11th floor of my office buidling in Crystal City) and can attest to the billions of shining/glittering particles in the air as I headed towards the 14th Street Bridge. It was surreal. The particles were infinitismally minute, yet still sparkled and gave the air a strange other-world like apperaance. About 10 minutes later I drove back *past* the building headed out of town (I had picked up my wife from near Treasury, pulled a u-ee and headed back out 395) and I do not recall seeing the same sparkles - this would have been around 1000 to 1010 am.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Sounds similar to radar jamming by using chaff - small air-dropped pieces of radar-reflecting material that give a confusing signal or multiple signals. Suitable sized pieces of airliner skin ought to give a similar result.
Click to expand...

On the nose, Dave. I was an electronic warfare technician in the Navy for 6 years...working with Chaff/ECM was my bread and butter. Any kind of particulate matter in a dense enough atomization will produce a return on radar. It varies depending on the type/modulation/frequency/wavelength of the radar and the composition of the cloud, but I've seen hits off of a plume of water, an actual series of explosions in Beirut in 2006, amongst other things. The large amorphous return pattern that you're seeing on the edge of the Pentagon is most like radar backscattering caused by the aerial debris field or dense smoke at the site.

I also notice that I see no return for the secret underground pop-up G.I. Joe missile batteries. This, of course, means that 911files redacted them and is obviously on the government's payroll. :eek:

ETA: Just noticed something else. The "blob" of clustered returns seems to migrate to the south. Is this consistent with wind conditions at the Pentagon on 9/11?
 
Last edited:
Just a comment about radar types;
weather radar is a doppler radar and as such is displaying returns only for moving objects IIRC.

Primary radar is there to display a return on anything that reflects the radar signal whether moving or not.

Weather radar is at a frequency that is most reflected by water whereas primary radar would be less effective if it was reflected strongly by water. so I would expect it to be at a different frquency.

I assume that RADES is a primary radar and not a weather/doppler radar?

That all said, the plume from the explosion would contain not only shredded aircraft bits but also drywall and concrete dust, wood, glass, roofing etc., all of which is certainly dense enough to reflect a radar pulse.

Yes, the drift of the plume matches the slight wind that morning.
ETA: I see Beachnut already covered the wind.
 
Just to add to what has already been said about the smoke plume and wind, this video shows the behavior of the smoke plume approximately 1 minute after impact:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV4jaijNqyo&feature=related

At the start of the video the driver is positioned southeast of the impact point and at the end he is east of the impact point

So the drift of the radar returns definitely matches the behavior of the plume in the video.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom