Were The OTIS Fighters Diverted?

[Justin39640]

The truth movement has had opportunity to present a case and has failed.

IDK if that's really the case. They put a lot of doubt out there. Just yesterday, a young machine operator said something that led us to talking about 9/11. He brought up the wargames and a few other long debunked notions. He got a lot of details wrong. He even brought up thermite, kinda. He didn't know what it was called. I think I got him to question his own beliefs a little.

This is more common than you would think. It sometimes shocks me how many people still have "questions" . A guy I mountain bike with all the time said something once over the summer. Most are horribly uninformed.

I see it as smouldering embers that could reignite a firestorm if not stomped out completely. I still got my boots on.

 

[ozeco41]

IDK if that's really the case. They put a lot of doubt out there. ...

Sure - and I don't disagree with the created doubt. Or the perception of created doubt. Both are valid objectives to support a political agenda.

My focus in saying:

...The truth movement has had opportunity to present a case and has failed.

...was on a case which would satisfy either reasoned scientific investigation OR a legal process.

From that scientific para-legal perspective they have failed to make a case. You are no doubt correct that they have put some doubt out there. How much and whether it is worth worrying about are harder questions to answer. We do have the political measure - they have failed to gain political support resulting in action. There is no US Government move to reopen investigations AFAIK.

 

[FrankHT]

From my perspective the two preferred options are:
1) Persuade Frank to discuss the real issues; OR
2) Ignore him as a "technical troll".

Just what are "the REAL issues"? I'm more than willing to discuss any of them.

 

[gumboot]

I don't think Nasypany was telling Marr to tell Foxy to Scramble Langley. I think Nasypany was telling a third person to tell Foxy & Marr from the Battle Cab interrupted and over ruled Nasypany ordering battle stations instead.

You would be wrong.

 

[FrankHT]

You are correct that the phantom AA11 was probably propogated by the TSD that someone in ZNY or Eastern Region was using.

Are you suggesting the whole phantom 11 report originated as a computer glitch?

 

[FrankHT]

Ah no, you've got it totally backwards. Think for a moment. Why on earth would Nasypany be telling Marr to tell Fox to scramble Langley? That doesn't even make sense.

That recording is Nasypany repeating what he's being told. Either he's being told to get Langley to Battle stations, and he accidentally says "scramble" and is corrected, OR he's been told to scramble Langley and then the BC immediately changes their mind and says Battle Stations instead.

So,you think he was told to put Langley at battle stations and accidentally said,"scramble",aye? Then explain the,"send them" part.

 

[DGM]

Are you suggesting the whole phantom 11 report originated as a computer glitch?

Could you explain what TSD is and why you would say "glitch"? Should we add this to the list of things you have no knowledge of?

 

[FrankHT]

Could you explain what TSD is and why you would say "glitch"? Should we add this to the list of things you have no knowledge of?

I'd never heard the term TSD until I read Cheapshot's post. I spend a sum total of maybe 3 minutes Googling it and have only the vaguest idea what it is. BUT it seems to be a devise/computer program that allows them to super impose different backgrounds (topography,boundaries,borders etc.) onto the blips on their radar scopes.
We know from the official story that there was NO actual radar track for the phantom 11 report & Cheapshot thinks the TSD may have "propogated" the report. By all means,enlighten me.

 

[DGM]

I'd never heard the term TSD until I read Cheapshot's post. I spend a sum total of maybe 3 minutes Googling it and have only the vaguest idea what it is. BUT it seems to be a devise/computer program that allows them to super impose different backgrounds (topography,boundaries,borders etc.) onto the blips on their radar scopes.
We know from the official story that there was NO actual radar track for the phantom 11 report & Cheapshot thinks the TSD may have "propogated" the report. By all means,enlighten me.

In short. It's a program that shows where the target is expected to be going. This can be useful but in a confusing situation might also be taken as an actual track. In reality, this confusion actually helped get a response in play.

I can't for the life of me figure out how you think it was something else.

 

[FrankHT]

I can't for the life of me figure out how you think it was something else.

I wasn't making the claim it was a computer glitch,I was asking Cheapshot if that's what he was suggesting by saying the phantom 11 report was propogated by the TSD.

 

[gumboot]

I'd never heard the term TSD until I read Cheapshot's post. I spend a sum total of maybe 3 minutes Googling it and have only the vaguest idea what it is. BUT it seems to be a devise/computer program that allows them to super impose different backgrounds (topography,boundaries,borders etc.) onto the blips on their radar scopes.
We know from the official story that there was NO actual radar track for the phantom 11 report & Cheapshot thinks the TSD may have "propogated" the report. By all means,enlighten me.

The Traffic Situational Display is a depiction of the entire US airspace, and is the primary source for determining the status of the NAS in the ATCSCC and other levels of traffic management above the level of ARTCC.

The important thing to understand here is the basic way in which traffic management operates.

FAA radar sites are connected only to ATC centres in their vicinity. They do not connect to every site, and no one can see the feed from every radar. This is fine in local sectors, as they only want to see their area, but it doesn't work for those wanting to manage the entire system.

Thus a secondary system is implemented, that displays the entire NAS, but is not fed from radar. Instead, it displays flight plans. When an aircraft takes off, a flight plan is filed into the TSD, and anyone watching the TSD can follow the progress of said flight. When the flight plan changes, the ATC site handling that flight can modify the flight plan in the TSD, so that it remains up to date.

The problem with 9/11 is that people started using the TSD to track flights. When AA11 turned south, deviating from its flight plan, NY ARTCC entered a second flight plan in the TSD; AA11A. However, the original flight plan for AA11 was never removed from the system. In fact, AA11 continued on the TSD, merrily following its original flight plan west. Twice, the ATCSCC called ARTCCs asking them if they had the aircraft on their scopes, after the original TSD track entered their airspace. The AA11 track would eventually continue on to land in Los Angeles, just as scheduled. Of course, while AA11 flew to Los Angeles on the TSD, and AA11A continued flying south, the actual aircraft had already crashed.

 

[DGM]

I wasn't making the claim it was a computer glitch,I was asking Cheapshot if that's what he was suggesting by saying the phantom 11 report was propogated by the TSD.

So you had no clue so instead of asking what TSD meant you asked:

Are you suggesting the whole phantom 11 report originated as a computer glitch?

You brought up a "glitch" due to the fact you were too lazy to find out what he was actually talking about. This laziness is the basis for your whole "theory".

 

[BCR]

The problem with 9/11 is that people started using the TSD to track flights. When AA11 turned south, deviating from its flight plan, NY ARTCC entered a second flight plan in the TSD; AA11A.

No they did not. There was no new flight plan entered for AA11A.

 

[gumboot]

So,you think he was told to put Langley at battle stations and accidentally said,"scramble",aye? Then explain the,"send them" part.

You'll note that's only one of my suggested explanations, but I would explain that as him extrapolating out from the command and/or prompting for where to send them.

Immediately prior to his statement "tell Foxy to scramble Langley" he is receiving instruction from someone (presumably the Battle Cab).

At about 0907:57 he is about to give a rundown of what he's told the SD (Fox), which is his concern that their fighters are going to W-105 when really they need to be over Manhattan. But before he can do this he's interrupted with instructions:

MCC: OK, Who's up? ... OK, we can do that ... Ah ... OK ... Yeah, OK this is what I got going...tell Foxy to scramble Langley, send them in the same location. Battle- battle stations or scramble? Battle stations only, Langley.

He then goes back to the reason for his conversation, which is to give the Battle Cab an update on what their plans are:

MCC: Okay, this is... who's up there? Listening? What I told the SD so far; we need...

(he then proceeds to repeat his points he made with Maj Fox, that they should get the Otis fighters over NYC, not in W-105, and there's a bit of a discussion about this.)

It wouldn't surprise me if he's writing down instructions, then reading them back to confirm them (standard military practise), at which point the instructions are corrected (this is, of course, the entire point of having the instructions read back, so that back the giver and the receiver can double check that they've got the right thing).

 

[Boone 870]

No they did not. There was no new flight plan entered for AA11A.

We know for certain there was an AA11A displayed in the TSD as a 757. The question that no one seems to be able to answer is how it got in there without any trace of a flight plan. Maybe Cheap Shot can step in and help us out.

 

[BCR]

We know for certain there was an AA11A displayed in the TSD as a 757. The question that no one seems to be able to answer is how it got in there without any trace of a flight plan. Maybe Cheap Shot can step in and help us out.

I have not seen that on the TSD outputs I have seen. There was a tag "AAL11A" assigned to the primary return in the ZNY radar system. That tag should have dropped as soon as the coast track ended. But perhaps Cheap Shot can lend insight. We have seen no evidence that it did not in the limited radar data that we have from ZNY.

 

[DGM]

We know for certain there was an AA11A displayed in the TSD as a 757. The question that no one seems to be able to answer is how it got in there without any trace of a flight plan. Maybe Cheap Shot can step in and help us out.

Anyway you slice it the "phantom" was a help, not a hindrance. This is the part I don't understand FrankHT is trying to use.

 

[gumboot]

No they did not. There was no new flight plan entered for AA11A.

Ah... yes there was. I suggest you pop over to Miles Kara's site and listen to some of the calls recorded between Herndon and various ATC sites. It's patently obvious that there was both an AA11 track (which was never removed from the system) and an AA11A track. AA11A was bound to AA11's primary track after it turned south, and dropped off scopes shortly after impact (tracks will coast for a couple of radar sweeps before dropping off), but that doesn't remove it from the TSD.

AA11 meanwhile continued west, prompting Herndon to call Cleveland ARTCC about the flight when the track entered their airspace.

 

[gumboot]

I have not seen that on the TSD outputs I have seen. There was a tag "AAL11A" assigned to the primary return in the ZNY radar system. That tag should have dropped as soon as the coast track ended. But perhaps Cheap Shot can lend insight. We have seen no evidence that it did not in the limited radar data that we have from ZNY.

It dropped off the scopes but it didn't drop off the TSD. It has to be manually removed, and it wasn't (it was eventually). TSD's don't coast and then drop off the way radar tracks do... if no input is given they just keep going on their projected flight path until someone updates them.

 

[BCR]

It dropped off the scopes but it didn't drop off the TSD. It has to be manually removed, and it wasn't (it was eventually). TSD's don't coast and then drop off the way radar tracks do... if no input is given they just keep going on their projected flight path until someone updates them.

If a flight plan has been entered. In this case it was not. Or at least that is what the FAA says and please show some primary evidence (the flight plan) if you are going to continue with this misinformation.

Here are the flight plans entered for UAL93 and AAL11. The source (FAA) claimed there were no flight plans for AAL11A.

http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ual93-and-aal11-flight-plans.jpg