Were The OTIS Fighters Diverted?

[gumboot]

Nope. TSD has nothing to do with the radar track and no, an ATC knows whether of not they are looking at a TSD or a radar screen. You really do need to keep up.

Indeed.

 

[FrankHT]

Nope. TSD has nothing to do with the radar track and no, an ATC knows whether of not they are looking at a TSD or a radar

Well,then,I guess someone would have had to file a new flight plan for Flight 11 in order for the TSD to have "propagated" the phantom 11 report as Cheapshot suggested. Who would have done that & why?

 

[beachnut]

Well,then,I guess someone would have had to file a new flight plan for Flight 11 in order for the TSD to have "propagated" the phantom 11 report as Cheapshot suggested. Who would have done that & why?

Flight plan? Have you filed a flight plan?

The terrorists crashed 11 into the WTC, this is not a normal end for an airliner. Too bad you have no clue how the systems work as you weave an idiotic fantasy based on your ignorance.

Like your failed SOF claim, now who will you blame. You did play the hate card, you don't do research, you have fantasy.

 

[BCR]

Well,then,I guess someone would have had to file a new flight plan for Flight 11 in order for the TSD to have "propagated" the phantom 11 report as Cheapshot suggested. Who would have done that & why?

Jumping ahead of yourself. First you have to establish that is indeed the case. If a new flight plan was entered, then there should be direct evidence of it somewhere. So far, that has not been located. There may be an additional mechanism for entering such a plan available to administrators in-play. At this point, nobody knows. That is okay. As to why, that has already been answered in the recordings cited. Concern for media monitoring on Flight Explorer, or similar systems. Please keep up.

ETA: As to the why, there were concerns regarding CNN tracking the old AAL11 flight plan from American Airlines (around 8:50). However, I suspect the main reason was so that managers (who did not have the advantage of radar screens) could monitor the planes progress. All this was going on under some very stressful conditions. But after spending a good number of years pursing this issue, all I have to offer is I don't know. But I do know there is no indication of nefarious intent in the record, only in the imagination of some Monday morning quarterbacks who have no clue what they are talking about.

 

[BCR]

Here is a Powerpoint of the TSD for 9/11. Unfortunately, this version covers the whole lower 48 so not a lot of detail. Still looking through my archives to see if I can find my more detailed screenshots.

http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/5-dcc-1900-tsd-sept-11-powerpoint.ppt

 

[Cheap Shot]

So,based on the posts I've been reading the TSD seems to be a 'predictive' computer program that extrapolates where aircraft will be (in future) based on their filed flight plan and (lacking that & assuming continued speed & direction) the last few minutes of their actual radar track? And it's possible for ATC to confuse the TSD display for an actual radar return? Is that correct?

Controllers do not use the TSD, it is for Traffic Management purposes. No controller would ever confuse the two. Managers at higher levels of the FAA use the TSD, and individual airlines have access to thier information on something similar to the TSD. No ATC would ever mistake a target on the TSD for a radar target. Apples and Oranges. I have several different theories on where the ghost AAL11 came from, as far as NY Center using AAL11A they started a track, don't know if a flight plan was ever associated with it. I knew nothing about the AAL11A track on 9-11, found out at a later date, but it is a common way of starting a track that the individual controller has control over since they didn't have control of our track on AAL11.

 

[BCR]

Jackpot!

Was looking through my archive and found some relative files. Indeed, a flight plan was entered for AAL11A. Cheap Shot can fill in the blanks on a lot of the detail.

http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/3-zny-49a-electronic-dart-aal11alog.doc

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|130043.0|AAL11A 228|RCR 75R |O FPRDO| 228 AAL11A B757/X 388 JFK *16* |
| | | | | 006029 E1241 290 JFK00602 |
| | | | | 9..LAX |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also another file of interest.

http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/5-aea-2563-aal11atrk.doc

Looks like it remained in the system until 1301 (9:01).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|130105.0|AAL11A 228|RCR 56R |O ACCPT| ACCEPT *16* |
| | | | | DROP TRACK |
| | | | | AAL11A/228 |
1 LOG SORT=AID,TIME NAS ID=NH11I07A NAS DATE=11/09/01 COMPOOL=RF110088 09/24/01 PAGE 0076
A5F1.1
| TIME |AID CID/MID|DEV DID |MSG TYP| MSG CONTENT |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now it has me scratching my head why the FAA said they had 'no records' for an AAL11A flight plan.

ETA: Thanks guys for inspiring me to dig deeper into my archives. I lost track of how many gigs of files I have on the archive drive, but I decided to do a file name search until I hit something with AAL11A in it. Kinda wish I had thought of that before now, but some of this stuff was just released recently (after my 'retirement').

 

[gumboot]

Jackpot!

Was looking through my archive and found some relative files. Indeed, a flight plan was entered for AAL11A. Cheap Shot can fill in the blanks on a lot of the detail.

http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/3-zny-49a-electronic-dart-aal11alog.doc

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|130043.0|AAL11A 228|RCR 75R |O FPRDO| 228 AAL11A B757/X 388 JFK *16* |
| | | | | 006029 E1241 290 JFK00602 |
| | | | | 9..LAX |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also another file of interest.

http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/5-aea-2563-aal11atrk.doc

Looks like it remained in the system until 1301 (9:01).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|130105.0|AAL11A 228|RCR 56R |O ACCPT| ACCEPT *16* |
| | | | | DROP TRACK |
| | | | | AAL11A/228 |
1 LOG SORT=AID,TIME NAS ID=NH11I07A NAS DATE=11/09/01 COMPOOL=RF110088 09/24/01 PAGE 0076
A5F1.1
| TIME |AID CID/MID|DEV DID |MSG TYP| MSG CONTENT |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now it has me scratching my head why the FAA said they had 'no records' for an AAL11A flight plan.

ETA: Thanks guys for inspiring me to dig deeper into my archives. I lost track of how many gigs of files I have on the archive drive, but I decided to do a file name search until I hit something with AAL11A in it. Kinda wish I had thought of that before now, but some of this stuff was just released recently (after my 'retirement').

Great find. Would I be right in thinking this information derives from the FTM?

 

[BCR]

Great find. Would I be right in thinking this information derives from the FTM?

I go to Tom Lusch and Colin with such questions. We can add this on to the list I already have out to both.

 

[cjnewson88]

Good find BCR, that clears things up a little.

 

[Cheap Shot]

I go to Tom Lusch and Colin with such questions. We can add this on to the list I already have out to both.

Some pretty good information here. Shows 22 minutes of track data. It shows NY put in an X equipment suffix indicating no transponder so it would follow the primary return. Shows requested or assigned altitude FL290, and shows the computer ID as 228, each center assigns their own CID. These are the DART that was pulled from ZNY host computer. This information would have sent to the FTM in Cambridge MA, then made available to other TSDs. At one point shows the track out at the JFK006029. Started tracking at 0838. Also someone changes the altitude to VFR.

 

[BCR]

Well, still waiting for Frank to weigh in. Not much to add from me right now, except that I'm awaiting feedback from various people on details. But I thought for sure Frank would have something to add about how this supports his conspiracy.

 

[Lenbrazil]

Originally Posted by FrankHT
Here,from History Commons:

"The 9/11 Commission will conclude that an order for other bases to prepare fighters to scramble is not given until 9:49 a.m. In fact, it appears the first fighters from other bases to take off are those from Syracuse at 10:42 a.m. (see 10:42 a.m. September 11, 2001). This is OVER an HOUR and a half after Syracuse’s initial offer to help, and not long after a general ban on all flights, including military ones, is lifted at 10:31 a.m. (see 10:31 a.m. September 11, 2001). These are apparently the fourth set of fighters scrambled from the ground. Previously, three fighters from Langley Air Force Base, two from Otis Air National Guard Base, and two from Toledo, Ohio, were scrambled at 10:01 a.m. (see 10:01 a.m. September 11, 2001), but did not launch until 15 minutes later. [Toledo Blade, 12/9/2001]"

You are making the false assumption that the 9/11 Timeline is an authoritative source. It's a valuable resource as a starting off point but one needs to check its claims against its sources. Here's what the cited article said:

"F-16s were seen taking off from Hancock at least three times Tuesday. Two fighter jets took off at 10:42 a.m., three jets were seen leaving at around 1:30 p.m. and two more took to the sky at 3:55 p.m. ['the unit's public information officer' Lt. Jeff] Brown said he could not comment on 174th Fighter Wing operations."

http://web.archive.org/web/20021104...ews/content.ssf?/newsstories/20010912_rn.html

The phrase "at least" indicated there might well have been other instances, the phrase "seen taking off" indicates the journalist source was some sort of spotter who might have been elsewhere earlier rather than an official source, the latter had 'no comment'.

Frank was reffering to this:

Shortly after the second World Trade Center crash, calls from fighter units begin “pouring into NORAD and sector operations centers, asking, ‘What can we do to help?’” From Syracuse, New York, a commander of the 174th Fighter Wing of the New York Air National Guard calls and tells Colonel Robert Marr, the battle commander at NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS): “Give me 10 [minutes] and I can give you hot guns. Give me 30 [minutes] and I’ll have heat-seeker [missiles]. Give me an hour and I can give you slammers [Amraams].” Marr replies, “I want it all.” [AVIATION WEEK AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY, 6/3/2002 ; NEWS 10 NOW, 9/12/2006 ]​

Is there any trace of this in the NORAD tapes? If so when was the call made?

 

[George 152]

I didn't play the hate card. I don't hate anybody. I simply said Kiwis aren't very fond of Americans which I believe is true. I've been to New Zealand back in the 1980's. I spent 3 weeks in Australia on the same trip. Comparing the two,Australian were far more friendly & far more talkative. The Kiwis I met were quiet & standoffish towards us. I interpret that as dislike of Americans.

From your posting style I can assure you that it's a matter of your attitude.
We have a habit of not claiming loudly about what we can do, we just get on with it !

 

[tsig]

Well, still waiting for Frank to weigh in. Not much to add from me right now, except that I'm awaiting feedback from various people on details. But I thought for sure Frank would have something to add about how this supports his conspiracy.

You might want to throw him a life jacket, he's flailing around badly I'm afraid he might drown.

 

[fess]

You might want to throw him a life jacket, he's flailing around badly I'm afraid he might drown.

The SOF said he would come over and help Frank, but he is waiting for the alert pilots to call him. This may take some time…

 

[cjnewson88]

Frank was reffering to this:

Shortly after the second World Trade Center crash, calls from fighter units begin “pouring into NORAD and sector operations centers, asking, ‘What can we do to help?’” From Syracuse, New York, a commander of the 174th Fighter Wing of the New York Air National Guard calls and tells Colonel Robert Marr, the battle commander at NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS): “Give me 10 [minutes] and I can give you hot guns. Give me 30 [minutes] and I’ll have heat-seeker [missiles]. Give me an hour and I can give you slammers [Amraams].” Marr replies, “I want it all.” [AVIATION WEEK AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY, 6/3/2002 ; NEWS 10 NOW, 9/12/2006 ]​

Is there any trace of this in the NORAD tapes? If so when was the call made?

I had a quick listen to Channel 2 between the 0900 and 0940 and didn't hear it (although I was skipping parts), however this does ring familiar in my head, I'm sure I have heard it before on one of the NEADS tapes. Will have a better look later.

 

[ozeco41]

Frank was reffering to this:

Shortly after the second World Trade Center crash, calls from fighter units begin “pouring into NORAD and sector operations centers, asking, ‘What can we do to help?’” From Syracuse, New York, a commander of the 174th Fighter Wing of the New York Air National Guard calls and tells Colonel Robert Marr, the battle commander at NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS): “Give me 10 [minutes] and I can give you hot guns. Give me 30 [minutes] and I’ll have heat-seeker [missiles]. Give me an hour and I can give you slammers [Amraams].” Marr replies, “I want it all.” [AVIATION WEEK AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY, 6/3/2002 ; NEWS 10 NOW, 9/12/2006 ]​

Is there any trace of this in the NORAD tapes? If so when was the call made?

And, whilst many of us "debunkers" enjoy chasing trolls down their rabbitholes of details, let us not lose sight of the context.

In the context of the implied claim "they should have been shot down" the two big issues are:
1) Was there an available "window of opportunity"?
2) which corresponded with a situation where shootdown could be justified.

Remember the claim we are addressing is a retrospective assessment of 9/11 - arguments that support "there should be shoot-down if a similar situation comes in the future" are irrelevant to hindsight analysis of 9/11.

AFAICS there was no such window of opportunity AND
I haven't seen anyone here address the cost-benefit/risk analysis of "was shoot-down justified?"

Prima facie the first point in time when shoot-down could have been a responsible decision was when WTC2 collapsed. What could have been saved by shoot-down post that time? Then try lining up the "lives lost" and "lives probably lost" on both sides of the risk balance. And remember that if Government/President ordered shoot-down it/he would be blamed for the resulting deaths - not the terrorists. So the cost/benefit is located on a playing field which is tilted in favour of the terrorists.

Those are examples of the real issues - whilst we have fun discussing who said what to who and when etc etc ...........



PS apologies to Lenbrazil for using his post as a convenient launch pad. No criticism intended Lb.

 

[gumboot]

Prima facie the first point in time when shoot-down could have been a responsible decision was when WTC2 collapsed.

On most of your post I agree, except this. I think, from when UA175 hit WTC2 it was determined that they were dealing with deliberate suicide attacks, at which a shoot down (dependent on context) could have been justified.

 

[ozeco41]

On most of your post I agree, except this. I think, from when UA175 hit WTC2 it was determined that they were dealing with deliberate suicide attacks, at which a shoot down (dependent on context) could have been justified.

There is no disagreement. What you say it consistent with what I said as far as you go. Then the next stage, covered by your comment "could have been..." is where the cost/benefit analysis comes into play. My position is that it is not fait accompli that there was cost/benefit justification. And there are quite a few factors to consider of which the big one is political justification both domestic and international. And that is into "rubbery numbers" territory.

Still this topic is specific and detailed so I'll leave this potential derail where it is for now - maybe for another thread and another time.