• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Were The OTIS Fighters Diverted?

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.

This kind of problem always crops up in the military versions of TSD. The Common Operating Picture (COP) is only as good as the data entered via a combination of radar and manual correction. In this interaction false tracks occur from time to time and a deconfliction process is always going on to clean up the picture. No conspiracy here, merely dealing with real world imperfections.
 
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 would assume any radar return that was tagged by an ARTCC would get filed into the TSD. Since AA11 was re-tagged as AA11A presumably that put an AA11A tag in the TSD.
 
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.

Since I provided those audios to Miles years ago, I do not feel the need to re-listen to them. That is secondary evidence, not primary. At issue is why (and by whom) such a report would be based. Since the TSD plots, radar and other information (primary information) provided by the FAA do not support those reports, the issue is still open. But speculation and misinformation do not get the job done.
 
I would assume any radar return that was tagged by an ARTCC would get filed into the TSD. Since AA11 was re-tagged as AA11A presumably that put an AA11A tag in the TSD.

You assume? And your evidence for that is what? Was AAL11's "LOOK" tag fed into the TSD? No, it was not. Frank is 'assuming' that sinister forces generated the false report. You are 'assuming' that an ATC was somehow fed into the TSD. Both of you are on weak ground.

However, after years of comparing notes with people who worked the issue (Miles Kara included), the best anyone can come up with is that the there was indeed a report (of course we knew that already). What is not known is why. As Boone said, we may never know.
 
BCR, I don't have access to the TSD re-creations that you have seen, my information came from one of the ATC recordings off of your old website.

A controller at one of the New York Center positions mentions watching AA11A "on the TSD."

The question I'm hoping Cheap Shot can answer is: can a target appear on the TSD without having a flight plan entered?

Unfortunately, his answer will still not answer the question of where "Phantom 11" came from.

I'm starting to understand how my dog feels when he chases his own tail.
 
BCR, I don't have access to the TSD re-creations that you have seen, my information came from one of the ATC recordings off of your old website.

A controller at one of the New York Center positions mentions watching AA11A "on the TSD."

The question I'm hoping Cheap Shot can answer is: can a target appear on the TSD without having a flight plan entered?

Unfortunately, his answer will still not answer the question of where "Phantom 11" came from.

I'm starting to understand how my dog feels when he chases his own tail.

They are very limited, but they are among my files at 911datasets.org. Very time consuming since they have thousands of aircraft displayed. As far as your question, I also have no clue. My understanding from the ATC folks I've worked with is that a 'coast track' and its tag are limited to the radar system. However, I'm sure there is a mechanism to enter it into the TSD as well. That of course would leave a record and the FAA says it has 'no record' of AAL11A being entered into the TSD system.

And that is why I abandoned the project and 'retired' from this stuff. I'm afraid we have all the data we are going to get and all that is left is speculation. Tired of 'chasing my tail'.
 
Am I correct in assuming that in order for the TSD to be responsible for "propagating" the false phantom 11 report (as suggested by Cheapshot),it would have been necessary for someone to file a new flight plan for Flight 11 after it was hijacked? If so,I find that interesting since there are reports that Flight 93 filed a new flight plan (destination Washington DC) after it was hijacked but long before FAA notification.
 
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.


Why does a Kiwi know so much about air traffic management over the USA?
You're not really from New Zealand,are you?
 
Why does a Kiwi know so much about air traffic management over the USA?
You're not really from New Zealand,are you?

It's called "hard work" - a concept known to good folks all over the world.
 
Why does a Kiwi know so much about air traffic management over the USA?
You're not really from New Zealand,are you?


You are paranoid, he is a rational researcher. Story ends.

Your SOF stuff makes your fantasy dumber.

New Zealand is going to take over the world, he is part of the NZNWO. Better be nice to him. Better take courses in speaking New Zealand, aka rational thinking.

If you did as much research as gumboot, and understood what you read, you would not be making stupid statements about 911.
 
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:



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



(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).

Alright,when Nasypany says,"send them in the same location",what does he mean? The same location as the Otis fighters? (currently 1 minute into a holding pattern in W105) or to where he wants to send them (Otis= NYC),I don't get Boston from that. No matter what Nasypany said in an interview later (Nasypany by then knows people 'not with the program' have a tendency to become suicidal or accident prone).
 
...New Zealand is going to take over the world...
Wrong tense - they've already started - go to Bondi (A beachside suburb of Sydney, Australia) and you need to speak like a Kiwi. BTW that is pronounced "bond eye" or - a better syllable split - "bon die".

Some years back the NZ Prime Minister was asked about rumours that lots of lower intelligence Kiwi's were among those moving to Australia. His response was "It will improve the average IQ of both countries". (Think about that one if it is not immediately obvious :) )

...Better take courses in speaking New Zealand...
...they have distinctive pronunciations and idiom. So don't get excited if a Kiwi asks you for (what you think is) "sex". He is referring to the hessian bags like the ones you put potatoes in. And if he mentions a "dairy" he probably means a deli or corner shop.

However when it comes to butchering the pronunciation of the English language us Aussies cannot criticise Kiwis. What we do to vowels is far worse.
 
Last edited:
You are paranoid, he is a rational researcher. Story ends.

Your SOF stuff makes your fantasy dumber.

New Zealand is going to take over the world, he is part of the NZNWO. Better be nice to him. Better take courses in speaking New Zealand, aka rational thinking.

If you did as much research as gumboot, and understood what you read, you would not be making stupid statements about 911.

Well it does seem a rather odd thing that a kiwi would care so much about an American 'terrorist' attack. Since it's well known that kiwi's aren't terribly fond of Americans (cousins though we may be).
Since the days of Reagan they've denied the US Navy the use of their ports unless we'd declare to them (the world) if they were carrying nuclear weapons or not.
After the Christchurch earthquake the US sent specially trained search & rescue teams from California to help. The US ambassador felt it necessary to repeatedly reassured the people of NZ that it wasn't an invasion & that we were there at the "invitation" of their own government. One would think that it wouldn't be necessary,one former British colony to another,BUT I guess the mistrust & hatred of the US by the people of New Zealand made it so & the Ambassador knew it.
 
Last edited:
Well it does seem a rather odd thing that a kiwi would care so much about an American 'terrorist' attack. Since it's well known that kiwi's aren't terrible fond of Americans (cousins though we may be).
Since the days of Reagan they've denied the US navy the use of their ports unless we'd declare to them (the world) if they were carrying nuclear weapons or not.
After the Christchurch earthquake the US sent specially trained search & rescue teams from California to help. The US ambassador felt it necessary to repeatedly reassured the people of NZ that it wasn't an invasion & that we were there at the "invitation" of their own government. One would think that it wouldn't be necessary one former British colony to another,BUT I guess the mistrust & hatred of the US by the people of New Zealand made it so & the Ambassador knew it.

More paranoid conspiracy theory claptrap. It is ironic someone from NZ know more about 911 than you, as you spread lies and delusions. It is ironic he know more than I, and I spent 28 years on active duty in the USAF. He does reality based research, he exposes your claims as crazy claims.
 
You are paranoid, he is a rational researcher. Story ends.

Your SOF stuff makes your fantasy dumber.

New Zealand is going to take over the world, he is part of the NZNWO. Better be nice to him. Better take courses in speaking New Zealand, aka rational thinking.

If you did as much research as gumboot, and understood what you read, you would not be making stupid statements about 911.

Well it does seem a rather odd thing that a kiwi would care so much about an American 'terrorist' attack. Since it's well known that kiwi's aren't terrible fond of Americans (cousins though we may be).
Since the days of Reagan they've denied the US navy the use of their ports unless we'd declare to them (the world) if they were carrying nuclear weapons or not.
After the Christchurch earthquake the US sent specially trained search & rescue teams from California to help. The US ambassador felt it necessary to repeatedly reassured the people of NZ that it wasn't an invasion & that we were there at the "invitation" of their own government. One would think that it wouldn't be necessary one former British colony to another,BUT I guess the mistrust & hatred of the US by the people of New Zealand made it so & the Ambassador knew it.
 
Well it does seem a rather odd thing that a kiwi would care so much about an American 'terrorist' attack. Since it's well known that kiwi's aren't terrible fond of Americans (cousins though we may be).
Since the days of Reagan they've denied the US navy the use of their ports unless we'd declare to them (the world) if they were carrying nuclear weapons or not.
After the Christchurch earthquake the US sent specially trained search & rescue teams from California to help. The US ambassador felt it necessary to repeatedly reassured the people of NZ that it wasn't an invasion & that we were there at the "invitation" of their own government. One would think that it wouldn't be necessary one former British colony to another,BUT I guess the mistrust & hatred of the US by the people of New Zealand made it so & the Ambassador knew it.

You are paranoid and SPAMMING.

You spread lies, you don't care, and you can't do rational research. What is next. You have failed to comprehend 911, and you are crashing and burning. Making up lies about NZ, and 911. What next?

Welcome to AAH
 
Am I correct in assuming that in order for the TSD to be responsible for "propagating" the false phantom 11 report (as suggested by Cheapshot),it would have been necessary for someone to file a new flight plan for Flight 11 after it was hijacked? If so,I find that interesting since there are reports that Flight 93 filed a new flight plan (destination Washington DC) after it was hijacked but long before FAA notification.

No, you are not correct 'in assuming' that. Also, Flight 93 did not file a new flight plan. Air traffic controllers did that to assist in tracking the flight. Since you are obviously referring to the discussion among Gumboot, Boone870 and I, no one said filing a flight plan was the ONLY way for it to appear on the TSD. All that has been said is that the FAA cannot produce such a flight plan. Does not mean there never was one, or that it was not fed into the TSD by some other manual means. The coast track generated by the tag AAL11A would have dropped out after 3 failed return acquisitions. If that is the origin of the TSD track, then it too should have expired.

All that is known is that on at least one TSD, there are reports that the AAL11A target was still showing after AAL11 hit the WTC. There is insufficient data to determine why or how that happened. What can be said is, the result of those reports was the Langley fighters scrambling sooner than they would have otherwise.

What is up with the personal 'attacks' on people?
 
More paranoid conspiracy theory claptrap. It is ironic someone from NZ know more about 911 than you, as you spread lies and delusions. It is ironic he know more than I, and I spent 28 years on active duty in the USAF. He does reality based research, he exposes your claims as crazy claims.


Since I've been here at JREF,what points have you 'won'? There are some. If I had to rewrite my theory as I first presented it (page 8 of 'what's your 911 Conspiracy theory' thread) I'd change some things. I was downright wrong about some things & had the details wrong about others,but all in all you guys have failed to debunk my theory.
I claimed the Otis pilots were expecting to be scrambled as part of a drill & therefore would follow protocol & fly subsonic. I was wrong. The Otis pilots knew a big Russian war game was taking place that day (the reason they had more weapons & fuel than normal) & might be scrambled to intercept a Russian Bear Bomber. Makes no difference though,they flew faster than expected & ended up in a holding pattern for their trouble (to waite for 175 to hit WTC2).
I claimed Col Marr himself ordered Langley's SOF (Capt. Borgstrom) up as a 3rd pilot in an unarmed plane,I was wrong. It wasn't Marr himself & Borgstrom was NOT ordered scrambled (2 ship order not 3),but it doesn't matter. All that was necessary to prevent him from acting as SOF was to put him at battle stations (sitting on the tarmac,suited up,in his freshly 'ginned up' F16) & there is NO doubt NEADS did that at 9:14 (5 minutes AFTER the order to battle station) when they told him (Them/all 3 pilots) to be "on status" (battle stations since 9:09-this is 9:14). It didn't matter if Borgstrom scrambled not just having him at Battle stations meant there'd be NO SOF for the mission.
 
More paranoid conspiracy theory claptrap. It is ironic someone from NZ know more about 911 than you, as you spread lies and delusions. It is ironic he know more than I, and I spent 28 years on active duty in the USAF. He does reality based research, he exposes your claims as crazy claims.


Since I've been here at JREF,what points have you 'won'? There are some. If I had to rewrite my theory as I first presented it (page 8 of 'what's your 911 Conspiracy theory' thread) I'd change some things. I was downright wrong about some things & had the details wrong about others,but all in all you guys have failed to debunk my theory.
I claimed the Otis pilots were expecting to be scrambled as part of a drill & therefore would follow protocol & fly subsonic. I was wrong. The Otis pilots knew a big Russian war game was taking place that day (the reason they had more weapons & fuel than normal) & might be scrambled to intercept a Russian Bear Bomber. Makes no difference though,they flew faster than expected & ended up in a holding pattern for their trouble (to waite for 175 to hit WTC2).
I claimed Col Marr himself ordered Langley's SOF (Capt. Borgstrom) up as a 3rd pilot in an unarmed plane,I was wrong. It wasn't Marr himself & Borgstrom was NOT ordered scrambled (2 ship order not 3),but it doesn't matter. All that was necessary to prevent him from acting as SOF was to put him at battle stations (sitting on the tarmac,suited up,in his freshly 'ginned up' F16) & there is NO doubt NEADS did that at 9:14 (5 minutes AFTER the order to battle station) when they told him (Them/all 3 pilots) to be "on status" (battle stations since 9:09-this is 9:14). It didn't matter if Borgstrom scrambled not just having him at Battle stations meant there'd be NO SOF for the mission.
 
... NO SOF for the mission.
You have no idea what a SOF is. It makes your fantasy dumber. You have failed to support your inside job theory. As you keep the SOF in your theory, it fails faster. It is ironic a NZ citizen knows more about this than you. I can't believe you play the hate card, is it due to your paranoia?

New Zealand and the United States are old friends, and you can't figure out 911. Why can't you do research?
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom