What did/didn’t NEADS see on 9/11 and why?

[progge]

I was searching for similar threads, but didn’t find any. If the question in the thread title was answered already, just point me to the corresponding thread, please. Thanks!
Some background assumptions:
(i) The flight path of AA 1 is well established by the RADES radar data.
(ii) On 9/11, between 12:37 UTC and 12:46 UTC, people at the FAA continuously tracked AA 11 on their radar screens.
(iii) During this time, FAA (cheap shot) continuously provided lat/long updates to NEADS.
(iv) But unlike FAA, people at NEADS were unable to identify the AA 11 track on their screens.
Taking all this for granted, my question is: Why did people at NEADS have problems to identify the primary radar track of AA 11?
The general and well-known answer is that NEADS was unable to locate the primary track of AA 11 because AA 11 was flying outside the contiguous U.S. ADIZ. However, I’m searching for a more specific reason. There are two technical answers I’m aware of, each of it answering the question, but I don’t know which one of them (if any) is true.
1. First answer, the AA 11 primary track wasn’t displayed on the NEADS radar screens. This is the Scott answer:

At 8:46, our next log event, we get the last, and, by the way, much of this radar data for these primary targets was not seen that day.

2nd Hearing
Cf. Dawne Deskins on AA 11 tracking:

It was "horribly frustrating to know there is something in there...but I don't have any eyes," said Lt. Col. Dawn Deskins of the NE Air Defense Sector. "He [FAA] gave me the latitude and longitude of that track [but] there was nothing there."

FoxNews
“There was nothing there” - which then again can be explained in at least two different ways. Easy explanation: Bad radar coverage, which means that no radar echoes from AA 11 were received by the radar stations NEADS used. This is what Dawne Deskins seems to think:

Deskins could not see anything on her scope because the aircraft had turned its squawk off and there was nothing in the location the FAA gave her. That location is now covered by radar, but on 9/11 there were not as many radar sites feeding into the sector. According to Deskins, the aircraft was both inland and low, and the NEADS radar did not pick it up at the location the FAA controller gave her.

Deskins MFR
There is some more support for this position within the universe of MFRs hosted by NARA. However, the Marr MFR includes the following remark:

Commission staff presented to Marr that the flights that were hijacked on 9/11 were within the physical capabilities of the radar NEADS is linked to.

Marr MFR
Which indicates that the reason was not simply bad radar coverage on part of NEADS.
Therefore, another answer might be more appropriate: NEADS radar sites actually received primary data from AA 11, but the signals got filtered out during radar data processing, and therefore were not displayed on the screens.
Might be true, but I don’t know any evidence for this.
2. Second possible answer: The AA 11 primary track actually was displayed on NEADS screens. But due to bad ground clutter/radar noise filtering, NEADS people were unable to differentiate between the AA 11 primary track and signals from buildings, hills etc.
This seems to be what cheap shot assumes:

They couldn’t find it amongst all of their ground clutter. The military and the FAA share the same radar sources in most places. The FAA takes this radar and filters out most of the ground clutter. The military has to do the opposite, they increase this amount of ground clutter, they have to be able to see everything. They normally wouldn’t have much difficulty in finding targets because the perceived threat on 9-11 was from over water. There isn’t much ground clutter over water so they have a high chance of success on picking up a threat. On 9 11 this evidently backfired because they could never find the targets. I am not an expert on their equipment, so I don’t know if they can manually filter out ground clutter, my guess is they couldn’t or they probably could have found AAL11.

CS interview
Found some (very) loose evidence for this: In the NEADS Tapes, channel 2, shortly before the PANTA scramble, there is the following dialogue between MSgt. Joe McCain (?) and another male:

“MCC I don’t know where I’m scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination.“
“Okay I’m gonna give you V point.”
“It’s just north of New York City.”
“I got this Lat/Long 4115:7436 or 7346.”
“Head them in that direction.”

So someone at NEADS apparently was able to locate a target on the radar screen, based on the lat/long updates from cheap shot. However, the best fitting lat/long from the RADES data is 41 15 north, 73 48 west, and the above data is 41 15 north and 73 46 west. AA 11 was flying left from the Turkey Mt Park (RADES data, 4115:7348); the cited NORAD Tapes data show AA 11 flying right from the Turkey Mt Park (4115:7346).
Therefore, someone at NEADS apparently misidentified another target as AA 11. Which, after all, indicates that they indeed had something on their screens.

Any illuminating comments on this?

 

[T.A.M.]

No, but I know that a thread around here by a user named gumboot is a great read on the events surrounding NORAD/FAA/NEADS on that day.

I'll see If I can track that down.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61752
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90102
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104587
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70300

TAM

 

[TJM]

This gives you a pretty good idea of what NEADS was up against. Article with recordings of NEADS personnel responding to an absolute nightmare scenario:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608?currentPage=1

 

[gumboot]

Amendment needed to some of your assumptions...

(i) The flight path of AA 1 is well established by the RADES radar data.

This one stands as is.

(ii) On 9/11, between 12:37 UTC and 12:46 UTC, people at the FAA continuously tracked AA 11 on their radar screens.

This is incorrect. It should read:

(ii) On 9/11, between 12:37 UTC and 12:42 UTC, people at the FAA continuously tracked AA 11 on their radar screens.

At approximately 08:42EDT AA11 dropped below minimum radar altitude and was lost to the FAA's displays.

(iii) During this time, FAA (cheap shot) continuously provided lat/long updates to NEADS.

Again this is false.

On the NEADS recordings, NORAD first requests lat-long at 08:39:21EDT. At approximately 08:40EDT Boston ARTCC gives an initial lat-long for AA11 of 41^o15'N 73^o45'W. This is a little under 40 miles from the WTC.

This is the only Lat-Long given for AA11. This became the "Z-point" that the fighters were originally scrambled for. The intention was to cross-check every target within range of that position.

(iv) But unlike FAA, people at NEADS were unable to identify the AA 11 track on their screens.

Correct.

Now that we've corrected your assumptions:

Why did people at NEADS have problems to identify the primary radar track of AA 11?

The answer to this is relatively easy to explain. I'll quote a passage from my own work on 9/11 as explanation:

1.3.9 Ground Clutter
Another important factor to consider is ground clutter. Ground clutter is a radar anomaly that is impossible to remove. It is essentially radar noise caused by the reflection of surface and low level objects close to the radar site. This may include anything from buildings and trees to insects.

Because the FAA is primarily concerned with monitoring high altitude air traffic with transponders, their radar data processors are set to heavily filter the ground clutter so that it disappears. This leaves the picture clearer. In contrast NORAD is primarily concerned with monitoring infiltration of airspace by hostile aircraft that are not transmitting a transponder code, and may fly at low level to avoid detection. The threat of “stealth” technology also means that NORAD is looking for aircraft that may have a radar cross section far smaller than the physical size of the aircraft. NORAD’s area of responsibility is also over water, therefore there is less ground clutter to interfere with their surveillance. For these reasons NORAD radar data processors increase sensitivity and amplify ground clutter to ensure nothing escapes their scopes. The negative side effect of this is that it makes the landward side of their coverage so cluttered with noise that detecting a primary only radar return is impossible.

 

[progge]

gumboot, thanks for the correction. My claim that FAA (cheap shot) continuously provided lat/long updates to NEADS was wrong, should have been “position updates”. However, this

On the NEADS recordings, NORAD first requests lat-long at 08:39:21EDT. At approximately 08:40EDT Boston ARTCC gives an initial lat-long for AA11 of 41o15'N 73o45'W. This is a little under 40 miles from the WTC.
This is the only Lat-Long given for AA11.

is slightly inaccurate, too. There are two further lat/longs on the NEADS Tapes. At 8:46 EDT, Stacia Rountree receives another lat/long from Sharon Majeski (ZNY), which is 40-39'N 74-03'W. Furthermore, the lat/long 40-39'N 74-00'W is communicated as coming from ZBW during this time.
These seem to be post-crash data, CST based or so, since both of them are south of WTC, where AA 11 never was. Not surprising then that NEADS didn’t find it there.

At approximately 08:42EDT AA11 dropped below minimum radar altitude and was lost to the FAA's displays.

Can you give me a source on that? I doubt that early loss of AA 11 for two reasons. First, the lat/long updates cited above, from both ZBW and ZNY. Second, at 8:42 EDT AA 11 was flying at around 12,000 ft. (according to RADES), which AFAIK is nowhere near minimum radar altitude.

The answer to this is relatively easy to explain. I'll quote a passage from my own work on 9/11 as explanation:

Thanks for the explanation. So the problem that NORAD had bad interior radar coverage is completely another issue?

AJM8125, thx for the VF piece; TAM, thx for the links. I’m familiar with both.

 

[bio]

one answer could be, that (by chance ) one essential radar was offline.

A member of staff at NEADS apparently refers to the J53 radar being offline shortly after those on the NEADS operations floor learn of the Flight 11 hijacking (see (8:38 a.m.) September 11, 2001) and while they are trying to locate the hijacked aircraft. She mentions that NEADS technicians “still should be able to get it” (presumably referring to the plane’s radar track) “without 53.”
North American Aerospace Defense Command, 9/11/2001

 

[progge]

one answer could be, that (by chance ) one essential radar was offline.

A member of staff at NEADS apparently refers to the J53 radar being offline shortly after those on the NEADS operations floor learn of the Flight 11 hijacking (see (8:38 a.m.) September 11, 2001) and while they are trying to locate the hijacked aircraft. She mentions that NEADS technicians “still should be able to get it” (presumably referring to the plane’s radar track) “without 53.”
North American Aerospace Defense Command, 9/11/2001

[My bold] This may be possible, but it is untrue, as far as I can see.
We are told that J53 was operlapped.

J53 was scheduled to go down on the morning of9/11, according to Richmond. That particular radar is off Cape Cod and has a 250 mile range. Richmond commented that the radar went down during normal operations, but with "co-owned radars" that is something that is normal. Also, the radar is overlapped, so the need for radar to undergo routine maintenance is accounted for.

TSgt Jeffrey Richmond

Can we check this? Yes, at least partly. Here you´ll find the radar sites NORAD had access to in 1995. Don´t think this changed that much till 9/11.
The NEADS list:

J01 NAS Oceana VA 4 J
R51 Barrington NS 1 M
J50 The Plains VA 3 F
J51 Gibbsboro AFS NJ - J
J52 Riverhead NY 4 J
J53 North Truro AFS MA 4 J
J54 Bucks Harbor ME 4 J
J55 Remsen NY 4 J
J56 Dansville NY 3 F
G56 Sandborn/Lockport NY 6 M
J58 Empire MI 3 F
J60 Nashwauk MN 4 J
J61 Trevose PA 3 F
J62 Detroit/Canton MI/OH 3 J
G62 Alpena (CRTC) MI 6 M
G63 Plattsburg NY 6 M
G51 McGuire AFB NJ 6 M
ECRS Bangor ME ( in storage) 5 MC

J53 is in North Truro then.

And we have J52 in Riverhead, which is some 190 miles away.

Source for the pix.

Both these radar sites are ARSR-4 sites, implying they have a range of 200-250 miles. So they overlapped each other to a large extent.
But that´s not even the interesting point. Hold up the flight path of AA 11:

Source

At 12:37:49 UTC, seconds before NEADS was informed, AA 11 was at Lat 41.4914, Long -73.8249 (RADES data).
Check this position of AA 11. J52 is much closer to it (and all following ones) than J53 is. So J53 and J52 didn´t even have to overlapp each other. If J53 would have been able to track AA 11, J52 would have (or was) able to track AA 11, too.
And this should not at all surprise you, since your very own source tells the same:

She mentions that NEADS technicians “still should be able to get it” (presumably referring to the plane’s radar track) “without 53.”

 

[Cheap Shot]

Reply

Again this is false.

On the NEADS recordings, NORAD first requests lat-long at 08:39:21EDT. At approximately 08:40EDT Boston ARTCC gives an initial lat-long for AA11 of 41^o15'N 73^o45'W. This is a little under 40 miles from the WTC.

This is the only Lat-Long given for AA11. This became the "Z-point" that the fighters were originally scrambled for. The intention was to cross-check every target within range of that position.

I actually issued three Lat/longs to NEADS, and possibly 4 to 6 updates via AL FRD or JFK FRD.

Not all of my calls were recorded, probably only half of the calls I made. I used 4 different numbers that day for NEADS, my guess is two were recorded and two were not.

 

[Cheap Shot]

Ground Clutter

You can pretty much attribute there ability to not see AAL 11 due to ground clutter. The FAA can filter ground clutter it is done automatically with something called MTI, (moving target indicater), it bassically tracks the history of all primary targets and if the ground clutter doesn't move by at least 20 Knots the FAA filters it. That's not how it exactly works but close enough for government work. Also above when I mentioned FRD, that stands for Fix/Radial/Distance, also it should have said ALB (Albany) not AL.

 

[bio]

You can pretty much attribute there ability to not see AAL 11 due to ground clutter. The FAA can filter ground clutter it is done automatically with something called MTI, (moving target indicater), it bassically tracks the history of all primary targets and if the ground clutter doesn't move by at least 20 Knots the FAA filters it. That's not how it exactly works but close enough for government work. Also above when I mentioned FRD, that stands for Fix/Radial/Distance, also it should have said ALB (Albany) not AL.

came this problem between FAA and NEADS up before 911, too?

 

[bio]

[My bold] This may be possible, but it is untrue, as far as I can see.
We are told that J53 was operlapped.

TSgt Jeffrey Richmond

Can we check this? Yes, at least partly. Here you´ll find the radar sites NORAD had access to in 1995. Don´t think this changed that much till 9/11.
The NEADS list:


J53 is in North Truro then.
[qimg]http://pix.epodunk.com/locatorMaps/ma/MA_3068.gif[/qimg]

And we have J52 in Riverhead, which is some 190 miles away.
[qimg]http://pix.epodunk.com/locatorMaps/ny/NY_1536.gif[/qimg]

Source for the pix.

Both these radar sites are ARSR-4 sites, implying they have a range of 200-250 miles. So they overlapped each other to a large extent.
But that´s not even the interesting point. Hold up the flight path of AA 11:
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/911_commission_AA11_path.png/280px-911_commission_AA11_path.png[/qimg]
Source

At 12:37:49 UTC, seconds before NEADS was informed, AA 11 was at Lat 41.4914, Long -73.8249 (RADES data).
Check this position of AA 11. J52 is much closer to it (and all following ones) than J53 is. So J53 and J52 didn´t even have to overlapp each other. If J53 would have been able to track AA 11, J52 would have (or was) able to track AA 11, too.
And this should not at all surprise you, since your very own source tells the same:

...then why tried NEADS to find AA 11 with J53?
It seems, that J53 was activated quickly on 9/11...

ID technician Shelley Watson will later recall that the NEADS ID desk uses the J53 radar as a point from which it attempts to locate Flight 11. At some time during the morning, Richmond insists that J53 be put back online at some capacity. Whether this happens is unstated.
9/11 Commission, 10/27/2003 pdf file; 9/11 Commission, 10/27/2003

 

[beachnut]

came this problem between FAA and NEADS up before 911, too?

Why would this be a problem? He explained why Flight 11 would be hard to pick out; ground clutter on the RADAR. What is your point? Can you expand on your question with respect to 911 and what your point is?

 

[bio]

Why would this be a problem? He explained why Flight 11 would be hard to pick out; ground clutter on the RADAR. What is your point? Can you expand on your question with respect to 911 and what your point is?

It is hard to imagine, that the radar of the US-air defense could "see" less due to ground clutter than the radar of the FAA. Therefore NEADS could not find the hijacked airplane over New York, in contrast to the FAA?

Sound weird.

 

[Reheat]

It is hard to imagine, that the radar of the US-air defense could "see" less due to ground clutter than the radar of the FAA. Therefore NEADS could not find the hijacked airplane over New York, in contrast to the FAA?

Sound weird.

That's because you know nothing about the subject matter!

NORAD radars were optimized to see ALL traffic in the ADIZ, not necessarily over the continental land mass. The ADIZ was where their primary responsible was pre-9/11. On the other hand the FAA was/is responsible for controlling traffic for the most part with secondary radar (transponder return). The FAA's radar, however, does not necessarily need to see low flying aircraft in the ADIZ, NEADs does.

If your knowledge came from other than dumb ass truther rhetoric you perhaps would have already been able to figure this out as opposed to imagining some stupid conspiracy theory.

Radars undergo routine maintenance all of the time. There is nothing strange or unusual about it.

Cheap Shot has already explained it. I'm just saying it differently in futile hope that you might want to learn something.

 

[bio]

That's because you know nothing about the subject matter!

NORAD radars were optimized to see ALL traffic in the ADIZ, not necessarily over the continental land mass. The ADIZ was where their primary responsible was pre-9/11. On the other hand the FAA was/is responsible for controlling traffic for the most part with secondary radar (transponder return). The FAA's radar, however, does not necessarily need to see low flying aircraft in the ADIZ, NEADs does.

If your knowledge came from other than dumb ass truther rhetoric you perhaps would have already been able to figure this out as opposed to imagining some stupid conspiracy theory.

Radars undergo routine maintenance all of the time. There is nothing strange or unusual about it.

Cheap Shot has already explained it. I'm just saying it differently in futile hope that you might want to learn something.

...but, this would had been a mayor problem, and the thread of flying hijacked planes into buildings was known long before 911! Therefore there were NORAD exercises concerning hijacked planes, even (by chance ) on 911!
If this problem had been a problem, then it would have limited the abilities of NORAD to protect the homeland. There are many possibilities, where NORAD had to say: "Oh sorry, the enemy plane is now over the continental land mass, we cannot see it anymore." This first plane was relatively near at New York - You guys cannot say, that it was "normal", that NEADS radar could not find this one.

 

[gumboot]

There are two further lat/longs on the NEADS Tapes. At 8:46 EDT, Stacia Rountree receives another lat/long from Sharon Majeski (ZNY), which is 40-39'N 74-03'W. Furthermore, the lat/long 40-39'N 74-00'W is communicated as coming from ZBW during this time.
These seem to be post-crash data, CST based or so, since both of them are south of WTC, where AA 11 never was. Not surprising then that NEADS didn’t find it there.

Given that they're post-crash and in a location AA11 never was, they obviously weren't AA11... Although Cheapshot has said he gave other positions not recorded on the NEADS tapes.

Can you give me a source on that? I doubt that early loss of AA 11 for two reasons. First, the lat/long updates cited above, from both ZBW and ZNY.

As you said, both post crash, and both in locations AA11 never flew, so both clearly irrelevant to radar data. I am guessing they might have come from the AA11A TSD track, which isn't derived from radar.

Second, at 8:42 EDT AA 11 was flying at around 12,000 ft. (according to RADES), which AFAIK is nowhere near minimum radar altitude.[/QUOTE

Minimum radar altitude varies quite considerably depending on the terrain and how far you are from the radar - the further you are away, the higher the minimum radar altitude is due to the curvature of the earth. Having said that, the FAA filter their radar for ground clutter which would artificially raise the minimum altitude (in other words once AA11 descended into the ground clutter it would be filtered out).

Thanks for the explanation. So the problem that NORAD had bad interior radar coverage is completely another issue?

It's not really about bad interior radar coverage. The coverage was fine along the edge of the coast, but the way the filtering was set up the radar signal is very busy, so finding anything is impossible. Of course NORAD's goal is to find stuff coming from the outside before it gets lost in that clutter.

 

[gumboot]

...but, this would had been a mayor problem

Why?

and the thread of flying hijacked planes into buildings was known long before 911!

Prior to 9/11 no one considered it a credible threat.

Therefore there were NORAD exercises concerning hijacked planes, even (by chance ) on 911!

The hijacking exercise scheduled for 9/11 did not involve any suicidal building ramming, and the flight was going to originate outside the USA so NORAD radars would have no trouble picking it up well in advance, even if its transponder was going to be turned off (which it wasn't).

If this problem had been a problem, then it would have limited the abilities of NORAD to protect the homeland.

How?

There are many possibilities, where NORAD had to say: "Oh sorry, the enemy plane is now over the continental land mass, we cannot see it anymore." This first plane was relatively near at New York - You guys cannot say, that it was "normal", that NEADS radar could not find this one.

If the enemy plane has managed to get through the ADIZ and make it overhead major US cities NORAD has already well and truly failed. Given that NORAD's primary responsibility is to prevent an airborne nuclear attack on the USA, and given the range of air-launched nuclear ASMs, if the enemy aircraft even made it as far as the inside of the ADIZ it would probably be a concern.

 

[bio]

1 Prior to 9/11 no one considered it a credible threat.

2 The hijacking exercise scheduled for 9/11 did not involve any suicidal building ramming, and the flight was going to originate outside the USA so NORAD radars would have no trouble picking it up well in advance, even if its transponder was going to be turned off (which it wasn't).


3 If the enemy plane has managed to get through the ADIZ and make it overhead major US cities NORAD has already well and truly failed. Given that NORAD's primary responsibility is to prevent an airborne nuclear attack on the USA, and given the range of air-launched nuclear ASMs, if the enemy aircraft even made it as far as the inside of the ADIZ it would probably be a concern.

to your statement 1

it was not considered a credible threat (according to you), but for NORAD it was was so credible, to practice it before 911.

"At unspecified times during the two years prior to September 11, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD, the military organization responsible for defending U.S. airspace) conducted training exercises that simulated hijacked aircraft being deliberately crashed into targets so as to cause mass casualties."

statement 2

There were hijacking exercises, which originated inside the US, too.

Summer 2001: FAA Participates in Exercise Based around Hijacking of a Boeing 767
The FAA takes part in a training exercise based around the hijacking of a Boeing 767, the same kind of aircraft as those that hit the Twin Towers on 9/11. The exercise is conducted as part of efforts to update the strategy for dealing with hijackings. Its participants include the FAA, the FBI’s Miami field office, Miami-Dade County Police Department, a SWAT team, and Varig Airlines, and it utilizes a 767. Further details are unknown, but the hijacking exercise presumably takes place somewhere in the Miami area of Florida.
9/11 Commission, 9/15/2003, pp. 6 pdf file

Statement 3

NORAD were just able to track planes from outside, but to drug smuggling aircrafts. How was NORAD able to track these aircrafts? If it was a problem, why it was not solved?

"Overall, during the past 4 years, NORAD's alert fighters took off to intercept aircraft 1,518 times, or an average of 15 times per site per year. Of these incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged one per site, or less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites' total activity. The remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress."

 

[aggle-rithm]

.

"At unspecified times during the two years prior to September 11, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD, the military organization responsible for defending U.S. airspace) conducted training exercises that simulated hijacked aircraft being deliberately crashed into targets so as to cause mass casualties."

Source?