Confirmed: 9/11 Planes Were Tracked even With Transponders Turned Off

G

George Orwell

Guest
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/confirmed-911-planes-were-tracked-even.html

One of the most important parts of the official story is that the government couldn't track the location of the hijacked planes because the hijackers had turned the transponders off. The official version is that, with transponders turned off, only "primary radar" was available to civilian air traffic controllers. Primary radar can track location, but not altitude.

This makes no sense, because America's air defenses need to protect our nation against foreign fighter jets and other airplanes invading our country. Is our trillion-dollar defense system set up so that a Russian or Chinese pilot can invade undetected if he just turns off his transponder? Darn! Why didn't we think of that?!

Primary radar is a red herring.

Why?

Because the military possesses highly sensitive radar. For example, "military radar can track space debris as small as 10 centimetres across" miles up in space.

AWACS Should Have Tracked Planes

Airplanes known as AWACS have incredibly sensitive doppler radar that can detect any moving object. As an Army website states:

"Although Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AWACS) airborne radar can detect practically any moving object, aircraft radar operators routinely screen out objects moving slower than 85 miles per hour to avoid tracking motor vehicles."

There was, in fact, at least one AWACS near Washington, D.C. on the morning of 9/11 participating in a war game exercise. The pilot learned of the attacks soon after the first hit on the World Trade Center. While, at first he thought it was part of the war game exercise, "it didn't take him long to realize it was real."

The military should have had the pilot track all planes moving in and around the White House-Pentagon corridor. That would have been standard military protocol: to protect the command and control structure of the U.S. government and military.

The Pentagon-White House Corridor Is Highly-Monitored

Even if AWACS pilots were not instructed to monitor the area, the Pentagon and White House are two of the most heavily-defended buildings in the world. They are only 2 miles apart, and the entire area is protected air space (because the area is home to the seat of power of the commander in chief and the military) and - because there have been numerous incidents of planes approaching the White House - it is entirely certain that the whole area is covered by very sophisticated military radar.

And keep in mind that installing military radar on the ground is much easier and less expensive than mounting it in a moving airplane.

Andrews Air Force Base is only 10 miles from the Pentagon, and has doppler radar even for public weather monitoring (if the base has doppler for something as mundane as weather monitoring, doesn't it make sense that the air force base closest to the Pentagon and White House would have sophisticated radar to protect the White House and Pentagon? Or do they just monitor the weather?)

The Pentagon itself also has access to the highly sophisticated PAVE PAWS radar which is capable of monitoring many planes or missiles simultaneously.

Indeed, this CBS news article implies that military radar actually was tracking Flight 77 as it approached the Pentagon. And Dick Cheney -- sitting in a military command bunker underneath the White House-- monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon (confirmed here).

The Other Planes

While I have focused on Flight 77 and the area surrounding the Pentagon, this diagram shows that all of the hijacked planes flew over numerous military bases on 9/11 before crashing. Those military bases undoubtedly possess highly-sophisticated radar as well.

In addition, the is strong evidence that the planes were being tracked. For example, an ABC News article states:

"Controllers at the Boston Center knew American Airlines Flight 11, which departed at 7:59 a.m. ET from Boston for its flight to Los Angeles, was hijacked 30 minutes before it crashed. They tracked it to New York on their radar scopes. 'I watched the target of American 11 the whole way down,' said Boston controller Mark Hodgkins. "

Similarly, air traffic controllers and others tracked Flight 175.

Confirmed

All of the above-described information confirms the statement by a former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand", and who handled two actual hijackings, that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview).


Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
 
What does this have to do with American Idol? Hell what does this have to do
with Sanity?

"George Orwell" <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in message
news:e7a363d1ef648441adcb7f2119ffb7f5@mixmaster.it...
> http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/confirmed-911-planes-were-tracked-even.html
>
> One of the most important parts of the official story is that the
> government couldn't track the location of the hijacked planes because the
> hijackers had turned the transponders off. The official version is that,
> with transponders turned off, only "primary radar" was available to
> civilian air traffic controllers. Primary radar can track location, but
> not altitude.
>
> This makes no sense, because America's air defenses need to protect our
> nation against foreign fighter jets and other airplanes invading our
> country. Is our trillion-dollar defense system set up so that a Russian or
> Chinese pilot can invade undetected if he just turns off his transponder?
> Darn! Why didn't we think of that?!
>
> Primary radar is a red herring.
>
> Why?
>
> Because the military possesses highly sensitive radar. For example,
> "military radar can track space debris as small as 10 centimetres across"
> miles up in space.
>
> AWACS Should Have Tracked Planes
>
> Airplanes known as AWACS have incredibly sensitive doppler radar that can
> detect any moving object. As an Army website states:
>
> "Although Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AWACS) airborne
> radar can detect practically any moving object, aircraft radar operators
> routinely screen out objects moving slower than 85 miles per hour to avoid
> tracking motor vehicles."
>
> There was, in fact, at least one AWACS near Washington, D.C. on the
> morning of 9/11 participating in a war game exercise. The pilot learned of
> the attacks soon after the first hit on the World Trade Center. While, at
> first he thought it was part of the war game exercise, "it didn't take him
> long to realize it was real."
>
> The military should have had the pilot track all planes moving in and
> around the White House-Pentagon corridor. That would have been standard
> military protocol: to protect the command and control structure of the
> U.S. government and military.
>
> The Pentagon-White House Corridor Is Highly-Monitored
>
> Even if AWACS pilots were not instructed to monitor the area, the Pentagon
> and White House are two of the most heavily-defended buildings in the
> world. They are only 2 miles apart, and the entire area is protected air
> space (because the area is home to the seat of power of the commander in
> chief and the military) and - because there have been numerous incidents
> of planes approaching the White House - it is entirely certain that the
> whole area is covered by very sophisticated military radar.
>
> And keep in mind that installing military radar on the ground is much
> easier and less expensive than mounting it in a moving airplane.
>
> Andrews Air Force Base is only 10 miles from the Pentagon, and has doppler
> radar even for public weather monitoring (if the base has doppler for
> something as mundane as weather monitoring, doesn't it make sense that the
> air force base closest to the Pentagon and White House would have
> sophisticated radar to protect the White House and Pentagon? Or do they
> just monitor the weather?)
>
> The Pentagon itself also has access to the highly sophisticated PAVE PAWS
> radar which is capable of monitoring many planes or missiles
> simultaneously.
>
> Indeed, this CBS news article implies that military radar actually was
> tracking Flight 77 as it approached the Pentagon. And Dick Cheney --
> sitting in a military command bunker underneath the White House--
> monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon
> (confirmed here).
>
> The Other Planes
>
> While I have focused on Flight 77 and the area surrounding the Pentagon,
> this diagram shows that all of the hijacked planes flew over numerous
> military bases on 9/11 before crashing. Those military bases undoubtedly
> possess highly-sophisticated radar as well.
>
> In addition, the is strong evidence that the planes were being tracked.
> For example, an ABC News article states:
>
> "Controllers at the Boston Center knew American Airlines Flight 11,
> which departed at 7:59 a.m. ET from Boston for its flight to Los Angeles,
> was hijacked 30 minutes before it crashed. They tracked it to New York on
> their radar scopes. 'I watched the target of American 11 the whole way
> down,' said Boston controller Mark Hodgkins. "
>
> Similarly, air traffic controllers and others tracked Flight 175.
>
> Confirmed
>
> All of the above-described information confirms the statement by a former
> air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes
> which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand", and who handled
> two actual hijackings, that planes can be tracked on radar even when their
> transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview).
>
>
> Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
> non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
> reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
> di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
> Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
> https://www.mixmaster.it
>
 
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 07:45:01 +0100 (CET), George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it>
wrote:

>http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/confirmed-911-planes-were-tracked-even.html
>
>One of the most important parts of the official story is that the government


No. Air traffic control, the organisation who's job it is to track commercial
aircraft.

>couldn't track the location of the hijacked planes because the hijackers had turned the transponders off. The official version is that, with transponders turned off, only "primary radar" was available to civilian air traffic controllers. Primary radar can track location, but not altitude.


Ok.

>This makes no sense, because America's air defenses need to protect our nation against foreign fighter jets and other airplanes invading our country.


Invading our country? From outside? Invading? Right.

>Is our trillion-dollar defense system set up so that a Russian or Chinese pilot can invade undetected if he just turns off his transponder? Darn! Why didn't we think of that?!


Is a Russian or Chinese pilot going to be stealing a commercial airliner at a
civilian airfield?

>Primary radar is a red herring.
>
>Why?
>
>Because the military possesses highly sensitive radar. For example, "military radar can track space debris as small as 10 centimetres across" miles up in space.


You have no idea of the concepts of scanning and tracking, do you?

>AWACS Should Have Tracked Planes


Should? Ok. With what we know now maybe they should.

How many AWACs aircraft were airborne over the east coast of the continental USA
on September 11 2001 at around 9am? How many of these were alerted to hijacked
aircraft? How many were asked to try and locate them? How many aircraft, of any
type, are flying above the continental USA without transponders at any one time?

>Airplanes known as AWACS have incredibly sensitive doppler radar that can detect any moving object. As an Army website states:
>
> "Although Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AWACS) airborne radar can detect practically any moving object, aircraft radar operators routinely screen out objects moving slower than 85 miles per hour to avoid tracking motor vehicles."
>
>There was, in fact, at least one AWACS near Washington, D.C. on the morning of 9/11 participating in a war game exercise. The pilot learned of the attacks soon after the first hit on the World Trade Center. While, at first he thought it was part of the war game exercise, "it didn't take him long to realize it was real."
>
>The military should have had the pilot track all planes moving in and around the White House-Pentagon corridor. That would have been standard military protocol: to protect the command and control structure of the U.S. government and military.


Would have been? So you are guessing?

>The Pentagon-White House Corridor Is Highly-Monitored


Bullshit.

>Even if AWACS pilots were not instructed to monitor the area, the Pentagon and White House are two of the most heavily-defended buildings in the world.


Unmitigated bullshit.

>They are only 2 miles apart, and the entire area is protected air space (because the area is home to the seat of power of the commander in chief and the military)


More bullshit.

>and - because there have been numerous incidents of planes approaching the White House - it is entirely certain that the whole area is covered by very sophisticated military radar.


Entirely certain? More guesses?

>And keep in mind that installing military radar on the ground is much easier and less expensive than mounting it in a moving airplane.


You have no idea, do you?

>Andrews Air Force Base is only 10 miles from the Pentagon, and has doppler radar even for public weather monitoring (if the base has doppler for something as mundane as weather monitoring, doesn't it make sense that the air force base closest to the Pentagon and White House would have sophisticated radar to protect the White House and Pentagon? Or do they just monitor the weather?)


No. You have absolutely no idea.

>The Pentagon itself also has access to the highly sophisticated PAVE PAWS radar which is capable of monitoring many planes or missiles simultaneously.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NuclearWarningSystemMap.png

Notice the big hole in the coverage?

"The radar, developed by Raytheon, is used primarily to detect and track
sea-launched (SLBM) and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

The system also has a secondary mission of Earth-orbiting satellite detection
and tracking."


>Indeed, this CBS news article implies


Implies? Oh well! That bit of "evidence" has confirmed it for me. How could
anyone question an implied "fact"

>that military radar actually was tracking Flight 77 as it approached the Pentagon. And Dick Cheney -- sitting in a military command bunker underneath the White House-- monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon (confirmed here).
>
>The Other Planes
>
>While I have focused on Flight 77 and the area surrounding the Pentagon, this diagram shows that all of the hijacked planes flew over numerous military bases on 9/11 before crashing. Those military bases undoubtedly possess highly-sophisticated radar as well.


Undoubtedly? Another wild arsed guess.

>In addition, the is strong evidence that the planes were being tracked. For example, an ABC News article states:
>
> "Controllers at the Boston Center knew American Airlines Flight 11, which departed at 7:59 a.m. ET from Boston for its flight to Los Angeles, was hijacked 30 minutes before it crashed. They tracked it to New York on their radar scopes. 'I watched the target of American 11 the whole way down,' said Boston controller Mark Hodgkins. "


And this proves that the military were tracking it...how?

>Similarly, air traffic controllers and others tracked Flight 175.
>
>Confirmed


Confirmed by...? What?

>All of the above-described information confirms the statement by a former air traffic controller,


An unnamed controller? Wow. Thanks for that "evidence".

>who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand", and who handled two actual hijackings, that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview).


But you have no idea how this is done, or the problems involved, do you? To you
this seems to be the easiest thing in the world to do. Because you've seen it
done in James Bond movies. Get a clue!

Shill #2
--
Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance
to those of us who do.
Isaac Asimov
 
In article <qpvru3h342kca7lhsfnqv5j5f3f6brbqpt@4ax.com>
Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 07:45:01 +0100 (CET), George Orwell <nob...@mixmaster.it>
> wrote:
>
> >http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/confirmed-911-planes-were-tracked-even.html
> >
> >One of the most important parts of the official story is that the government

>
> No. Air traffic control, the organisation who's job it is to track commercial
> aircraft.
>
> >couldn't track the location of the hijacked planes because the hijackers had turned the transponders off. The official version is that, with transponders turned off, only "primary radar" was available to civilian air traffic controllers. Primary radar can track location, but not altitude.

>
> Ok.
>
> >This makes no sense, because America's air defenses need to protect our nation against foreign fighter jets and other airplanes invading our country.

>
> Invading our country? From outside? Invading? Right.
>
> >Is our trillion-dollar defense system set up so that a Russian or Chinese pilot can invade undetected if he just turns off his transponder? Darn! Why didn't we think of that?!

>
> Is a Russian or Chinese pilot going to be stealing a commercial airliner at a
> civilian airfield?
>
> >Primary radar is a red herring.
> >
> >Why?
> >
> >Because the military possesses highly sensitive radar. For example, "military radar can track space debris as small as 10 centimetres across" miles up in space.

>
> You have no idea of the concepts of scanning and tracking, do you?
>
> >AWACS Should Have Tracked Planes

>
> Should? Ok. With what we know now maybe they should.
>
> How many AWACs aircraft were airborne over the east coast of the continental USA
> on September 11 2001 at around 9am? How many of these were alerted to hijacked
> aircraft? How many were asked to try and locate them? How many aircraft, of any
> type, are flying above the continental USA without transponders at any one time?
>
> >Airplanes known as AWACS have incredibly sensitive doppler radar that can detect any moving object. As an Army website states:
> >
> > "Although Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AWACS) airborne radar can detect practically any moving object, aircraft radar operators routinely screen out objects moving slower than 85 miles per hour to avoid tracking motor vehicles."
> >
> >There was, in fact, at least one AWACS near Washington, D.C. on the morning of 9/11 participating in a war game exercise. The pilot learned of the attacks soon after the first hit on the World Trade Center. While, at first he thought it was part of the war game exercise, "it didn't take him long to realize it was real."
> >
> >The military should have had the pilot track all planes moving in and around the White House-Pentagon corridor. That would have been standard military protocol: to protect the command and control structure of the U.S. government and military.

>
> Would have been? So you are guessing?
>
> >The Pentagon-White House Corridor Is Highly-Monitored

>
> Bullshit.
>
> >Even if AWACS pilots were not instructed to monitor the area, the Pentagon and White House are two of the most heavily-defended buildings in the world.

>
> Unmitigated bullshit.
>
> >They are only 2 miles apart, and the entire area is protected air space (because the area is home to the seat of power of the commander in chief and the military)

>
> More bullshit.
>
> >and - because there have been numerous incidents of planes approaching the White House - it is entirely certain that the whole area is covered by very sophisticated military radar.

>
> Entirely certain? More guesses?
>
> >And keep in mind that installing military radar on the ground is much easier and less expensive than mounting it in a moving airplane.

>
> You have no idea, do you?
>
> >Andrews Air Force Base is only 10 miles from the Pentagon, and has doppler radar even for public weather monitoring (if the base has doppler for something as mundane as weather monitoring, doesn't it make sense that the air force base closest to the Pentagon and White House would have sophisticated radar to protect the White House and Pentagon? Or do they just monitor the weather?)

>
> No. You have absolutely no idea.
>
> >The Pentagon itself also has access to the highly sophisticated PAVE PAWS radar which is capable of monitoring many planes or missiles simultaneously.

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NuclearWarningSystemMap.png
>
> Notice the big hole in the coverage?
>
> "The radar, developed by Raytheon, is used primarily to detect and track
> sea-launched (SLBM) and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
>
> The system also has a secondary mission of Earth-orbiting satellite detection
> and tracking."
>
>
> >Indeed, this CBS news article implies

>
> Implies? Oh well! That bit of "evidence" has confirmed it for me. How could
> anyone question an implied "fact"
>
> >that military radar actually was tracking Flight 77 as it approached the Pentagon. And Dick Cheney -- sitting in a military command bunker underneath the White House-- monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon (confirmed here).
> >
> >The Other Planes
> >
> >While I have focused on Flight 77 and the area surrounding the Pentagon, this diagram shows that all of the hijacked planes flew over numerous military bases on 9/11 before crashing. Those military bases undoubtedly possess highly-sophisticated radar as well.

>
> Undoubtedly? Another wild arsed guess.
>
> >In addition, the is strong evidence that the planes were being tracked. For example, an ABC News article states:
> >
> > "Controllers at the Boston Center knew American Airlines Flight 11, which departed at 7:59 a.m. ET from Boston for its flight to Los Angeles, was hijacked 30 minutes before it crashed. They tracked it to New York on their radar scopes. 'I watched the target of American 11 the whole way down,' said Boston controller Mark Hodgkins. "

>
> And this proves that the military were tracking it...how?
>
> >Similarly, air traffic controllers and others tracked Flight 175.
> >
> >Confirmed

>
> Confirmed by...? What?
>
> >All of the above-described information confirms the statement by a former air traffic controller,

>
> An unnamed controller? Wow. Thanks for that "evidence".
>
> >who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand", and who handled two actual hijackings, that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview).

>
> But you have no idea how this is done, or the problems involved, do you? To you
> this seems to be the easiest thing in the world to do. Because you've seen it
> done in James Bond movies. Get a clue!
>
> Shill #2
> --
> Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance
> to those of us who do.
> Isaac Asimov


I knew I would catch a kooky shill when I set my bait. And you fell for it hook ... line ... and sinker, kook.

Hey, kook, I bet you didn't know that Darleen Druyun had three AWACS planes in the air on September 11th. But kook
did you know that the US has a fleet of four AWACS total? Why would three of the only four US owned AWACS planes
be used on 9/11? Answer: They were used because of Global Guardian '01 i.e. 9/11.

You know, I could inundate this newsgroup with 9/11 **** and you have no choice but to respond ... because you are a kooky
shill paid to "debunk" 9/11. And if you aren't doing your "debunking" properly, you will be replaced with someone
who is more competent. Wouldn't that suck? Yes, it would definitely suck for you but I would find it totally hilarious.


Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
 
Government Shill #2 wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 07:45:01 +0100 (CET), George Orwell
> <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>
>>http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/confirmed-911-planes-were-tracked-even.html
>>
>>One of the most important parts of the official story is that the
>>government

>
> No. Air traffic control, the organisation who's job it is to track
> commercial aircraft.


Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)

http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showPerson.php?id=6819&name=Federal-Aviation-Administration-(FAA)

http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showPerson.php?id=6837


> Invading our country? From outside? Invading? Right.


Do you ever think about the nonsense you post?


> Is a Russian or Chinese pilot going to be stealing a commercial airliner
> at a civilian airfield?


Only if they've coordinated it with Cheney and made sure he was in the
bunker.

Have a look at what happened in Red Dawn.

> You have no idea of the concepts of scanning and tracking, do you?


I have a pretty good idea of how this stuff works. I'm a distinguished
honor graduate of the US Army Hawk Missile electronics school. That's
primarily dealing with Radar of various types. Mostly Pulse acquisition
(first time though the school) and illumination radar (second time
through).


>>AWACS Should Have Tracked Planes

>
> Should? Ok. With what we know now maybe they should.
>
> How many AWACs aircraft were airborne over the east coast of the
> continental USA on September 11 2001 at around 9am? How many of these were
> alerted to hijacked aircraft? How many were asked to try and locate them?
> How many aircraft, of any type, are flying above the continental USA
> without transponders at any one time?


http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showPerson.php?id=6822&name=Monte-R-Belger



--
However much I may worship personality-powerful individual personality in
statesmen, inventors, artists, philosophers, or leaders, as well as the
collective personality of a historic group of human beings, which we call a
nation--however much I may worship personality, I do not regret its
disappearance. Whoever can, will, and must perish, let him perish. But the
distinctive nationality of Jews neither can, will, nor must be destroyed ~
Theodor Herzl, Father of Political Zionism
 
In article <qpvru3h342kca7lhsfnqv5j5f3f6brbqpt@4ax.com>
Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 07:45:01 +0100 (CET), George Orwell <nob...@mixmaster.it>
> wrote:
>
> >http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/confirmed-911-planes-were-tracked-even.html
> >
> >One of the most important parts of the official story is that the government

>
> No. Air traffic control, the organisation who's job it is to track commercial
> aircraft.
>
> >couldn't track the location of the hijacked planes because the hijackers had turned the transponders off. The official version is that, with transponders turned off, only "primary radar" was available to civilian air traffic controllers. Primary radar can track location, but not altitude.

>
> Ok.
>
> >This makes no sense, because America's air defenses need to protect our nation against foreign fighter jets and other airplanes invading our country.

>
> Invading our country? From outside? Invading? Right.
>
> >Is our trillion-dollar defense system set up so that a Russian or Chinese pilot can invade undetected if he just turns off his transponder? Darn! Why didn't we think of that?!

>
> Is a Russian or Chinese pilot going to be stealing a commercial airliner at a
> civilian airfield?
>
> >Primary radar is a red herring.
> >
> >Why?
> >
> >Because the military possesses highly sensitive radar. For example, "military radar can track space debris as small as 10 centimetres across" miles up in space.

>
> You have no idea of the concepts of scanning and tracking, do you?
>
> >AWACS Should Have Tracked Planes

>
> Should? Ok. With what we know now maybe they should.
>
> How many AWACs aircraft were airborne over the east coast of the continental USA
> on September 11 2001 at around 9am? How many of these were alerted to hijacked
> aircraft? How many were asked to try and locate them? How many aircraft, of any
> type, are flying above the continental USA without transponders at any one time?
>
> >Airplanes known as AWACS have incredibly sensitive doppler radar that can detect any moving object. As an Army website states:
> >
> > "Although Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AWACS) airborne radar can detect practically any moving object, aircraft radar operators routinely screen out objects moving slower than 85 miles per hour to avoid tracking motor vehicles."
> >
> >There was, in fact, at least one AWACS near Washington, D.C. on the morning of 9/11 participating in a war game exercise. The pilot learned of the attacks soon after the first hit on the World Trade Center. While, at first he thought it was part of the war game exercise, "it didn't take him long to realize it was real."
> >
> >The military should have had the pilot track all planes moving in and around the White House-Pentagon corridor. That would have been standard military protocol: to protect the command and control structure of the U.S. government and military.

>
> Would have been? So you are guessing?
>
> >The Pentagon-White House Corridor Is Highly-Monitored

>
> Bullshit.
>
> >Even if AWACS pilots were not instructed to monitor the area, the Pentagon and White House are two of the most heavily-defended buildings in the world.

>
> Unmitigated bullshit.
>
> >They are only 2 miles apart, and the entire area is protected air space (because the area is home to the seat of power of the commander in chief and the military)

>
> More bullshit.
>
> >and - because there have been numerous incidents of planes approaching the White House - it is entirely certain that the whole area is covered by very sophisticated military radar.

>
> Entirely certain? More guesses?
>
> >And keep in mind that installing military radar on the ground is much easier and less expensive than mounting it in a moving airplane.

>
> You have no idea, do you?
>
> >Andrews Air Force Base is only 10 miles from the Pentagon, and has doppler radar even for public weather monitoring (if the base has doppler for something as mundane as weather monitoring, doesn't it make sense that the air force base closest to the Pentagon and White House would have sophisticated radar to protect the White House and Pentagon? Or do they just monitor the weather?)

>
> No. You have absolutely no idea.
>
> >The Pentagon itself also has access to the highly sophisticated PAVE PAWS radar which is capable of monitoring many planes or missiles simultaneously.

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NuclearWarningSystemMap.png
>
> Notice the big hole in the coverage?
>
> "The radar, developed by Raytheon, is used primarily to detect and track
> sea-launched (SLBM) and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
>
> The system also has a secondary mission of Earth-orbiting satellite detection
> and tracking."
>
>
> >Indeed, this CBS news article implies

>
> Implies? Oh well! That bit of "evidence" has confirmed it for me. How could
> anyone question an implied "fact"
>
> >that military radar actually was tracking Flight 77 as it approached the Pentagon. And Dick Cheney -- sitting in a military command bunker underneath the White House-- monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon (confirmed here).
> >
> >The Other Planes
> >
> >While I have focused on Flight 77 and the area surrounding the Pentagon, this diagram shows that all of the hijacked planes flew over numerous military bases on 9/11 before crashing. Those military bases undoubtedly possess highly-sophisticated radar as well.

>
> Undoubtedly? Another wild arsed guess.
>
> >In addition, the is strong evidence that the planes were being tracked. For example, an ABC News article states:
> >
> > "Controllers at the Boston Center knew American Airlines Flight 11, which departed at 7:59 a.m. ET from Boston for its flight to Los Angeles, was hijacked 30 minutes before it crashed. They tracked it to New York on their radar scopes. 'I watched the target of American 11 the whole way down,' said Boston controller Mark Hodgkins. "

>
> And this proves that the military were tracking it...how?
>
> >Similarly, air traffic controllers and others tracked Flight 175.
> >
> >Confirmed

>
> Confirmed by...? What?
>
> >All of the above-described information confirms the statement by a former air traffic controller,

>
> An unnamed controller? Wow. Thanks for that "evidence".
>
> >who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand", and who handled two actual hijackings, that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview).

>
> But you have no idea how this is done, or the problems involved, do you? To you
> this seems to be the easiest thing in the world to do. Because you've seen it
> done in James Bond movies. Get a clue!
>
> Shill #2
> --
> Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance
> to those of us who do.
> Isaac Asimov



Actually, I "thank you" from the bottom of my heart for replying because now I know your motivation helping cover up
9/11. You are in Switzerland. Near Zug perhaps? Where KPMG's offices are? How's Marc Rich doing? Did you know
the money trail leads to KPMG and Zug, Switzerland where the RICO operates, kook? What, you never thought this info
would ever become public, kook?


Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
 
George Orwell wrote:

>

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/confirmed-911-planes-were-tracked-even.html
>
> The Pentagon-White House Corridor Is Highly-Monitored
>
> Even if AWACS pilots were not instructed to monitor the area, the Pentagon
> and White House are two of the most heavily-defended buildings in the
> world. They are only 2 miles apart, and the entire area is protected air
> space (because the area is home to the seat of power of the commander in
> chief and the military) and - because there have been numerous incidents
> of planes approaching the White House - it is entirely certain that the
> whole area is covered by very sophisticated military radar.


Yack, yack, yack. ...

9/11 was an inside job! Stop BSing around with the obvious technical
details and start point to the crooks who done it, Bauer von der
J
 
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 11:05:08 +0100 (CET), George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it>
wrote:

>In article <qpvru3h342kca7lhsfnqv5j5f3f6brbqpt@4ax.com>
>Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 07:45:01 +0100 (CET), George Orwell <nob...@mixmaster.it>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/confirmed-911-planes-were-tracked-even.html
>> >
>> >One of the most important parts of the official story is that the government

>>
>> No. Air traffic control, the organisation who's job it is to track commercial
>> aircraft.
>>
>> >couldn't track the location of the hijacked planes because the hijackers had turned the transponders off. The official version is that, with transponders turned off, only "primary radar" was available to civilian air traffic controllers. Primary radar can track location, but not altitude.

>>
>> Ok.
>>
>> >This makes no sense, because America's air defenses need to protect our nation against foreign fighter jets and other airplanes invading our country.

>>
>> Invading our country? From outside? Invading? Right.
>>
>> >Is our trillion-dollar defense system set up so that a Russian or Chinese pilot can invade undetected if he just turns off his transponder? Darn! Why didn't we think of that?!

>>
>> Is a Russian or Chinese pilot going to be stealing a commercial airliner at a
>> civilian airfield?
>>
>> >Primary radar is a red herring.
>> >
>> >Why?
>> >
>> >Because the military possesses highly sensitive radar. For example, "military radar can track space debris as small as 10 centimetres across" miles up in space.

>>
>> You have no idea of the concepts of scanning and tracking, do you?
>>
>> >AWACS Should Have Tracked Planes

>>
>> Should? Ok. With what we know now maybe they should.
>>
>> How many AWACs aircraft were airborne over the east coast of the continental USA
>> on September 11 2001 at around 9am? How many of these were alerted to hijacked
>> aircraft? How many were asked to try and locate them? How many aircraft, of any
>> type, are flying above the continental USA without transponders at any one time?
>>
>> >Airplanes known as AWACS have incredibly sensitive doppler radar that can detect any moving object. As an Army website states:
>> >
>> > "Although Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AWACS) airborne radar can detect practically any moving object, aircraft radar operators routinely screen out objects moving slower than 85 miles per hour to avoid tracking motor vehicles."
>> >
>> >There was, in fact, at least one AWACS near Washington, D.C. on the morning of 9/11 participating in a war game exercise. The pilot learned of the attacks soon after the first hit on the World Trade Center. While, at first he thought it was part of the war game exercise, "it didn't take him long to realize it was real."
>> >
>> >The military should have had the pilot track all planes moving in and around the White House-Pentagon corridor. That would have been standard military protocol: to protect the command and control structure of the U.S. government and military.

>>
>> Would have been? So you are guessing?
>>
>> >The Pentagon-White House Corridor Is Highly-Monitored

>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>> >Even if AWACS pilots were not instructed to monitor the area, the Pentagon and White House are two of the most heavily-defended buildings in the world.

>>
>> Unmitigated bullshit.
>>
>> >They are only 2 miles apart, and the entire area is protected air space (because the area is home to the seat of power of the commander in chief and the military)

>>
>> More bullshit.
>>
>> >and - because there have been numerous incidents of planes approaching the White House - it is entirely certain that the whole area is covered by very sophisticated military radar.

>>
>> Entirely certain? More guesses?
>>
>> >And keep in mind that installing military radar on the ground is much easier and less expensive than mounting it in a moving airplane.

>>
>> You have no idea, do you?
>>
>> >Andrews Air Force Base is only 10 miles from the Pentagon, and has doppler radar even for public weather monitoring (if the base has doppler for something as mundane as weather monitoring, doesn't it make sense that the air force base closest to the Pentagon and White House would have sophisticated radar to protect the White House and Pentagon? Or do they just monitor the weather?)

>>
>> No. You have absolutely no idea.
>>
>> >The Pentagon itself also has access to the highly sophisticated PAVE PAWS radar which is capable of monitoring many planes or missiles simultaneously.

>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NuclearWarningSystemMap.png
>>
>> Notice the big hole in the coverage?
>>
>> "The radar, developed by Raytheon, is used primarily to detect and track
>> sea-launched (SLBM) and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
>>
>> The system also has a secondary mission of Earth-orbiting satellite detection
>> and tracking."
>>
>>
>> >Indeed, this CBS news article implies

>>
>> Implies? Oh well! That bit of "evidence" has confirmed it for me. How could
>> anyone question an implied "fact"
>>
>> >that military radar actually was tracking Flight 77 as it approached the Pentagon. And Dick Cheney -- sitting in a military command bunker underneath the White House-- monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon (confirmed here).
>> >
>> >The Other Planes
>> >
>> >While I have focused on Flight 77 and the area surrounding the Pentagon, this diagram shows that all of the hijacked planes flew over numerous military bases on 9/11 before crashing. Those military bases undoubtedly possess highly-sophisticated radar as well.

>>
>> Undoubtedly? Another wild arsed guess.
>>
>> >In addition, the is strong evidence that the planes were being tracked. For example, an ABC News article states:
>> >
>> > "Controllers at the Boston Center knew American Airlines Flight 11, which departed at 7:59 a.m. ET from Boston for its flight to Los Angeles, was hijacked 30 minutes before it crashed. They tracked it to New York on their radar scopes. 'I watched the target of American 11 the whole way down,' said Boston controller Mark Hodgkins. "

>>
>> And this proves that the military were tracking it...how?
>>
>> >Similarly, air traffic controllers and others tracked Flight 175.
>> >
>> >Confirmed

>>
>> Confirmed by...? What?
>>
>> >All of the above-described information confirms the statement by a former air traffic controller,

>>
>> An unnamed controller? Wow. Thanks for that "evidence".
>>
>> >who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand", and who handled two actual hijackings, that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview).

>>
>> But you have no idea how this is done, or the problems involved, do you? To you
>> this seems to be the easiest thing in the world to do. Because you've seen it
>> done in James Bond movies. Get a clue!
>>
>> Shill #2
>> --
>> Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance
>> to those of us who do.
>> Isaac Asimov

>
>
>Actually, I "thank you" from the bottom of my heart for replying because now I know your motivation helping cover up
>9/11. You are in Switzerland. Near Zug perhaps? Where KPMG's offices are? How's Marc Rich doing? Did you know
>the money trail leads to KPMG and Zug, Switzerland where the RICO operates, kook? What, you never thought this info
>would ever become public, kook?


Bwahahahahaha!

The usenet kOOkk, when called on his bullshit, changes the subject and makes
ludicrous accusations. Nice one Noname.

What is Reality Fighter's boilerplate?

"Ad-hominem attack is the refuge of unintelligent and immature people that
can't refute an opinion with logic or facts, so they resort to childishly
attacking the person that holds the opinion."

Seems he had you in mind when he wrote that.

Shill #2
--
Pay Section
Disinformation Directorate
Ministry of Information
European Division
 
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:50:02 +0100 (CET), George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it>
wrote:

>In article <qpvru3h342kca7lhsfnqv5j5f3f6brbqpt@4ax.com>
>Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 07:45:01 +0100 (CET), George Orwell <nob...@mixmaster.it>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/confirmed-911-planes-were-tracked-even.html
>> >
>> >One of the most important parts of the official story is that the government

>>
>> No. Air traffic control, the organisation who's job it is to track commercial
>> aircraft.
>>
>> >couldn't track the location of the hijacked planes because the hijackers had turned the transponders off. The official version is that, with transponders turned off, only "primary radar" was available to civilian air traffic controllers. Primary radar can track location, but not altitude.

>>
>> Ok.
>>
>> >This makes no sense, because America's air defenses need to protect our nation against foreign fighter jets and other airplanes invading our country.

>>
>> Invading our country? From outside? Invading? Right.
>>
>> >Is our trillion-dollar defense system set up so that a Russian or Chinese pilot can invade undetected if he just turns off his transponder? Darn! Why didn't we think of that?!

>>
>> Is a Russian or Chinese pilot going to be stealing a commercial airliner at a
>> civilian airfield?
>>
>> >Primary radar is a red herring.
>> >
>> >Why?
>> >
>> >Because the military possesses highly sensitive radar. For example, "military radar can track space debris as small as 10 centimetres across" miles up in space.

>>
>> You have no idea of the concepts of scanning and tracking, do you?
>>
>> >AWACS Should Have Tracked Planes

>>
>> Should? Ok. With what we know now maybe they should.
>>
>> How many AWACs aircraft were airborne over the east coast of the continental USA
>> on September 11 2001 at around 9am? How many of these were alerted to hijacked
>> aircraft? How many were asked to try and locate them? How many aircraft, of any
>> type, are flying above the continental USA without transponders at any one time?
>>
>> >Airplanes known as AWACS have incredibly sensitive doppler radar that can detect any moving object. As an Army website states:
>> >
>> > "Although Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AWACS) airborne radar can detect practically any moving object, aircraft radar operators routinely screen out objects moving slower than 85 miles per hour to avoid tracking motor vehicles."
>> >
>> >There was, in fact, at least one AWACS near Washington, D.C. on the morning of 9/11 participating in a war game exercise. The pilot learned of the attacks soon after the first hit on the World Trade Center. While, at first he thought it was part of the war game exercise, "it didn't take him long to realize it was real."
>> >
>> >The military should have had the pilot track all planes moving in and around the White House-Pentagon corridor. That would have been standard military protocol: to protect the command and control structure of the U.S. government and military.

>>
>> Would have been? So you are guessing?
>>
>> >The Pentagon-White House Corridor Is Highly-Monitored

>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>> >Even if AWACS pilots were not instructed to monitor the area, the Pentagon and White House are two of the most heavily-defended buildings in the world.

>>
>> Unmitigated bullshit.
>>
>> >They are only 2 miles apart, and the entire area is protected air space (because the area is home to the seat of power of the commander in chief and the military)

>>
>> More bullshit.
>>
>> >and - because there have been numerous incidents of planes approaching the White House - it is entirely certain that the whole area is covered by very sophisticated military radar.

>>
>> Entirely certain? More guesses?
>>
>> >And keep in mind that installing military radar on the ground is much easier and less expensive than mounting it in a moving airplane.

>>
>> You have no idea, do you?
>>
>> >Andrews Air Force Base is only 10 miles from the Pentagon, and has doppler radar even for public weather monitoring (if the base has doppler for something as mundane as weather monitoring, doesn't it make sense that the air force base closest to the Pentagon and White House would have sophisticated radar to protect the White House and Pentagon? Or do they just monitor the weather?)

>>
>> No. You have absolutely no idea.
>>
>> >The Pentagon itself also has access to the highly sophisticated PAVE PAWS radar which is capable of monitoring many planes or missiles simultaneously.

>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NuclearWarningSystemMap.png
>>
>> Notice the big hole in the coverage?
>>
>> "The radar, developed by Raytheon, is used primarily to detect and track
>> sea-launched (SLBM) and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
>>
>> The system also has a secondary mission of Earth-orbiting satellite detection
>> and tracking."
>>
>>
>> >Indeed, this CBS news article implies

>>
>> Implies? Oh well! That bit of "evidence" has confirmed it for me. How could
>> anyone question an implied "fact"
>>
>> >that military radar actually was tracking Flight 77 as it approached the Pentagon. And Dick Cheney -- sitting in a military command bunker underneath the White House-- monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon (confirmed here).
>> >
>> >The Other Planes
>> >
>> >While I have focused on Flight 77 and the area surrounding the Pentagon, this diagram shows that all of the hijacked planes flew over numerous military bases on 9/11 before crashing. Those military bases undoubtedly possess highly-sophisticated radar as well.

>>
>> Undoubtedly? Another wild arsed guess.
>>
>> >In addition, the is strong evidence that the planes were being tracked. For example, an ABC News article states:
>> >
>> > "Controllers at the Boston Center knew American Airlines Flight 11, which departed at 7:59 a.m. ET from Boston for its flight to Los Angeles, was hijacked 30 minutes before it crashed. They tracked it to New York on their radar scopes. 'I watched the target of American 11 the whole way down,' said Boston controller Mark Hodgkins. "

>>
>> And this proves that the military were tracking it...how?
>>
>> >Similarly, air traffic controllers and others tracked Flight 175.
>> >
>> >Confirmed

>>
>> Confirmed by...? What?
>>
>> >All of the above-described information confirms the statement by a former air traffic controller,

>>
>> An unnamed controller? Wow. Thanks for that "evidence".
>>
>> >who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand", and who handled two actual hijackings, that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview).

>>
>> But you have no idea how this is done, or the problems involved, do you? To you
>> this seems to be the easiest thing in the world to do. Because you've seen it
>> done in James Bond movies. Get a clue!
>>
>> Shill #2
>> --
>> Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance
>> to those of us who do.
>> Isaac Asimov

>
>I knew I would catch a kooky shill when I set my bait. And you fell for it hook ... line ... and sinker, kook.
>
>Hey, kook, I bet you didn't know that Darleen Druyun had three AWACS planes in the air on September 11th. But kook
>did you know that the US has a fleet of four AWACS total?



Four? Bwahahahaha! Whatta Maroon!

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=98

"There are 33 aircraft in the U.S. inventory. Air Combat Command has 28 E-3s at
Tinker. Pacific Air Forces has four E-3 Sentries at Kadena AB, Japan and
Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. There is also one test aircraft at the Boeing Aircraft
Company in Seattle."


Four... pft! You don't mind how big an idiot you look, do you?



>Why would three of the only four US owned AWACS planes
>be used on 9/11? Answer: They were used because of Global Guardian '01 i.e. 9/11.


Answer. Same as last post. You have no idea what you are talking about.

>You know, I could inundate this newsgroup with 9/11 **** and you have no choice but to respond ... because you are a kooky
>shill paid to "debunk" 9/11.


No. I do the paying. I'm in charge of the payroll. I cut thousands of cheques
every month to keep our team the best paid in the "free" world.


>And if you aren't doing your "debunking" properly, you will be replaced with someone
>who is more competent. Wouldn't that suck? Yes, it would definitely suck for you but I would find it totally hilarious.


As you no doubt find the coloured lights that play up and down your cell wall.
Hilarious!

Shill #2
--
Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
theobviousgcashman
 
"George Orwell" <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in message
news:e7a363d1ef648441adcb7f2119ffb7f5@mixmaster.it...
> http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/confirmed-911-planes-were-tracked-even.html


What's truly funny about idiots like this is they know just enough to
convince themselves they know everything, when in reality they don't know
their thumbs from their dick.

>
> One of the most important parts of the official story is that the
> government couldn't track the location of the hijacked planes because the
> hijackers had >turned the transponders off. The official version is that,
> with transponders turned off, only "primary radar" was available to
> civilian air traffic controllers. >Primary radar can track location, but
> not altitude.


So they could track them, Mortimer. They just didn't know their altitude.

>
> This makes no sense, because America's air defenses need to protect our
> nation against foreign fighter jets and other airplanes invading our
> country. >Is our trillion-dollar defense system set up so that a Russian
> or Chinese pilot can invade undetected if he just turns off his
> transponder? Darn! Why >didn't we think of that?!


You're talking about Air Traffic Control radar which is designed to track
civilian aircraft. No transponder, no altitude information.

>
> Primary radar is a red herring.
>
> Why?
>
> Because the military possesses highly sensitive radar. For example,
> "military radar can track space debris as small as 10 centimetres across"
> miles up >in space.


And they track nothing inside the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NuclearWarningSystemMap.png



>
> AWACS Should Have Tracked Planes
>
> Airplanes known as AWACS have incredibly sensitive doppler radar that can
> detect any moving object. As an Army website states:
>
> "Although Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AWACS) airborne
> radar can detect practically any moving object, aircraft radar >operators
> routinely screen out objects moving slower than 85 miles per hour to avoid
> tracking motor vehicles."
>
> There was, in fact, at least one AWACS near Washington, D.C. on the
> morning of 9/11 participating in a war game exercise. The pilot learned of
> the >attacks soon after the first hit on the World Trade Center. While, at
> first he thought it was part of the war game exercise, "it didn't take him
> long to >realize it was real."
>
> The military should have had the pilot track all planes moving in and
> around the White House-Pentagon corridor. That would have been standard
> >military protocol: to protect the command and control structure of the

> U.S. government and military.


Now how exactly do you know what "standard military protocol" is when you
obviously don't know your thumb from your dick? The "pilot"? The pilot
doesn't track anything, Mortimer. He flies the plane. The guys in the back
work the radar, and even if there was an AWACS in the air, as you claim, it
doesn't mean they would have been tracking each of the hundreds of civilian
aircraft that would have been flying within the range of the plane at the
time.


>
> The Pentagon-White House Corridor Is Highly-Monitored
>
> Even if AWACS pilots were not instructed to monitor the area, the Pentagon
> and White House are two of the most heavily-defended buildings in the
> >world. They are only 2 miles apart, and the entire area is protected air

> space (because the area is home to the seat of power of the commander in
> >chief and the military) and - because there have been numerous incidents

> of planes approaching the White House - it is entirely certain that the
> whole >area is covered by very sophisticated military radar.
>
> And keep in mind that installing military radar on the ground is much
> easier and less expensive than mounting it in a moving airplane.
>
> Andrews Air Force Base is only 10 miles from the Pentagon, and has doppler
> radar even for public weather monitoring (if the base has doppler for
> something as mundane as weather monitoring, doesn't it make sense that the
> air force base closest to the Pentagon and White House would have
> sophisticated radar to protect the White House and Pentagon? Or do they
> just monitor the weather?)


Weather radars don't track aircraft, Mortimer. They are designed to track
the weather. Imagine that.


>
> The Pentagon itself also has access to the highly sophisticated PAVE PAWS
> radar which is capable of monitoring many planes or missiles
> simultaneously.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NuclearWarningSystemMap.png


>
> Indeed, this CBS news article implies that military radar actually was
> tracking Flight 77 as it approached the Pentagon. And Dick Cheney --
> sitting in > a military command bunker underneath the White House--
> monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon
> (confirmed here).


Tin-foil hat nonsense.


>
> The Other Planes
>
> While I have focused on Flight 77 and the area surrounding the Pentagon,
> this diagram shows that all of the hijacked planes flew over numerous
> military bases on 9/11 before crashing. Those military bases undoubtedly
> possess highly-sophisticated radar as well.
>
> In addition, the is strong evidence that the planes were being tracked.
> For example, an ABC News article states:
>
> "Controllers at the Boston Center knew American Airlines Flight 11,
> which departed at 7:59 a.m. ET from Boston for its flight to Los Angeles,
> was >hijacked 30 minutes before it crashed. They tracked it to New York on
> their radar scopes. 'I watched the target of American 11 the whole way
> >down,' said Boston controller Mark Hodgkins. "

>
> Similarly, air traffic controllers and others tracked Flight 175.
>
> Confirmed
>
> All of the above-described information confirms the statement by a former
> air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes
> >which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand", and who

> handled two actual hijackings, that planes can be tracked on radar even
> when >their transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview).


They can still be tracked, provided they are identified because Air Traffic
Control still has primary radar. They just get no identification
information or altitude.
 
Nebuchadnezzar II wrote:

> "George Orwell" <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in message
> news:e7a363d1ef648441adcb7f2119ffb7f5@mixmaster.it...
>>

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/confirmed-911-planes-were-tracked-even.html
>
> What's truly funny about idiots like this is they know just enough to
> convince themselves they know everything, when in reality they don't know
> their thumbs from their dick.
>


Can you find Lagash on a map?

--
However much I may worship personality-powerful individual personality in
statesmen, inventors, artists, philosophers, or leaders, as well as the
collective personality of a historic group of human beings, which we call a
nation--however much I may worship personality, I do not regret its
disappearance. Whoever can, will, and must perish, let him perish. But the
distinctive nationality of Jews neither can, will, nor must be destroyed ~
Theodor Herzl, Father of Political Zionism
 
In article <e7a363d1ef648441adcb7f2119ffb7f5@mixmaster.it>,
George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/confirmed-911-planes-were-tracked-even.html
>
>One of the most important parts of the official story is that the government couldn't track the location of the hijacked planes because the hijackers had turned the transponders off. The official version is that, with transponders turned off, only "primary radar" was available to civilian air traffic controllers. Primary radar can track location, but not altitude.
>
>This makes no sense, because America's air defenses need to protect our nation against foreign fighter jets and other airplanes invading our country. Is our trillion-dollar defense system set up so that a Russian or Chinese pilot can invade undetected if he just turns off his transponder? Darn! Why didn't we think of that?!
>
>Primary radar is a red herring.
>
>Why?
>
>Because the military possesses highly sensitive radar. For example, "military radar can track space debris as small as 10 centimetres across" miles up in space.
>
>AWACS Should Have Tracked Planes
>


This is Twoofer bullshit aimed at the children that are ignorant of
the capabilities of military aircraft and unfamiliar with the very few
minutes available to actually intercept any of the hijacked aircraft
on the morning of 9/11. To the extent that there is anything factual
in the above, it is irrelevant to the events of 9/11.

There was no AWACS on 15 minute standby on 9/11, so any discussion of
it's capabilities is irrelevant to the events of the morning of 9/11.





--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
 
George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
> http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/confirmed-911-planes-were-tr
> acked-even.html
>
> One of the most important parts of the official story is that the
> government couldn't track the location of the hijacked planes because the
> hijackers had turned the transponders off. The official version is that,
> with transponders turned off, only "primary radar" was available to
> civilian air traffic controllers. Primary radar can track location, but
> not altitude.
>
> This makes no sense, because America's air defenses need to protect our
> nation against foreign fighter jets and other airplanes invading our
> country. Is our trillion-dollar defense system set up so that a Russian
> or Chinese pilot can invade undetected if he just turns off his
> transponder? Darn! Why didn't we think of that?!
>
> Primary radar is a red herring.
>
> Why?
>
> Because the military possesses highly sensitive radar. For example,
> "military radar can track space debris as small as 10 centimetres across"
> miles up in space.
>
> AWACS Should Have Tracked Planes
>
> Airplanes known as AWACS have incredibly sensitive doppler radar that can
> detect any moving object. As an Army website states:
>
> "Although Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AWACS) airborne
> radar can detect practically any moving object, aircraft radar
> operators routinely screen out objects moving slower than 85 miles
> per hour to avoid tracking motor vehicles."
>
> There was, in fact, at least one AWACS near Washington, D.C. on the
> morning of 9/11 participating in a war game exercise. The pilot learned
> of the attacks soon after the first hit on the World Trade Center. While,
> at first he thought it was part of the war game exercise, "it didn't take
> him long to realize it was real."
>
> The military should have had the pilot track all planes moving in and
> around the White House-Pentagon corridor. That would have been standard
> military protocol: to protect the command and control structure of the
> U.S. government and military.
>
> The Pentagon-White House Corridor Is Highly-Monitored
>
> Even if AWACS pilots were not instructed to monitor the area, the
> Pentagon and White House are two of the most heavily-defended buildings
> in the world. They are only 2 miles apart, and the entire area is
> protected air space (because the area is home to the seat of power of the
> commander in chief and the military) and - because there have been
> numerous incidents of planes approaching the White House - it is entirely
> certain that the whole area is covered by very sophisticated military
> radar.
>
> And keep in mind that installing military radar on the ground is much
> easier and less expensive than mounting it in a moving airplane.
>
> Andrews Air Force Base is only 10 miles from the Pentagon, and has
> doppler radar even for public weather monitoring (if the base has doppler
> for something as mundane as weather monitoring, doesn't it make sense
> that the air force base closest to the Pentagon and White House would
> have sophisticated radar to protect the White House and Pentagon? Or do
> they just monitor the weather?)
>
> The Pentagon itself also has access to the highly sophisticated PAVE PAWS
> radar which is capable of monitoring many planes or missiles
> simultaneously.
>
> Indeed, this CBS news article implies that military radar actually was
> tracking Flight 77 as it approached the Pentagon. And Dick Cheney --
> sitting in a military command bunker underneath the White House--
> monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon
> (confirmed here).
>
> The Other Planes
>
> While I have focused on Flight 77 and the area surrounding the Pentagon,
> this diagram shows that all of the hijacked planes flew over numerous
> military bases on 9/11 before crashing. Those military bases undoubtedly
> possess highly-sophisticated radar as well.
>
> In addition, the is strong evidence that the planes were being tracked.
> For example, an ABC News article states:
>
> "Controllers at the Boston Center knew American Airlines Flight 11,
> which departed at 7:59 a.m. ET from Boston for its flight to Los
> Angeles, was hijacked 30 minutes before it crashed. They tracked it
> to New York on their radar scopes. 'I watched the target of American
> 11 the whole way down,' said Boston controller Mark Hodgkins. "
>
> Similarly, air traffic controllers and others tracked Flight 175.
>
> Confirmed
>
> All of the above-described information confirms the statement by a former
> air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two
> planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand", and who
> handled two actual hijackings, that planes can be tracked on radar even
> when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview).
>
> Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
> non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
> reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
> di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
> Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
> https://www.mixmaster.it


Thanks for this
 
adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
> In article <e7a363d1ef648441adcb7f2119ffb7f5@mixmaster.it>,
> George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
> >http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/confirmed-911-planes-were-t
> >racked-even.html
> >
> >One of the most important parts of the official story is that the
> >government couldn't track the location of the hijacked planes because
> >the hijackers had turned the transponders off. The official version is
> >that, with transponders turned off, only "primary radar" was available
> >to civilian air traffic controllers. Primary radar can track location,
> >but not altitude.
> >
> >This makes no sense, because America's air defenses need to protect our
> >nation against foreign fighter jets and other airplanes invading our
> >country. Is our trillion-dollar defense system set up so that a Russian
> >or Chinese pilot can invade undetected if he just turns off his
> >transponder? Darn! Why didn't we think of that?!
> >
> >Primary radar is a red herring.
> >
> >Why?
> >
> >Because the military possesses highly sensitive radar. For example,
> >"military radar can track space debris as small as 10 centimetres
> >across" miles up in space.
> >
> >AWACS Should Have Tracked Planes
> >

>
> This is Twoofer bullshit aimed at the children that are ignorant of
> the capabilities of military aircraft and unfamiliar with the very few
> minutes available to actually intercept any of the hijacked aircraft
> on the morning of 9/11. To the extent that there is anything factual
> in the above, it is irrelevant to the events of 9/11.
>
> There was no AWACS on 15 minute standby on 9/11, so any discussion of
> it's capabilities is irrelevant to the events of the morning of 9/11.


Yeah, well you're retarded
 
Jude Outta Your Mind <Theodor-Herzl@judenstaat.il> wrote:
> Nebuchadnezzar II wrote:
>
> > "George Orwell" <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in message
> > news:e7a363d1ef648441adcb7f2119ffb7f5@mixmaster.it...
> >>

> http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/confirmed-911-planes-were-tr
> acked-even.html
> >
> > What's truly funny about idiots like this is they know just enough to
> > convince themselves they know everything, when in reality they don't
> > know their thumbs from their dick.
> >

>
> Can you find Lagash on a map?


Absolutely
 
In article <751093fa29b67240fa0c33c08a0a842d@mixmaster.it>,
George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>In article <qpvru3h342kca7lhsfnqv5j5f3f6brbqpt@4ax.com>
>Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 07:45:01 +0100 (CET), George Orwell <nob...@mixmaster.it>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/confirmed-911-planes-were-tracked-even.html
>> >
>> >One of the most important parts of the official story is that the government

>>
>> No. Air traffic control, the organisation who's job it is to track commercial
>> aircraft.
>>
>> >couldn't track the location of the hijacked planes because the hijackers had turned the transponders off. The official version is that, with transponders turned off, only "primary radar" was available to civilian air traffic controllers. Primary radar can track location, but not altitude.

>>
>> Ok.
>>
>> >This makes no sense, because America's air defenses need to protect our nation against foreign fighter jets and other airplanes invading our country.

>>
>> Invading our country? From outside? Invading? Right.
>>
>> >Is our trillion-dollar defense system set up so that a Russian or Chinese pilot can invade undetected if he just turns off his transponder? Darn! Why didn't we think of that?!

>>
>> Is a Russian or Chinese pilot going to be stealing a commercial airliner at a
>> civilian airfield?
>>
>> >Primary radar is a red herring.
>> >
>> >Why?
>> >
>> >Because the military possesses highly sensitive radar. For example, "military radar can track space debris as small as 10 centimetres across" miles up in space.

>>
>> You have no idea of the concepts of scanning and tracking, do you?
>>
>> >AWACS Should Have Tracked Planes

>>
>> Should? Ok. With what we know now maybe they should.
>>
>> How many AWACs aircraft were airborne over the east coast of the continental USA
>> on September 11 2001 at around 9am? How many of these were alerted to hijacked
>> aircraft? How many were asked to try and locate them? How many aircraft, of any
>> type, are flying above the continental USA without transponders at any one time?
>>
>> >Airplanes known as AWACS have incredibly sensitive doppler radar that can detect any moving object. As an Army website states:
>> >
>> > "Although Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AWACS) airborne radar can detect practically any moving object, aircraft radar operators routinely screen out objects moving slower than 85 miles per hour to avoid tracking motor vehicles."
>> >
>> >There was, in fact, at least one AWACS near Washington, D.C. on the morning of 9/11 participating in a war game exercise. The pilot learned of the attacks soon after the first hit on the World Trade Center. While, at first he thought it was part of the war game exercise, "it didn't take him long to realize it was real."
>> >
>> >The military should have had the pilot track all planes moving in and around the White House-Pentagon corridor. That would have been standard military protocol: to protect the command and control structure of the U.S. government and military.

>>
>> Would have been? So you are guessing?
>>
>> >The Pentagon-White House Corridor Is Highly-Monitored

>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>> >Even if AWACS pilots were not instructed to monitor the area, the Pentagon and White House are two of the most heavily-defended buildings in the world.

>>
>> Unmitigated bullshit.
>>
>> >They are only 2 miles apart, and the entire area is protected air space (because the area is home to the seat of power of the commander in chief and the military)

>>
>> More bullshit.
>>
>> >and - because there have been numerous incidents of planes approaching the White House - it is entirely certain that the whole area is covered by very sophisticated military radar.

>>
>> Entirely certain? More guesses?
>>
>> >And keep in mind that installing military radar on the ground is much easier and less expensive than mounting it in a moving airplane.

>>
>> You have no idea, do you?
>>
>> >Andrews Air Force Base is only 10 miles from the Pentagon, and has doppler radar even for public weather monitoring (if the base has doppler for something as mundane as weather monitoring, doesn't it make sense that the air force base closest to the Pentagon and White House would have sophisticated radar to protect the White House and Pentagon? Or do they just monitor the weather?)

>>
>> No. You have absolutely no idea.
>>
>> >The Pentagon itself also has access to the highly sophisticated PAVE PAWS radar which is capable of monitoring many planes or missiles simultaneously.

>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NuclearWarningSystemMap.png
>>
>> Notice the big hole in the coverage?
>>
>> "The radar, developed by Raytheon, is used primarily to detect and track
>> sea-launched (SLBM) and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
>>
>> The system also has a secondary mission of Earth-orbiting satellite detection
>> and tracking."
>>
>>
>> >Indeed, this CBS news article implies

>>
>> Implies? Oh well! That bit of "evidence" has confirmed it for me. How could
>> anyone question an implied "fact"
>>
>> >that military radar actually was tracking Flight 77 as it approached the Pentagon. And Dick Cheney -- sitting in a military command bunker underneath the White House-- monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon (confirmed here).
>> >
>> >The Other Planes
>> >
>> >While I have focused on Flight 77 and the area surrounding the Pentagon, this diagram shows that all of the hijacked planes flew over numerous military bases on 9/11 before crashing. Those military bases undoubtedly possess highly-sophisticated radar as well.

>>
>> Undoubtedly? Another wild arsed guess.
>>
>> >In addition, the is strong evidence that the planes were being tracked. For example, an ABC News article states:
>> >
>> > "Controllers at the Boston Center knew American Airlines Flight 11, which departed at 7:59 a.m. ET from Boston for its flight to Los Angeles, was hijacked 30 minutes before it crashed. They tracked it to New York on their radar scopes. 'I watched the target of American 11 the whole way down,' said Boston controller Mark Hodgkins. "

>>
>> And this proves that the military were tracking it...how?
>>
>> >Similarly, air traffic controllers and others tracked Flight 175.
>> >
>> >Confirmed

>>
>> Confirmed by...? What?
>>
>> >All of the above-described information confirms the statement by a former air traffic controller,

>>
>> An unnamed controller? Wow. Thanks for that "evidence".
>>
>> >who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand", and who handled two actual hijackings, that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview).

>>
>> But you have no idea how this is done, or the problems involved, do you? To you
>> this seems to be the easiest thing in the world to do. Because you've seen it
>> done in James Bond movies. Get a clue!
>>
>> Shill #2
>> --
>> Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance
>> to those of us who do.
>> Isaac Asimov

>
>I knew I would catch a kooky shill when I set my bait. And you fell for it hook ... line ... and sinker, kook.
>


>Hey, kook, I bet you didn't know that Darleen Druyun had three AWACS
>planes in the air on September 11th. But kook did you know that the
>US has a fleet of four AWACS total? Why would three of the only four
>US owned AWACS planes



Which, even if true, if on the morning of 9/11 they were not part of
the NORAD organization on 15 minute notice and within maybe 100 miles
of where we would like them to be, they might as well not exist.

The Air Force is a bureaucracy and planes can only fly so fast.

Twoofers seem to be ignorant of these facts.

The "truth movement" has confused "asking questions" with making
unsubstantiated assertions, not listening to the polite responses from
people that know relevant facts, and shouting "Inside Job!" over a
bullhorn.

That's what makes the children's crusade of the "Truth Movement" the
huge failure it is. Everyone that knows anything about aviation
laughs at the claim. The Twoofers that invent them sell books and
DVDs but never speak in public in front of people with knowledge
relevant to their claims or that actually know what happened on 9/11
in detail.










--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
 
"Nebuchadnezzar II" <nebuchadnezzar@microsoft.com> wrote:
> "George Orwell" <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in message
> news:e7a363d1ef648441adcb7f2119ffb7f5@mixmaster.it...
> > http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/confirmed-911-planes-were-
> > tracked-even.html

>
> What's truly funny about idiots like this is they know just enough to
> convince themselves they know everything, when in reality they don't know
> their thumbs from their dick.
>
> >
> > One of the most important parts of the official story is that the
> > government couldn't track the location of the hijacked planes because
> > the hijackers had >turned the transponders off. The official version is
> > that, with transponders turned off, only "primary radar" was available
> > to civilian air traffic controllers. >Primary radar can track location,
> > but not altitude.

>
> So they could track them, Mortimer. They just didn't know their
> altitude.
>
> >
> > This makes no sense, because America's air defenses need to protect our
> > nation against foreign fighter jets and other airplanes invading our
> > country. >Is our trillion-dollar defense system set up so that a
> > Russian or Chinese pilot can invade undetected if he just turns off his
> > transponder? Darn! Why >didn't we think of that?!

>
> You're talking about Air Traffic Control radar which is designed to track
> civilian aircraft. No transponder, no altitude information.
>
> >
> > Primary radar is a red herring.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > Because the military possesses highly sensitive radar. For example,
> > "military radar can track space debris as small as 10 centimetres
> > across" miles up >in space.

>
> And they track nothing inside the US.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NuclearWarningSystemMap.png
>
> >
> > AWACS Should Have Tracked Planes
> >
> > Airplanes known as AWACS have incredibly sensitive doppler radar that
> > can detect any moving object. As an Army website states:
> >
> > "Although Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AWACS) airborne
> > radar can detect practically any moving object, aircraft radar
> > >operators routinely screen out objects moving slower than 85 miles per

> > hour to avoid tracking motor vehicles."
> >
> > There was, in fact, at least one AWACS near Washington, D.C. on the
> > morning of 9/11 participating in a war game exercise. The pilot learned
> > of the >attacks soon after the first hit on the World Trade Center.
> > While, at first he thought it was part of the war game exercise, "it
> > didn't take him long to >realize it was real."
> >
> > The military should have had the pilot track all planes moving in and
> > around the White House-Pentagon corridor. That would have been standard
> > >military protocol: to protect the command and control structure of
> > >the

> > U.S. government and military.

>
> Now how exactly do you know what "standard military protocol" is when you
> obviously don't know your thumb from your dick? The "pilot"? The pilot
> doesn't track anything, Mortimer. He flies the plane. The guys in the
> back work the radar, and even if there was an AWACS in the air, as you
> claim, it doesn't mean they would have been tracking each of the hundreds
> of civilian aircraft that would have been flying within the range of the
> plane at the time.
>
> >
> > The Pentagon-White House Corridor Is Highly-Monitored
> >
> > Even if AWACS pilots were not instructed to monitor the area, the
> > Pentagon and White House are two of the most heavily-defended buildings
> > in the
> > >world. They are only 2 miles apart, and the entire area is protected
> > >air

> > space (because the area is home to the seat of power of the commander
> > in
> > >chief and the military) and - because there have been numerous
> > >incidents

> > of planes approaching the White House - it is entirely certain that the
> > whole >area is covered by very sophisticated military radar.
> >
> > And keep in mind that installing military radar on the ground is much
> > easier and less expensive than mounting it in a moving airplane.
> >
> > Andrews Air Force Base is only 10 miles from the Pentagon, and has
> > doppler radar even for public weather monitoring (if the base has
> > doppler for something as mundane as weather monitoring, doesn't it make
> > sense that the air force base closest to the Pentagon and White House
> > would have sophisticated radar to protect the White House and Pentagon?
> > Or do they just monitor the weather?)

>
> Weather radars don't track aircraft, Mortimer. They are designed to
> track the weather. Imagine that.
>
> >
> > The Pentagon itself also has access to the highly sophisticated PAVE
> > PAWS radar which is capable of monitoring many planes or missiles
> > simultaneously.

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NuclearWarningSystemMap.png
>
> >
> > Indeed, this CBS news article implies that military radar actually was
> > tracking Flight 77 as it approached the Pentagon. And Dick Cheney --
> > sitting in > a military command bunker underneath the White House--
> > monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon
> > (confirmed here).

>
> Tin-foil hat nonsense.
>
> >
> > The Other Planes
> >
> > While I have focused on Flight 77 and the area surrounding the
> > Pentagon, this diagram shows that all of the hijacked planes flew over
> > numerous military bases on 9/11 before crashing. Those military bases
> > undoubtedly possess highly-sophisticated radar as well.
> >
> > In addition, the is strong evidence that the planes were being tracked.
> > For example, an ABC News article states:
> >
> > "Controllers at the Boston Center knew American Airlines Flight 11,
> > which departed at 7:59 a.m. ET from Boston for its flight to Los
> > Angeles, was >hijacked 30 minutes before it crashed. They tracked it to
> > New York on their radar scopes. 'I watched the target of American 11
> > the whole way
> > >down,' said Boston controller Mark Hodgkins. "

> >
> > Similarly, air traffic controllers and others tracked Flight 175.
> >
> > Confirmed
> >
> > All of the above-described information confirms the statement by a
> > former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the
> > two planes
> > >which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand", and who

> > handled two actual hijackings, that planes can be tracked on radar even
> > when >their transponders are turned off (also, listen to this
> > interview).

>
> They can still be tracked, provided they are identified because Air
> Traffic Control still has primary radar. They just get no identification
> information or altitude.


Weren't they flying with the IFF transponders 'on' showing that they were
'friendly' heavies? In that short amount of time, how could anyone
distinguish them from other planes in the air?

I'm just asking - asshole?
 
Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:50:02 +0100 (CET), George Orwell
> <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>
> >In article <qpvru3h342kca7lhsfnqv5j5f3f6brbqpt@4ax.com>
> >Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 07:45:01 +0100 (CET), George Orwell
> >> <nob...@mixmaster.it> wrote:
> >>
> >> >http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/confirmed-911-planes-wer
> >> >e-tracked-even.html
> >> >
> >> >One of the most important parts of the official story is that the
> >> >government
> >>
> >> No. Air traffic control, the organisation who's job it is to track
> >> commercial aircraft.
> >>
> >> >couldn't track the location of the hijacked planes because the
> >> >hijackers had turned the transponders off. The official version is
> >> >that, with transponders turned off, only "primary radar" was
> >> >available to civilian air traffic controllers. Primary radar can
> >> >track location, but not altitude.
> >>
> >> Ok.
> >>
> >> >This makes no sense, because America's air defenses need to protect
> >> >our nation against foreign fighter jets and other airplanes invading
> >> >our country.
> >>
> >> Invading our country? From outside? Invading? Right.
> >>
> >> >Is our trillion-dollar defense system set up so that a Russian or
> >> >Chinese pilot can invade undetected if he just turns off his
> >> >transponder? Darn! Why didn't we think of that?!
> >>
> >> Is a Russian or Chinese pilot going to be stealing a commercial
> >> airliner at a civilian airfield?
> >>
> >> >Primary radar is a red herring.
> >> >
> >> >Why?
> >> >
> >> >Because the military possesses highly sensitive radar. For example,
> >> >"military radar can track space debris as small as 10 centimetres
> >> >across" miles up in space.
> >>
> >> You have no idea of the concepts of scanning and tracking, do you?
> >>
> >> >AWACS Should Have Tracked Planes
> >>
> >> Should? Ok. With what we know now maybe they should.
> >>
> >> How many AWACs aircraft were airborne over the east coast of the
> >> continental USA on September 11 2001 at around 9am? How many of these
> >> were alerted to hijacked aircraft? How many were asked to try and
> >> locate them? How many aircraft, of any type, are flying above the
> >> continental USA without transponders at any one time?
> >>
> >> >Airplanes known as AWACS have incredibly sensitive doppler radar that
> >> >can detect any moving object. As an Army website states:
> >> >
> >> > "Although Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AWACS)
> >> > airborne radar can detect practically any moving object, aircraft
> >> > radar operators routinely screen out objects moving slower than
> >> > 85 miles per hour to avoid tracking motor vehicles."
> >> >
> >> >There was, in fact, at least one AWACS near Washington, D.C. on the
> >> >morning of 9/11 participating in a war game exercise. The pilot
> >> >learned of the attacks soon after the first hit on the World Trade
> >> >Center. While, at first he thought it was part of the war game
> >> >exercise, "it didn't take him long to realize it was real."
> >> >
> >> >The military should have had the pilot track all planes moving in and
> >> >around the White House-Pentagon corridor. That would have been
> >> >standard military protocol: to protect the command and control
> >> >structure of the U.S. government and military.
> >>
> >> Would have been? So you are guessing?
> >>
> >> >The Pentagon-White House Corridor Is Highly-Monitored
> >>
> >> Bullshit.
> >>
> >> >Even if AWACS pilots were not instructed to monitor the area, the
> >> >Pentagon and White House are two of the most heavily-defended
> >> >buildings in the world.
> >>
> >> Unmitigated bullshit.
> >>
> >> >They are only 2 miles apart, and the entire area is protected air
> >> >space (because the area is home to the seat of power of the commander
> >> >in chief and the military)
> >>
> >> More bullshit.
> >>
> >> >and - because there have been numerous incidents of planes
> >> >approaching the White House - it is entirely certain that the whole
> >> >area is covered by very sophisticated military radar.
> >>
> >> Entirely certain? More guesses?
> >>
> >> >And keep in mind that installing military radar on the ground is much
> >> >easier and less expensive than mounting it in a moving airplane.
> >>
> >> You have no idea, do you?
> >>
> >> >Andrews Air Force Base is only 10 miles from the Pentagon, and has
> >> >doppler radar even for public weather monitoring (if the base has
> >> >doppler for something as mundane as weather monitoring, doesn't it
> >> >make sense that the air force base closest to the Pentagon and White
> >> >House would have sophisticated radar to protect the White House and
> >> >Pentagon? Or do they just monitor the weather?)
> >>
> >> No. You have absolutely no idea.
> >>
> >> >The Pentagon itself also has access to the highly sophisticated PAVE
> >> >PAWS radar which is capable of monitoring many planes or missiles
> >> >simultaneously.
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NuclearWarningSystemMap.png
> >>
> >> Notice the big hole in the coverage?
> >>
> >> "The radar, developed by Raytheon, is used primarily to detect and
> >> track sea-launched (SLBM) and intercontinental ballistic missiles
> >> (ICBMs).
> >>
> >> The system also has a secondary mission of Earth-orbiting satellite
> >> detection and tracking."
> >>
> >>
> >> >Indeed, this CBS news article implies
> >>
> >> Implies? Oh well! That bit of "evidence" has confirmed it for me. How
> >> could anyone question an implied "fact"
> >>
> >> >that military radar actually was tracking Flight 77 as it approached
> >> >the Pentagon. And Dick Cheney -- sitting in a military command bunker
> >> >underneath the White House-- monitored flight 77 for many miles as it
> >> >approached the Pentagon (confirmed here).
> >> >
> >> >The Other Planes
> >> >
> >> >While I have focused on Flight 77 and the area surrounding the
> >> >Pentagon, this diagram shows that all of the hijacked planes flew
> >> >over numerous military bases on 9/11 before crashing. Those military
> >> >bases undoubtedly possess highly-sophisticated radar as well.
> >>
> >> Undoubtedly? Another wild arsed guess.
> >>
> >> >In addition, the is strong evidence that the planes were being
> >> >tracked. For example, an ABC News article states:
> >> >
> >> > "Controllers at the Boston Center knew American Airlines Flight
> >> > 11, which departed at 7:59 a.m. ET from Boston for its flight to
> >> > Los Angeles, was hijacked 30 minutes before it crashed. They
> >> > tracked it to New York on their radar scopes. 'I watched the
> >> > target of American 11 the whole way down,' said Boston controller
> >> > Mark Hodgkins. "
> >>
> >> And this proves that the military were tracking it...how?
> >>
> >> >Similarly, air traffic controllers and others tracked Flight 175.
> >> >
> >> >Confirmed
> >>
> >> Confirmed by...? What?
> >>
> >> >All of the above-described information confirms the statement by a
> >> >former air traffic controller,
> >>
> >> An unnamed controller? Wow. Thanks for that "evidence".
> >>
> >> >who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin
> >> >Towers flew "like the back of my hand", and who handled two actual
> >> >hijackings, that planes can be tracked on radar even when their
> >> >transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview).
> >>
> >> But you have no idea how this is done, or the problems involved, do
> >> you? To you this seems to be the easiest thing in the world to do.
> >> Because you've seen it done in James Bond movies. Get a clue!
> >>
> >> Shill #2
> >> --
> >> Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance
> >> to those of us who do.
> >> Isaac Asimov

> >
> >I knew I would catch a kooky shill when I set my bait. And you fell for
> >it hook ... line ... and sinker, kook.
> >
> >Hey, kook, I bet you didn't know that Darleen Druyun had three AWACS
> >planes in the air on September 11th. But kook did you know that the US
> >has a fleet of four AWACS total?

>
> Four? Bwahahahaha! Whatta Maroon!
>
> http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=98
>
> "There are 33 aircraft in the U.S. inventory. Air Combat Command has 28
> E-3s at Tinker. Pacific Air Forces has four E-3 Sentries at Kadena AB,
> Japan and Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. There is also one test aircraft at the
> Boeing Aircraft Company in Seattle."
>
> Four... pft! You don't mind how big an idiot you look, do you?
>
> >Why would three of the only four US owned AWACS planes
> >be used on 9/11? Answer: They were used because of Global Guardian '01
> >i.e. 9/11.

>
> Answer. Same as last post. You have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> >You know, I could inundate this newsgroup with 9/11 **** and you have no
> >choice but to respond ... because you are a kooky shill paid to "debunk"
> >9/11.

>
> No. I do the paying. I'm in charge of the payroll. I cut thousands of
> cheques every month to keep our team the best paid in the "free" world.
>
> >And if you aren't doing your "debunking" properly, you will be replaced
> >with someone who is more competent. Wouldn't that suck? Yes, it would
> >definitely suck for you but I would find it totally hilarious.

>
> As you no doubt find the coloured lights that play up and down your cell
> wall. Hilarious!
>
> Shill #2


can't blog in prison
 
adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
> In article <751093fa29b67240fa0c33c08a0a842d@mixmaster.it>,
> George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
> >In article <qpvru3h342kca7lhsfnqv5j5f3f6brbqpt@4ax.com>
> >Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 07:45:01 +0100 (CET), George Orwell
> >> <nob...@mixmaster.it> wrote:
> >>
> >> >http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/confirmed-911-planes-wer
> >> >e-tracked-even.html
> >> >
> >> >One of the most important parts of the official story is that the
> >> >government
> >>
> >> No. Air traffic control, the organisation who's job it is to track
> >> commercial aircraft.
> >>
> >> >couldn't track the location of the hijacked planes because the
> >> >hijackers had turned the transponders off. The official version is
> >> >that, with transponders turned off, only "primary radar" was
> >> >available to civilian air traffic controllers. Primary radar can
> >> >track location, but not altitude.
> >>
> >> Ok.
> >>
> >> >This makes no sense, because America's air defenses need to protect
> >> >our nation against foreign fighter jets and other airplanes invading
> >> >our country.
> >>
> >> Invading our country? From outside? Invading? Right.
> >>
> >> >Is our trillion-dollar defense system set up so that a Russian or
> >> >Chinese pilot can invade undetected if he just turns off his
> >> >transponder? Darn! Why didn't we think of that?!
> >>
> >> Is a Russian or Chinese pilot going to be stealing a commercial
> >> airliner at a civilian airfield?
> >>
> >> >Primary radar is a red herring.
> >> >
> >> >Why?
> >> >
> >> >Because the military possesses highly sensitive radar. For example,
> >> >"military radar can track space debris as small as 10 centimetres
> >> >across" miles up in space.
> >>
> >> You have no idea of the concepts of scanning and tracking, do you?
> >>
> >> >AWACS Should Have Tracked Planes
> >>
> >> Should? Ok. With what we know now maybe they should.
> >>
> >> How many AWACs aircraft were airborne over the east coast of the
> >> continental USA on September 11 2001 at around 9am? How many of these
> >> were alerted to hijacked aircraft? How many were asked to try and
> >> locate them? How many aircraft, of any type, are flying above the
> >> continental USA without transponders at any one time?
> >>
> >> >Airplanes known as AWACS have incredibly sensitive doppler radar that
> >> >can detect any moving object. As an Army website states:
> >> >
> >> > "Although Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AWACS)
> >> > airborne radar can detect practically any moving object, aircraft
> >> > radar operators routinely screen out objects moving slower than
> >> > 85 miles per hour to avoid tracking motor vehicles."
> >> >
> >> >There was, in fact, at least one AWACS near Washington, D.C. on the
> >> >morning of 9/11 participating in a war game exercise. The pilot
> >> >learned of the attacks soon after the first hit on the World Trade
> >> >Center. While, at first he thought it was part of the war game
> >> >exercise, "it didn't take him long to realize it was real."
> >> >
> >> >The military should have had the pilot track all planes moving in and
> >> >around the White House-Pentagon corridor. That would have been
> >> >standard military protocol: to protect the command and control
> >> >structure of the U.S. government and military.
> >>
> >> Would have been? So you are guessing?
> >>
> >> >The Pentagon-White House Corridor Is Highly-Monitored
> >>
> >> Bullshit.
> >>
> >> >Even if AWACS pilots were not instructed to monitor the area, the
> >> >Pentagon and White House are two of the most heavily-defended
> >> >buildings in the world.
> >>
> >> Unmitigated bullshit.
> >>
> >> >They are only 2 miles apart, and the entire area is protected air
> >> >space (because the area is home to the seat of power of the commander
> >> >in chief and the military)
> >>
> >> More bullshit.
> >>
> >> >and - because there have been numerous incidents of planes
> >> >approaching the White House - it is entirely certain that the whole
> >> >area is covered by very sophisticated military radar.
> >>
> >> Entirely certain? More guesses?
> >>
> >> >And keep in mind that installing military radar on the ground is much
> >> >easier and less expensive than mounting it in a moving airplane.
> >>
> >> You have no idea, do you?
> >>
> >> >Andrews Air Force Base is only 10 miles from the Pentagon, and has
> >> >doppler radar even for public weather monitoring (if the base has
> >> >doppler for something as mundane as weather monitoring, doesn't it
> >> >make sense that the air force base closest to the Pentagon and White
> >> >House would have sophisticated radar to protect the White House and
> >> >Pentagon? Or do they just monitor the weather?)
> >>
> >> No. You have absolutely no idea.
> >>
> >> >The Pentagon itself also has access to the highly sophisticated PAVE
> >> >PAWS radar which is capable of monitoring many planes or missiles
> >> >simultaneously.
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NuclearWarningSystemMap.png
> >>
> >> Notice the big hole in the coverage?
> >>
> >> "The radar, developed by Raytheon, is used primarily to detect and
> >> track sea-launched (SLBM) and intercontinental ballistic missiles
> >> (ICBMs).
> >>
> >> The system also has a secondary mission of Earth-orbiting satellite
> >> detection and tracking."
> >>
> >>
> >> >Indeed, this CBS news article implies
> >>
> >> Implies? Oh well! That bit of "evidence" has confirmed it for me. How
> >> could anyone question an implied "fact"
> >>
> >> >that military radar actually was tracking Flight 77 as it approached
> >> >the Pentagon. And Dick Cheney -- sitting in a military command bunker
> >> >underneath the White House-- monitored flight 77 for many miles as it
> >> >approached the Pentagon (confirmed here).
> >> >
> >> >The Other Planes
> >> >
> >> >While I have focused on Flight 77 and the area surrounding the
> >> >Pentagon, this diagram shows that all of the hijacked planes flew
> >> >over numerous military bases on 9/11 before crashing. Those military
> >> >bases undoubtedly possess highly-sophisticated radar as well.
> >>
> >> Undoubtedly? Another wild arsed guess.
> >>
> >> >In addition, the is strong evidence that the planes were being
> >> >tracked. For example, an ABC News article states:
> >> >
> >> > "Controllers at the Boston Center knew American Airlines Flight
> >> > 11, which departed at 7:59 a.m. ET from Boston for its flight to
> >> > Los Angeles, was hijacked 30 minutes before it crashed. They
> >> > tracked it to New York on their radar scopes. 'I watched the
> >> > target of American 11 the whole way down,' said Boston controller
> >> > Mark Hodgkins. "
> >>
> >> And this proves that the military were tracking it...how?
> >>
> >> >Similarly, air traffic controllers and others tracked Flight 175.
> >> >
> >> >Confirmed
> >>
> >> Confirmed by...? What?
> >>
> >> >All of the above-described information confirms the statement by a
> >> >former air traffic controller,
> >>
> >> An unnamed controller? Wow. Thanks for that "evidence".
> >>
> >> >who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin
> >> >Towers flew "like the back of my hand", and who handled two actual
> >> >hijackings, that planes can be tracked on radar even when their
> >> >transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview).
> >>
> >> But you have no idea how this is done, or the problems involved, do
> >> you? To you this seems to be the easiest thing in the world to do.
> >> Because you've seen it done in James Bond movies. Get a clue!
> >>
> >> Shill #2
> >> --
> >> Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance
> >> to those of us who do.
> >> Isaac Asimov

> >
> >I knew I would catch a kooky shill when I set my bait. And you fell for
> >it hook ... line ... and sinker, kook.
> >

>
> >Hey, kook, I bet you didn't know that Darleen Druyun had three AWACS
> >planes in the air on September 11th. But kook did you know that the
> >US has a fleet of four AWACS total? Why would three of the only four
> >US owned AWACS planes

>
> Which, even if true, if on the morning of 9/11 they were not part of
> the NORAD organization on 15 minute notice and within maybe 100 miles
> of where we would like them to be, they might as well not exist.
>
> The Air Force is a bureaucracy and planes can only fly so fast.
>
> Twoofers seem to be ignorant of these facts.
>
> The "truth movement" has confused "asking questions" with making
> unsubstantiated assertions, not listening to the polite responses from
> people that know relevant facts, and shouting "Inside Job!" over a
> bullhorn.
>
> That's what makes the children's crusade of the "Truth Movement" the
> huge failure it is. Everyone that knows anything about aviation
> laughs at the claim. The Twoofers that invent them sell books and
> DVDs but never speak in public in front of people with knowledge
> relevant to their claims or that actually know what happened on 9/11
> in detail.


We're in serious jeopardy if asking questions becomes something to fear. .
..
 
Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 07:45:01 +0100 (CET), George Orwell
> <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>
> >http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/confirmed-911-planes-were-t
> >racked-even.html
> >
> >One of the most important parts of the official story is that the
> >government

>
> No. Air traffic control, the organisation who's job it is to track
> commercial aircraft.
>
> >couldn't track the location of the hijacked planes because the hijackers
> >had turned the transponders off. The official version is that, with
> >transponders turned off, only "primary radar" was available to civilian
> >air traffic controllers. Primary radar can track location, but not
> >altitude.

>
> Ok.
>
> >This makes no sense, because America's air defenses need to protect our
> >nation against foreign fighter jets and other airplanes invading our
> >country.

>
> Invading our country? From outside? Invading? Right.
>
> >Is our trillion-dollar defense system set up so that a Russian or
> >Chinese pilot can invade undetected if he just turns off his
> >transponder? Darn! Why didn't we think of that?!

>
> Is a Russian or Chinese pilot going to be stealing a commercial airliner
> at a civilian airfield?
>
> >Primary radar is a red herring.
> >
> >Why?
> >
> >Because the military possesses highly sensitive radar. For example,
> >"military radar can track space debris as small as 10 centimetres
> >across" miles up in space.

>
> You have no idea of the concepts of scanning and tracking, do you?
>
> >AWACS Should Have Tracked Planes

>
> Should? Ok. With what we know now maybe they should.
>
> How many AWACs aircraft were airborne over the east coast of the
> continental USA on September 11 2001 at around 9am? How many of these
> were alerted to hijacked aircraft? How many were asked to try and locate
> them? How many aircraft, of any type, are flying above the continental
> USA without transponders at any one time?
>
> >Airplanes known as AWACS have incredibly sensitive doppler radar that
> >can detect any moving object. As an Army website states:
> >
> > "Although Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AWACS) airborne
> > radar can detect practically any moving object, aircraft radar
> > operators routinely screen out objects moving slower than 85 miles
> > per hour to avoid tracking motor vehicles."
> >
> >There was, in fact, at least one AWACS near Washington, D.C. on the
> >morning of 9/11 participating in a war game exercise. The pilot learned
> >of the attacks soon after the first hit on the World Trade Center.
> >While, at first he thought it was part of the war game exercise, "it
> >didn't take him long to realize it was real."
> >
> >The military should have had the pilot track all planes moving in and
> >around the White House-Pentagon corridor. That would have been standard
> >military protocol: to protect the command and control structure of the
> >U.S. government and military.

>
> Would have been? So you are guessing?
>
> >The Pentagon-White House Corridor Is Highly-Monitored

>
> Bullshit.
>
> >Even if AWACS pilots were not instructed to monitor the area, the
> >Pentagon and White House are two of the most heavily-defended buildings
> >in the world.

>
> Unmitigated bullshit.
>
> >They are only 2 miles apart, and the entire area is protected air space
> >(because the area is home to the seat of power of the commander in chief
> >and the military)

>
> More bullshit.
>
> >and - because there have been numerous incidents of planes approaching
> >the White House - it is entirely certain that the whole area is covered
> >by very sophisticated military radar.

>
> Entirely certain? More guesses?
>
> >And keep in mind that installing military radar on the ground is much
> >easier and less expensive than mounting it in a moving airplane.

>
> You have no idea, do you?
>
> >Andrews Air Force Base is only 10 miles from the Pentagon, and has
> >doppler radar even for public weather monitoring (if the base has
> >doppler for something as mundane as weather monitoring, doesn't it make
> >sense that the air force base closest to the Pentagon and White House
> >would have sophisticated radar to protect the White House and Pentagon?
> >Or do they just monitor the weather?)

>
> No. You have absolutely no idea.
>
> >The Pentagon itself also has access to the highly sophisticated PAVE
> >PAWS radar which is capable of monitoring many planes or missiles
> >simultaneously.

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NuclearWarningSystemMap.png
>
> Notice the big hole in the coverage?
>
> "The radar, developed by Raytheon, is used primarily to detect and track
> sea-launched (SLBM) and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
>
> The system also has a secondary mission of Earth-orbiting satellite
> detection and tracking."
>
> >Indeed, this CBS news article implies

>
> Implies? Oh well! That bit of "evidence" has confirmed it for me. How
> could anyone question an implied "fact"
>
> >that military radar actually was tracking Flight 77 as it approached the
> >Pentagon. And Dick Cheney -- sitting in a military command bunker
> >underneath the White House-- monitored flight 77 for many miles as it
> >approached the Pentagon (confirmed here).
> >
> >The Other Planes
> >
> >While I have focused on Flight 77 and the area surrounding the Pentagon,
> >this diagram shows that all of the hijacked planes flew over numerous
> >military bases on 9/11 before crashing. Those military bases undoubtedly
> >possess highly-sophisticated radar as well.

>
> Undoubtedly? Another wild arsed guess.
>
> >In addition, the is strong evidence that the planes were being tracked.
> >For example, an ABC News article states:
> >
> > "Controllers at the Boston Center knew American Airlines Flight 11,
> > which departed at 7:59 a.m. ET from Boston for its flight to Los
> > Angeles, was hijacked 30 minutes before it crashed. They tracked it
> > to New York on their radar scopes. 'I watched the target of American
> > 11 the whole way down,' said Boston controller Mark Hodgkins. "

>
> And this proves that the military were tracking it...how?
>
> >Similarly, air traffic controllers and others tracked Flight 175.
> >
> >Confirmed

>
> Confirmed by...? What?
>
> >All of the above-described information confirms the statement by a
> >former air traffic controller,

>
> An unnamed controller? Wow. Thanks for that "evidence".
>
> >who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin
> >Towers flew "like the back of my hand", and who handled two actual
> >hijackings, that planes can be tracked on radar even when their
> >transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview).

>
> But you have no idea how this is done, or the problems involved, do you?
> To you this seems to be the easiest thing in the world to do. Because
> you've seen it done in James Bond movies. Get a clue!
>
> Shill #2


You're all ****ing assholes
 
Back
Top