The Riddle of the Transponders

[Minstrel Boy]

What was the value-added benefit for the 9/11 hijackers in turning off their transponder signals?

The planes remained visible to radar; the transponders merely ID'd the flights. And yet the transponders of all four flights were switched off. What was gained?

I think the answer is found in the proliferation of wargames on September 11, particularly the exercise called "Vigilant Guardian": the live-fly simulation of hijackings in the US Northeast staged by the Joint Chiefs and NORAD the very morning of the attacks. (Health advisory to coincidentalists: chew carefully before digesting.)

At one time on 9/11, as many as 22 aircraft appeared to be hijacked. Suddenly, the virtue, now verging on necessity, of switching off the transponders becomes evident. With loss of transponder signals the planes became bogies, and discriminating real from simulated hijackings became next to impossible.

This confusion compounded the paralysis already introduced to the system by drawing most of the Eastern seaboard's combat-ready interceptors into Northern Canada for the wargame "Northern Vigilence," and changing the standing orders for a shootdown in June 2001 by removing the discretion of field commanders and placing it solely in the hands of the Secretary of Defense.

For more on the multiple wargames on 9/11, see chapter 19 (a .pdf is available online here) of Michael Ruppert's soon-to-be-released Crossing the Rubicon.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Occam's Razor.

The terrorists were pretty much amateurs with only basic pilot training. They probably thought that turning off the transponder makes the airplane "disappear" from radar completely but did not know that the primary radar return is not eliminated -- only the data tag with ident, altitude and airspeed info.

[Minstrel Boy]

2. Don't knick yourself.

And your explanation for the concurrent live-fly simulation which introduced bogus hijacked aircraft into the radar of the Eastern United States?

Sometimes, Occam is a "conspiracy theorist."

[DulceDecorum]

3. An amateur terrorist hijacker

would NOT have attempted to crash planes
on a day when there were so many wargames going on.
They would have assumed,
along with the rest of us,
that the military would have shot them down FASTER than on a regular day.

[Minstrel Boy]

5. "pretty much amateurs with only basic pilot training"

Atta was a licensed pilot before he ever entered the United States.

His stripper girlfriend in Florida, Amanda Keller, said "He told me that he went to different countries and studied. He had pilot’s license from several different countries. But all the pictures looked different. All the names were different. He had a license to fly from just about every country he had been to. He went to pilot’s school in all these countries."

Atta had the privileges of an instructor at Huffman Aviation, and may have helped pilot South American drug runs. (Do you remember the story of how the DEA found 43 pounds of heroin in the jet of the school's financier just weeks after Atta arrived, and yet wasn't charged?)

Any of this familiar to you? No?

Then see here, but more importantly, read

[stickdog]

9. Yeah, that's the ticket! And the reason they believed this nonsense was

because of all the ridiculously inane post-9/11 coverage that's implied as much!

Now all we have to find is their time machine.

[gandalf]

19. As though the buzzword "Occam's Razor" would explain anything

That is a lazy kind of reasoning.

[tngledwebb]

4. Transponders are a key to much of this mystery.

Many questions arise. Did 9/11 Omission ask or answer any of them? Ie why and how would hijackers do this? Is it easy to do, has it ever happened before, what is the purpose of transponders...etc. Most Americans that have even heard the word transponder in relation to 9/11 probably think that turning them off hid the planes from radar. And the wargame scenario is critical for those who don't accept the hijacker theory.

[LARED]

6. proliferation of wargames on September 11??

Could you please list them.

Thanks in advance.

[Minstrel Boy]

7. Here are the ones I know:

Vigilant Guardian
Vigilant Warrior
Northern Guardian
Northern Vigilance
Tripod II

You can read more about them here:
http://www.newsociety.com/News/rub_war.pdf

[peacetalksforall]

8. Please go to the-movement.com to read about transponders

www.the-movement.com

That's a hypen in the URL.

There is an easy to understand theory/explanation about transponders included in the articles about radar and flight paths and timing. I found it amazing.

The overall theory is that the aircraft that took off from Boston etc. all landed in Harrisburg, PA where all the passengers were placed on Flight 93. It includes amazing timing data to 'prove' the theory.

Radar and transponders are essential to the theory.

Radar is limited to a 'flat' point in space. Transponders provide altitude (and speed).

By using other aircraft, the blips of two aircraft can appear as one blip on the ATC screen even if they cross paths at different altitudes. If the transponders are turned off, the identification of two aircraft can be switched by manually changing the aircraft identification code in a transponder.

The theory also relies on the capability to control aircraft remotely.

[impe]

10. Or

is it until the transponders were turned off, the ATC'c could not differentiate between real and bogus
plane signals?

If I were an ATC, and it appeared that 22 planes were in high-jack mode, what would be the quickest way to identify real threats? Would the ATC send out a message to all air traffic to turn off their transponders.... and those that didn't were determined
to be fake since the blip still appears on the screen even when the tranponders are off?

[MercutioATC]

11. No, we wouldn't.

[impe]

15. Ok

but could you flesh this out for me. Under cyber warfare, what protocols would ATC's follow to determine
between real and bogus high jacking threats on their screens? How would you determine which planes are real? I countered
with the transponders since they were something that had to be turned off manually, everything else in the
cockpit could be over-ridden on the ground....true?

[MercutioATC]

27. Actually, everything could be overridden on the ground.

The technology exists, it's just not installed in planes. If we can remotely pilot a plane from the ground, we can make the transponder say anything we want it to, also.

What we'd do depends on the specific methods terrorists would use. If every plane's transponders were rendered inoperable we'd still be able to track their primary radar returns (east of the Mississippi, anyway) we also have non-radar procedures for keeping the planes separated. However, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to detect an unauthorized flight or to detect if a plane went off course.

[demodewd]

12. why no transponder hijack alert?

One of the big questions immediately asked after 9-11 was why would the transponders be turned off before the pilot would have coded in the hijack alert. Assuming that the pilot or co-pilot would have a few seconds to respond to an attempted cockpit takeover would not that be the first thing that they would do? Imagine "hijackers" crashing their way through the cockpit door..of course the crew would be punching in the code.

[stickdog]

13. No code. No distress calls. No nothing. On all four planes -- even though

Flight 93's pilot was warned that something was up just minutes before his transponder went off.

[MrSammo1]

14. simple

it had it that much easier to switch the jets.

[seatnineb]

16. Yeah!

And just for good measure.....


We have a plane called Flight 77.
The first commercial airliner in history to reveal its altitude on a radar screen.
Even when it's transponder was turned off!


Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/national/main310721.shtml


:crazy:

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrSammo1]

29. Very good!

That's why it's all a smoke screen put out by BushCo. How could the FAA possibly know how high a jet is flying.......with the transponder off? They couldn't! Lies on top of lies on top of more lies!



==============================================================
Sheeple Science Lesson #6
The FAA can tell the altitude of an in flight passenger jet with it's transponder off!
==============================================================

[RH]

32. Read the the threads

This was explained before

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x18668

ATC knew it did a downward spiral because it vanished from radar as it came down. If it had come in at tree top height before spiralling down it would have been off radar all along.

The height the Boeing flew in at was seen from the military C130 called by ATC to intercept to identify the object. The descent of the aircraft was also eye balled directly by Chris Stephenson, the controller-in-charge at the Reagan National Airport tower. It would also have been seen by aircraft coming in to land at National.

[stickdog]

37. Who was flying that busy, busy C-130 that saw both Flight 77 crash AND

confirmed that Flight 93 crashed over a minute before something caused a seismic spike near Shanksville?

You'd think the 9/11 Commission would have wanted to talk to this "wrong place, right time" flyboy. Wouldn't you?

[John Doe II]

39. C-130 Pilot Steve O'Brien

I agree they should have talked to him (well, wel, at least they did mention his existence and didn't call it an urban legend ....)
But there is one newspaper the guy talked to.
Here you go:


How We've Changed
'Hey, center, what's going on in New York?'; Most Minnesotans watched the horrors of 9/11 from far away. For a few, the devastation was immediate and personal.
by Bob Von Sternberg
The Minnesota Star-Tribune
September 11, 2002


A year ago today, at precisely 8:32 a.m., a Sun Country Airlines 737 lifted off the runway at John F. Kennedy International Airport, banked to the northwest and headed for the Twin Cities.

Hal Johnson, a Cottage Grove resident with 20 years of flying under his belt, still remembers that "rare sightseeing day where we looked out the window more than we usually do." Johnson and his co-pilot gazed down at the towers of Manhattan, glittering just below them. "It was weird _ it was just seconds before."

As Johnson flew north, American Airlines Flight 11 was screaming south. A week or so later, when Johnson next flew the route, he realized "we had to have passed right by each other, within just a few miles." A year ago today, at precisely 8:45 a.m., Flight 11 slammed into the north tower of the World Trade Center.

Within minutes, pilots throughout the Northeast began peppering air traffic controllers with questions.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

[undergroundrailroad]

42. John Doe II please be aware that DU copyright rules require that excerpts

of copyrighted material be limited to four paragraphs and must include a link to the original source.

In the future you may reference our our policy on copyrighted material by clicking here.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Thanks.

Undergroundrailroad
DU Moderator
FA/IP/911 Affairs Forums

_______________________________________________________________________

[John Doe II]

43. Sorry about that

[RH]

40. I'd like to hear from the star witness.

Other pilots on course to land at DCA should also have noticed a B757 flying too fast and directly in front of them.

It is not easy to make sense of any circling around over Washington.

Nor is it easy to work out how a plane heading north west from Andrews would be anywhere near to another coming in fast from the south west.

The 'No Boeing' propaganda campaign served well to distract from the issue.

It would have made more sense for an attacker to fly in low under radar, or else to feign an intention to land at DCA. I am not yet convinced that the latter was not the case.

According to O'Brien he lost sight of the B757 and then just happened to pass through the smoke over the Pentagon.

According to eye witnesses he was on its tail, except that accounts I've seen from them are also irksomely unclear.

[John Doe II]

41. Interesting point

Here is everything I have on eyewitnesses seeing a second
airplane or more concretely that are talking of a C-130.
(Well, well, but what are the odds that the same C-130
witnesses two crashes and in both cases the FBI denied it
existence at the beginning ....)))



Kelly Knowles:	There was most definitely a second plane. 
It's so frustrating because nobody knows about the second
plane, or if they do they're hiding it for some reason.
[Daily Press, 15.09.01] (c)

“[Kelly Knwoles] saw the rear of a jet heading toward
Washington, D.C. A few seconds later, a second plane 
that seemed to be chasing the first passed over at a slightly
different angle, she said. […]
A Pentagon official said late Friday 
no other plane was flying with the jetliner. But he said it
was 
possible a military plane was in the area at the time of the
attack.”
[Daily Press, 15.09.01] (c)



“Another Arlington worker who declined to be interviewed in
front of the media told a story that the military historians
had not heard in the 244 interviews they had conducted through
last week. 
The man said a mysterious second plane 
was circling the area when the first one attacked the
Pentagon.” 
[Pittsburgh Posy-Gazette, 20.12.01 b] (x)


“Perhaps more remarkable is [Pam Young’s] insistence that a
second plane was flying near and along the same path as the
hijacked jet.
Her brother, [Keih] Wheelhouse, of Virginia Beach, spotted the
planes first. 
The second plane looked similar
to a C- 130 transport plane, he said. 
He believes it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, 
as if to prevent two planes 
from appearing on radar while at the same time guiding the jet
toward the Pentagon.
As the hijacked jet started its descent, ‘it's like it stepped
on its gas pedal,’ Wheelhouse said. 
‘As soon as he did that, the second plane banked off to the
west.’”
[Daily Press, 14.09.01] (c)


John O’Keefe:	The first thing I did was pull over onto the
shoulder, and when I got out of the car I saw another plane
flying over my head […] Then the plane -- it looked like a
C-130 cargo plane -- started turning away from the Pentagon,
it did a complete turnaround. 
[New York Law Journal, 12.09.01]

[seatnineb]

44. Good work.

I also found one other guy who saw both planes.

Meseidy Rodriguez confirms "it was a mid size plane". His brother inlaw also saw a jetliner flying low over the tree tops near Seminary Rd. in Springfield, VA. and soon afterwards a military plane was seen flying right behind it.


So many people saw this second plane yet the Pentagon told the public that for a few days following 9/11/01...it was unaware of the existence of this very same(second)plane.

In the days immediately following the Sept. 11 hijackings, the Pentagon had no knowledge of the C-130's encounter, because all reports were classified by the Air National Guard, the Pentagon spokesman said.
http://www.logofilo.com/PentagonC130&KeithWheelhouse.html

[John Doe II]

45. C-130

Thanks.
Very intriguing is the above mentioned quote that the C-130 was flying above the airplane which would imply that it was for the radar there was only one bimp when in reality there have been two (this is very similar to how Operation Northwood was supposed to work).
But in general all theses witnesses agree that the C-130 was really nearby. This is rather strange as well. O'Brien said he was quite far away when the plane hit the Pentagon. Moreover Flight 77 is supposed to have flown full speed. A C-130 is as far as I know much slower (which is also the explanation why it couldn't prevent Flight 77 from attacking the Pentagon). But if all this is true how is it possible what several eyewitnesses state: that the C-130 was really close?

[MrSammo1]

46. right!

So they know exactly what the missile did?

[seatnineb]

50. Simple question .

Where in this sentence.................

Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/national/main...

..........does it mention:

1)C-130 planes surveying Flight 77's altitude.

2)An ATC "eyeballing" Flight 77's altitude.

3)Aircraft coming into land at Reagan National Airport observing Flight 77's altitude.



Any answers rh?

[tngledwebb]

17. There must have been a few pages on this

in 9/11 report, it seems a critical issue for many reasons. Any DU'ers out there who have found any discussion of this issue in the report?

[John Doe II]

20. Turning off the transponder, maybe not really clever

I read the first chapter of the Commission report in detail. Besides saying that the terrorists switsched off the transponder in order to disappear for the radar there is no closer examination. I wonder if it is really that intelligent to switch off the transponder as often said. Doing this is a clear sign for the controller to treat the flight with special attention.
Never asked in the report neither: Why not simply taking off in New York in order to attack New York, tkaking off from Washington DC in order to attack the Pentagon etc (this would make Air defence absolutely impossible).

[k-robjoe]

21. Very true

"On my way to Bahrain I asked for permission to talk with a pilot. Mr. M. was kind enough to answer my questions.(...)
We reflected on the transponder signals which were allegedly missing. It makes no sense for hijackers to erase these signals - the aircraft gets no invisibility by doing that. Just on the contrary: the blip signal remains on the screens of the radar in the towers, and missing transponderinformation immediately causes radio contact from the radar control. What is it? It is a four-number code given by the ground to the aircraft, changing from airspace to airspace, from tower in charge to the next. Additionally it is added flight informations as height and course. Any change in direction and height is clearly visible on the screens, but given the wish of hijackers to misleed the ground control by just leaving them without information makes no sense. So there is no "viz zero", but full alert when the technical transponder gets off and there is no response on radio requests."

http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/talking.html#Transpondersignale

[RH]

22. A flight taking off from New York

travels away from New York, not towards New York.

:eyes:

[John Doe II]

23. Thanks for the help

That was a help indeed!
Sorry buut maybe after ten minutes or so one can make a U-turn towards New York. This is certainly more clever in order to avoid air defence than travelling between thirty and fourty minutes before turning around (yes, Flight 77 simply turned around but only 34 minutes after take off. So in that case the question why wait so long? Every minute one waits is two minutes more for the air defence.

[k-robjoe]

24. One also wonders

about the manouvre of flight 175, going all the way around and coming in from the opposite side...

( to get the fireball right ??? )

[John Doe II]

25. No question for the comission

The strange flight paths are no question for the commission neither. Here again: Due to very strange flight paths (especially Flight 11 and 175) te hijackers lost valuable time. Time that could have been decisive if NORAD and FAA would have worked properly. All in all one has the impression that contrary to the statement of the Commission (the hijackers zere smart) the hijackers did everything possible not to achieve their aims.

[k-robjoe]

26. M-hm

If you haven´t seen it yet, have a look at the first pic on this site : http://www.the-movement.com/air%20operation/Flight11.htm

It´s kind of funny

[John Doe II]

28. Thanks

Looks interesting.
I'll read it!

[stickdog]

30. Exactly. So if you're a suicidal hijacker, do you turn off the

transponder and ignore the air traffic controller who immediately tries to initiate voice contact -- THEN go on some sort of mysterious joyride away from your final target?

[k-robjoe]

34. going all the way around

Going all the way around would mean like maybe ten minutes more before reaching the target.

Seems like these hijackers weren´t in a lot of hurry.

Stewart Airport :

On this site - http://www.the-movement.com/air%20operation/Flight175and93.htm - you can read :

" Flight 175 has a brief deviation from its path in southern New York state. This not only takes the plane over Stewart Airport (and air base) it also occurs right on the boundary between Boston air traffic centre and N.Y. centre."

Seems like they didn´t worry much about the airforce. They go all the way around, passing just by this air base, in fact they deviate a bit from their path, so that they go right above the air base (!)

Now why would they choose to go all the way around? To cross paths with flight 93? That´s what the article linked above asks.

[RH]

31. Before invading the cockpit

I'd want to wait for a plane to be on auto pilot, wouldn't you?

[John Doe II]

33. No, I wouldn't wait for the autopilot

No, I wouldn't wait to have the comfort of the auto pilot if this means loosing valuable time and increasing the risk of being shot down.
Moreover Jarrah supposedly changed the autopilot when he entered the cockpit according to the Commission report. So if he's capable of changing te autopilot he certainly doesn't need to wait for the real pilot to install the autopilot for him.
Moreover pilots who are capacle of fascinating 330° turns before entering the Pentagon and pilots that manage to hit "pencils" (as Mubarak called the Twin Towers from the perspective of an air fighter pilot)then I believe they are capable enough of handling the autopilot themelves and don't have to wait and wait.
So, no I don't believe this could be an explanation for their strange behaviour and even less for the weird flight paths

[RH]

35. increasing the risk of being shot down?

How do you work that out?

If a hijacker is merely sitting in a first class seat, waiting for an opportunity, because of what would the plane be shot down? Some kind of telepathic communication?

[John Doe II]

36. NORAD still exists?

"Risk to be shot down"? Thanks for the irony!
Well, in case the hijackers considered that NORAD and FAA might be willing to do their job I believe it can be assumed that the hijackers should reduce the time between the hijacking and attacking their target to a minimum (in order not "to be shot down"). But let's look at Flight 77 and 93.
Flight 77 waited 34 minutes and then had to go all the way back running the risk of being stopped by NORAD. Flight 77 was still 43 minutes in the air. Why run the risk??
Flight 93 which was supposed to attack Washington had to go a very long way back as well. Why didn't they start the hijacking earlier in order to reduce the risk?

[stickdog]

38. Here on 9/11 island Cleveland is on the way from Newark to DC.

I mean, what's the rush? It's only been 45 minutes since the SECOND plane hit the SECOND WTC tower, and everybody knows the FAA doesn't talk to the DOD ...

Timing your assault is overrated. The important thing is to make sure you file the right flight plan.

[MrSammo1]

47. LOLOLOL!

Very good!

Wouldn't be a really kick in the neo-con ass........if this is true?

http://deprogram.info/page2.html

Read the part about bin Laden!

[greenman2]

48. 77 tranponder and flight maps...

>We have a plane called Flight 77.
>The first commercial airliner in history to reveal its altitude on a >radar screen.
>Even when it's transponder was turned off!

didnt they get one of the recorders from flight 77? i thought i read somewhere that , that is how they got the altitude data, i might be wrong though?

by the way the 911-commission report says that flight 175 CHANGED its transponder code TWICE. now from this link, it sounds like that is not all that unusual, does anyone know if its normal for a flight to change its txcode ?

http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/talking.html#Transpondersignale


i did an analysis on the flight maps.

http://airgames.bravehost.com/
http://airgames.bravehost.com/Flight77.html

93 filed a new flight plan, but AFTER it was hijacked , a least accoriding to the maps...
http://airgames.bravehost.com/Flight93.html

flight 11 and 175 had the same ETA according to the maps, easy enough to start confusing ATC...
http://airgames.bravehost.com/Flight175.html
http://airgames.bravehost.com/Flight11.html

notice the timing, lots of stuff happened between 8:43 and 8:46

Flight 11 hits the WTC
Flight 175 deviates from its flight path
Flight 77 deviates from its flight path
Flight 93 is taking off.


8:15 a.m. Boston flight control tries but fails to contact the pilots of Flight 11, even using emergency frequencies.
8:20 a.m Flight 11 stops transmitting its IFF (identify friend or foe) beacon signal.
8:20 a.m.Flight 11 starts to veer dramatically off course around this time.
8:37 a.m. Flight controllers ask the Flight 175 pilots to look for a lost American Airlines plane 10 miles to the south
8:43 a.m. NORAD is notified that Flight 175 has been hijacked

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline_flight_ua_175

from the 911 ommission report...
As we worked with your committee in looking at that, that was probably the point in time where we were concerned -- remember, that call, as I recall, actually came after United 175, as well as American 11, had already impacted the North and South Towers of the World Trade Center. Then we became very concerned -- not knowing what the call signs of those aircraft were that had hit the World Trade Center, we became very concerned at that particular point that those aircraft -- that some aircraft might be heading toward Washington, D.C.

BEN-VENISTE: General, is it not a fact that the failure to call our attention to the miscommunication and the notion of a phantom flight 11 continuing from New York City south, in fact, skewed the whole reporting of 9/11? It skewed the official Air Force report, which is contained in a book called Air War Over America, which does not contain any information about the fact that you were following or thinking of a continuation of flight 11 and that you had not received notification that flight 77 had been hijacked?
http://wid.ap.org/transcripts/040617commission911_1.html

also from a differnt part of the report they say
(paraphrased)
Seconds after AA 11 impacted the tower, U175's transponder code changed, then changed again. These changes were not noticed for several munuites however, becuase the same controller was in charge of both flight 11 and 175

This is the same controller from Egypt air !

One air traffic controller - with the help of an assistant - monitored the flight patterns of the two jets that toppled the World Trade Center, the employee said. He directed American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 - both Boeing 767 jets that had Boston to Los Angeles routes, the employee said.

The same controller handled Egypt Air Flight 990 when it crashed off the coast of Massachusetts in 1999, the employee said. Hijackers gained control of American Airlines Flight 11 around Gardner, Mass., the employee said. "American was just flying around, doing what it wanted," the employee said of the jet's approach to New York. http://www.investigate911.com/flight93.htm


HOW TO STEAL AN AIRLINER TO FAKE A HIJACKING
and all the "plane swap" articles in one place...
http://www.911.0catch.com/news-flights.html

Brad
http://airgames.bravehost.com
http://airgames.bravehost.com/maps.html
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/bradm/911index/index.html

[MercutioATC]

49. Re: code changes

Pilots frequently change transponder codes when crossing facility boundaries. A transponder code is a base-8 4-digit number resulting in 4096 possible discrete codes. Occasionally (frequently, during high-traffic periods) the code assigned to a flight by one facility is already being used by another aircraft in the next facility. In those cases, the receiving facility's computer will assign a new transponder code to the flight and the controller will advise the pilot to change to the new code.

Code changes are definitely not anything out of the ordinary. I issue dozens of them every day.