|On my way to Bahrain I asked for permission to talk with a pilot. Mr.
M. was kind enough to answer my questions. Without contradicting the informations
obtained from "Cockpit" his additional informations allow further discussion
of remote control systems in the wake of 9/11.
First we talked about the voice recorders. He pittied that there is no public demand -not even among pilots- to release complete transcripts of the 2 voice recorders and the 2 TDRs (technical data recorders). They are running all the time and contain the last 30 minutes before the incidents. It is technically not possible to stop them while in the air. On ground for sure all possibilities to manipulation are open. But not inflight.
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. (As it in fact happened with at least the two WTC-aircraft. The normal operational procedure of suspected hijacking with information of FAA AND Norad).
If the pilot is given the chance he can provide additional information about the situation through internationally approved codes replacing the normal codes. That is 7500 for hijacking and 7600 for radio failure. Knowing that missing transponder code AND no response on radio requests from the ground nearly automatically will be answered by the intercepting routine by military aircraft, it makes sense to give the cockpit the opportunity to show by 7600 that there is a technically induced radio problem. To reach for the transponder signal and adding 7500 is for sure not a handling which takes minutes. So the question remains: if it was not the hijackers who took out the signals, but the pilots: why did they all switch them off and none of the 8 pilots was able to replace it by 7500?
Which leads us to the question of lack of electricity.
(That one computer system could replace the other if manipulated,
and all the security measures which Herr F. must have thought about is
all invalid without electricity, is basic. That the installation of interfaces
and a surrogate-cockpit causes new questions on the other hand: later.
Very stunning by the way is the revelation in the fake video of bin
Laden who allegedly said
About interception standard operational procedures he acknoledged the
findings of Jared Israel: first radio contact, view contact, rocking of
the wings. Never there is a need to shoot a plane down before at least
try the procedures internationally known. So where is the foundation of
an assumption that the pilots of the interceptors had moral problems or
were waiting for further orders of their superiors which were not given
because of a chaos? There was no chaos, and there were no interceptors
close to one of the hijacked planes which could begin with even the slightest
attempt to intercept.
*The installation of interfaces and a proxy piloting causes new questions:
|Paul Thompson in "Democratic Underground":
There are two stories, completely incompatible with each other. One, that neither of these planes were ever "lost." The second is elaborate stories about how they were lost until the very minute they crashed.
The transponder code changed story is old. Here it is in the timeline:
8:46 A.M. Flight 175 stops transmitting its transponder signal. It is 50 miles north of New York City, headed towards Baltimore. <8:46:18, Guardian,10/17/01> Another lie? Note that at 8:42, a flight controller said, "there's no transponder no nothing." However, they turned the transponder off for only about 30 seconds, then returned the transponder to a signal that was not designated to any plane on that day. This "allowed controllers to track the intruder easily, though they couldn't identify it."
Note that other stories completely contradict this, saying Flight 175 was lost presumably until the very last minute:
(Between 8:46 - 9:03 A.M.) At some unknown point before Flight 175 crashes,
flight controllers in Garden City on Long Island, New York, are still looking
for Flight 11. Flight 175 is an unmarked blip. One controller stands up
Here's some of the contradictory stories about Flight 11 being lost, or not:
8:28 A.M. Boston Air Traffic Control radar sees Flight 11 making an
unplanned 100 degree turn to the south (they're already way off-course).
Flight controllers say they never lost sight of the flight, though they
could no longer determine altitude once the transponder was turned off.
However, in other media reports, "Boston airport officials said they did
not spot the plane's course until it had crashed, and said the control
tower had no unusual communication with the pilots or any crew members."
The lack of unusual communication is an incredible lie, as other prior
entries show. Before this turn, the FAA had tagged Flight 11's radar dot
for easy visibility, and at American Airlines headquarters at least, "All
eyes watched as the plane headed south. On the screen, the plane showed
a squiggly line after its turn near Albany, then it straightened." Why
such blatant lies? They expect people to believe they didn't know the flight
was a hijacking until after it crashed?
The stories are so mutually contradictory its amazing, and even amusing.