Visibility 9-11 - Red Flag -Transponders Not Required to Track Errant Aircraft

Red Flag -Transponders Not Required to Track Errant Aircraft

11/15/10 • 4 min

Most people don’t realize that on September 11th, planes were known to be high jacked and flying around the Eastern US for over 70 minutes. After September 11th, many wondered why our air force was unable to stop the high jacked aircraft, especially American Airlines Flight 77 which struck the Pentagon. American Airlines Flight 11 was high jacked at 8:14. By 8:25 Boston air traffic controllers confirmed that the flight was indeed high jacked and the aircraft struck the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46. At 9:03, United Airlines Flight 175 struck the South Tower and at that time, the whole world knew that America was under attack. It was not until 9:37 that American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

Therefore, it was a full hour and 10 minutes between the time the FAA knew that Flight 11 was high jacked and the time Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. How could this happen? The area around the Pentagon and Washington D.C. is some of the most heavily defended airspace in the World. This fact led many to believe there had to be a stand down order issued which would have prevented Standard Operating Procedures from allowing these aircraft to be intercepted. A stand-down is defined as “a relaxation from a state of readiness or alert”. This certainly took place regarding air defenses on 9/11.

One explanation offered was that the terrorists turned off the electronic device known as a transponder, which helps identify aircraft on radar. As stated by the 9/11 Commission, it is possible, though more difficult, to track an aircraft by its primary radar returns without the transponder. However, unlike transponder data, primary radar returns do not show the aircraft’s identity and altitude.

The 9-11 commission failed to consider the fact that the US military has more than just ground radar at their disposal. In 2006 a golf ball was hit off the International Space Station. New Scientist magazine reported that the ball was too small to be tracked by ground radar, but noted that,

“US military radar can track space debris as small as 10 centimeters across, and can sometimes see things as small as 5 cm wide if it is in just the right orbit.”

There are 35 USAF bases within range of the 9/11 flights, which included the restricted airspace surrounding the Pentagon, Capitol Hill and the White House. It is hard to believe that a military which possesses such a highly-sophisticated radar system would not have been able to track the high jacked aircraft without a transponder signal.

Commercial airliners do not need their transponders on in order to be tracked by the FAA and NORAD. If America was being attacked by aircraft belonging to a foreign power, it is ridiculous to think these enemy aircraft would have transponders installed to help the US Air Force shoot them down. It is equally ridiculous to believe the FAA and NORAD lack the technology to track aircraft without a transponder signal.

“US military radar can track space debris as small as 10 centimeters across, and can sometimes see things as small as 5 cm wide if it is in just the right orbit.”

Previous Episode

Red Flag - Young Man to Cheney, Do the Orders Still Stand?

On the morning of September 11th, 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney was in charge of the military response to the attacks while the President flew around the country in Air Force One. The 9-11 Commission failed to follow up on the nature of and order the Vice President had given which related to American Airlines Flight 77 which hit the Pentagon at 9:36. Many have wondered if these orders were NOT to shoot down Flight 77 as it approached the Pentagon.

We know about this order because on May 23, 2003, then Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testified before the 9-11 Commission. Secretary Mineta testified that he was present at the Presidential Emergency Operating Center (PEOC) in a bunker below the White House on the morning of September 11th under the direction of Vice President Dick Cheney. During questioning by Co-Chairman Lee Hamilton, Mineta was asked if he was in the PEOC when the Presidential order was given to shoot down suspected hijacked commercial airliners.

During the time that Secretary Mineta testified about, Flight 77 had already been severely off course for over an hour and it was thought that the flight was being controlled by terrorists. Flight 77 was also being tracked by the FAA and NORAD and according to Secretary Mineta’s testimony it was even being tracked for at least 50 miles from the PEOC.

Secretary Mineta’s testimony has raised many questions. The most obvious question is, what were the orders that Vice-President Cheney had issued to the young man? When asked by Mr. Hamilton during testimony if the order was a shoot down order, Secretary Mineta could not confirm that it was. Is it reasonable to assume that this was a shoot down order?

During this same hearing, Secretary Mineta also testified that aircraft had been scrambled from nearby Langley Air Force Base and were only 10 miles away from the Washington D.C. area. If the orders Secretary Mineta spoke of was a shoot down order, then why was this plane not shot down before it hit the Pentagon? Our modern fighters are the most sophisticated in the world and can shoot down multiple targets from many miles away. The question begs to be asked, were these orders the young man spoke of orders NOT to shoot down Flight 77?

We now know that Naval Officer Douglas F. Cochrane is the young man Mineta was referring to in his testimony. When questioned about the day, Mr. Cochrane has refused to answer questions about what happened and repeatedly refers to the 9-11 Commission as the definitive report on the terrorist attacks.

It is another failure of the 9-11 Commission that this testimony by Secretary Mineta was not followed up on. Today, important questions still persist about what these orders were and why the 9-11 Commission failed to dig deeper and ask questions of how Flight 77 could have possibly been allowed to strike the heart of the US Military.

Next Episode

Red Flag - 9/11 Commission Ignores Pakistan's Money Connection

Despite the 9-11 Commission's mandate to provide a “full and complete accounting” of the attacks of September 11, many key points were omitted from the final report. One of these important omissions attempted to cover up the role of Pakistan and whether or not Pakistani intelligence helped to fund the 9-11 attacks.Ties between Washington DC and the Pakistani intelligence agency, the ISI have been documented in media reports before and after the September 11th attacks. In March 2001, Pakistani regional expert and member of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Selig Harrisson, said “the CIA still has close links with the Pakistani intelligence service ISI.” Just one day before the attacks, a Pakistani newspaper in Islamabad reported that the head of the ISI was meeting with unspecified members of the Pentagon, National Security Council, and CIA Director George Tenet.On May 18th, 2002 the Washington Post reported that:"On the morning of Sept. 11, Porter Goss and Bob Graham were having breakfast with a Pakistani general named Mahmud Ahmed -- the soon-to-be-sacked head of Pakistan's intelligence service. Ahmed ran a spy agency notoriously close to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban."

Specific details of that meeting have still not been released and may never have been recorded.In 2001, various media outlets (CNN, Fox News, ABC, and AP) reported that $100,000 was wired from Pakistan to Mohammed Atta, the 9-11 lead hijacker. A "senior law enforcement source" told CNN that the paymaster was believed to be Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, who was working for the Pakistani ISI at the time.Several media outlets reported in 2002 that the US government believed Saeed Sheikh to be an asset of the ISI, and that senior ISI officers knew him well. Also reported was the allegation by Indian intelligence that General Mahmud Ahmed ordered the wire transfer and that Indian intelligence claimed they had assisted the FBI during the investigation. Various mainstream Indian papers reported this in 2001 along with a mainstream Pakistani newspaper. In the West - the Wall Street Journal and Agence France Press picked up on the story in October. On October 7th 2001, Mahmood Ahmed was fired from his role at the ISI. The official explanation was because he was too close to the Taliban. This claim has been met with criticism by some analysts given the fact that there were several pro-Taliban officers that kept their jobs.During the 9/11 Commission hearings, the Family Steering Committee asked the Commissioners to investigate the ISI connection. However, the commission did little to "follow the money" and the 9/11 Commission Report made no mention of these allegations. Furthermore, the commission made the absurd statement that the question of who financed the terrorist attacks was "of little practical significance" [and that it had] "seen no evidence that any foreign government--or foreign government official--supplied any funding."