You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #2: The radar coverage on the NASA pdf is for 5000 ft above ground altitude. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
gbwarming Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-05-05 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
2. The radar coverage on the NASA pdf is for 5000 ft above ground altitude.
Edited on Sat Feb-05-05 05:50 PM by gbwarming
If coverage is blocked at 5000 ft due to terrain it may still be longer range at higher altitudes which all the flights were at when the hijackings occured.

"This diagram is for rough planning of radar coverage. It does not consider aircraft size or most environmental influences. The radar performance limitations may be influenced by the radar cone-of-silence and the radar processor range limitations"

These were big airplanes.

Does the FAA say they ever lost primary coverage when they reviewed the tapes? I think not, even for 77 where the coverage is admittedly poor. I recall that 77 didn't show up on the controllers scopes for a time due to a software flaw even though there was a primary return that could later be traced back from DC.


PS. One more thing. That site claims the flight tracker software gets radar data from the FAA. If that's the case the HOW HOW HOW did they get the tracks of all those flights with their transponders turned off and no primary return? Doh!
pps. oops, Nevermind. Their tracks just ended when the transponders went off or went into coast mode (in the case of 77).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -Holes in the Radar John Doe II  Feb-05-05 04:54 PM   #0 
  - Just joining in here  k-robjoe   Feb-05-05 05:06 PM   #1 
  - The radar coverage on the NASA pdf is for 5000 ft above ground altitude.  gbwarming   Feb-05-05 05:36 PM   #2 
  - Haha. The cone of silence is how Bushco pulled off 9/11  LARED   Feb-05-05 05:49 PM   #3 
  - A Question Similarly Worth Asking, Mr. Lared  The Magistrate   Feb-06-05 12:38 AM   #8 
     - Once again  John Doe II   Feb-06-05 02:54 AM   #9 
     - So, Mr. Doe?  The Magistrate   Feb-06-05 03:29 AM   #10 
        - Thanks  John Doe II   Feb-06-05 03:59 AM   #11 
           - Do Be Serious, Mr. Doe  The Magistrate   Feb-06-05 04:23 AM   #12 
              - Be serious yourself,  John Doe II   Feb-06-05 10:11 AM   #14 
                 - 'Serious Research,' Mr. Doe?  The Magistrate   Feb-07-05 01:54 PM   #22 
                    - Serious answers for a change, Mr.?  John Doe II   Feb-07-05 04:33 PM   #25 
                       - Clearly, Mr. Doe  The Magistrate   Feb-08-05 01:35 PM   #28 
                          - Avoiding to answer avoiding to think  John Doe II   Feb-09-05 02:11 PM   #32 
                             - That You Do Not Like An Answer, Mr. Doe  The Magistrate   Feb-09-05 02:19 PM   #33 
                                - Do you read my post?  John Doe II   Feb-09-05 02:46 PM   #34 
                                   - You Have Indicated Nothing, Mr. Doe  The Magistrate   Feb-09-05 03:05 PM   #35 
                                      - Still avoiding to answer  John Doe II   Feb-09-05 03:13 PM   #36 
                                      - Deleted message  Name removed   Feb-09-05 03:20 PM   #37 
                                      - Again, Sir  The Magistrate   Feb-09-05 04:22 PM   #39 
                                         - Coordination  John Doe II   Feb-09-05 04:27 PM   #40 
                                            - Sir Magistrate  John Doe II   Feb-12-05 06:36 AM   #43 
                                      - Can I simply ask  John Doe II   Feb-09-05 03:47 PM   #38 
     - You misunderestimate my speculation  LARED   Feb-06-05 07:44 AM   #13 
        - So THAT is what it is - a cone of silence!!  DulceDecorum   Feb-06-05 06:52 PM   #17 
           - So what part of my specualtion do you disagree with? (n/t)  LARED   Feb-06-05 08:23 PM   #18 
              - Perhaps More To the Point, Mr. Lared  The Magistrate   Feb-08-05 02:25 PM   #29 
  - Its late  k-robjoe   Feb-05-05 05:55 PM   #4 
     - Flight 11  k-robjoe   Feb-05-05 06:05 PM   #5 
     - Flight 11's False Blips  OmmmSweetOmmm   Feb-07-05 05:32 AM   #20 
        - Are we sure that the "false blips" were on civilian ATC screens?  MercutioATC   Feb-07-05 02:47 PM   #24 
     - One more thing  k-robjoe   Feb-05-05 06:57 PM   #6 
        - Correction  k-robjoe   Feb-07-05 09:07 AM   #21 
  - Dang, you're fast! I just noticed the article this evening and was going  spooked911   Feb-05-05 09:22 PM   #7 
  - I think the key question is NOT how hijackers might have known about holes  spooked911   Feb-06-05 03:49 PM   #15 
  - absolutely  demodewd   Feb-06-05 04:36 PM   #16 
  - Nonsense, Mr. Dewd  The Magistrate   Feb-07-05 02:15 PM   #23 
     - You seem to be ascribing almost super-human levels of cunning to  spooked911   Feb-08-05 12:20 PM   #26 
        - Not In The Least, Sir  The Magistrate   Feb-08-05 01:21 PM   #27 
           - Yeah. Right. Whatever.  spooked911   Feb-08-05 04:24 PM   #30 
              - What An Effective Rejoinder, Sir  The Magistrate   Feb-08-05 04:29 PM   #31 
  - A few links and a question  Wilms   Feb-07-05 03:29 AM   #19 
  - gaps in radar coverage ----  FogerRox   Feb-09-05 05:43 PM   #41 
  - too many uncontrolled variables  demodewd   Feb-09-05 06:04 PM   #42 
  - Questions of Original Post still unanswered  John Doe II   Feb-27-05 11:45 AM   #44 
     - ATC simulation  k-robjoe   Mar-30-05 04:49 PM   #45 
        - Very interesting. But what are you quoting from?  spooked911   Mar-31-05 01:35 PM   #46 
           - The quote  k-robjoe   Apr-01-05 06:53 AM   #47 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC