# 9/11 wreckage **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 16, 2009, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567 "2009-01-16T05:42:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/281 "2009-01-19T00:16:40Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Garfield: > > I don’t suppose you have evidence about the NORAD maneuvers or ATC tracking the plane for 40 mins deviating from the original flight path. Both would be critical in this instance. What claims am I making about NORAD or the ATC? ---
**Author:** ![PaulParkhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@PaulParkhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PaulParkhead)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/282 "2009-01-19T00:17:27Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Do you know what my position is? No, we don’t know what your position is, as you have declined all invitations to explain it. Here’s another invitation: would you care to explain what you think happened on 9/11 and what evidence you have to support your view? ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/283 "2009-01-19T00:20:20Z")
> [@Garfield226](#): > > What claims am I making about NORAD or the ATC? You referred to ‘stand-down’ orders previously. Do you have an opinion (or better yet, evidence) of what the USAF and NORAD were doing that day? Or how long flight 77 was allowed to fly deviated from its flight path with no cabin audio? This is my evidence. Im not just asking questions, this is actually public information now. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/284 "2009-01-19T00:23:37Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > first of all, i was trying to copy the whole page, pictures and all it didnt work. That’s because this board does not permit you to post pictures at all, although you can link to them. They also frown on extensive copy-and-paste - just link to your page of interest. > [@](#): > > im not the best at that sort of thing. the point of all that is to show you that the 2 or 3 pieces of wreckage, from the whole 757, which didnt vaporize, classified as official evidence, doesnt conclude anything. NONE of the airplane “vaporized”. I don’t know where you get that notion. Some of it certainly _burned_ but there was a fire, which is not unknown post-crash. A lot of the airplane was shredded at impact. This is also a common feature of airplane crashes. I don’t know why you find it mysterious. Those “2 or 3 pieces” you reference are the LARGE pieces of debris - around them \*\*\>I\< \*\*certainly see lots of other debris which could plausibly be from an airplane (or from office furniture - not being there I can’t say for sure) > [@](#): > > what other plane crashes are trotted out as evidence? what about yesterday when the media saw a plane lifted out of the hudson. is there a goose conspiracy? What connection are you trying to make here? I linked to another image of another crashing airplane, said image “confiscated” by the investigators. When I was based at Palwauke Airport (now Chicago Executive) we had an airplane roll over on take-off. The resulting debris had different paint on it, but the remaining shreds strongly resembled what is shown on the lawn of the Pentagon. I got a good luck at quite a bit of it flying over the closed runway that was studded with airplane fragments. What is shown in the pictures linked looks _entirely_ consistent with a destroyed aircraft + fire in my limited but genuine experience. > [@](#): > > 90 % of people would tell you that even before the crash, light poles were knocked down… if the plane was flying that low of course we would have tape. No, we wouldn’t. As I explained, a jet of that sort is fast enough to pass a camera between frames. In this case low does NOT mean slow. > [@](#): > > if a wing clipped a pole the plane probably wouldve crashed right there. Nope, it wouldn’t. I personally have spoken to a pilot who knocked over a tree MUCH more substantial than a light pole with an airplane weighing a mere 2000 lbs and going a mere 80 mph. I also flew the airplane in question (this was some time after the fact), and saw the remains of the tree, which were hung in the hangar (somewhat like a trophy) where said airplane was stored. A much, much heavier airplane traveling much, much faster can certainly knock over a lightpole and keep going. > [@](#): > > when a 125 ft diameter plane leaves a 20 ft hole (at best, ck out the pic taken immediately after impact), but then leaves a hole at ring C, doesnt this evidence contradict itself if the pentagon is built so tough like ford? The word you are looking for is “fort” and no, the Pentagon is NOT built as a fort - it’s a _freaking office building!_ Geez, you are _ignorant_. Third paragraph, first sentence of [this wikipedia article.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon) Not good enough for you? The first sentence of this page of the [Official Pentagon Website.](http://pentagon.afis.osd.mil/facts.html) **It’s an office building** , not a fort. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/285 "2009-01-19T00:24:25Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Ok, lets talk about “eye-witness accounts” then (without assuming they could be pursuaded to change their story). > > [http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...sses/bart.html](http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...sses/bart.html) > > This is not a “CT” site, most accounts talk about a 737-757. Actually it is a conspiracy site, although not as extreme as the others in some aspects. Jim Hoffman, the owner of that site doesn’t accept much of the governments account and thinks it had to be a controlled demolition of twin towers and WTC-7 to help bring it down by using explosives and/or other devices. Since you’re using his site for eyewitnesses, you might want to take a look at how many eyewitnesses Hoffman reports of it being a missile: **ZERO.** > **[9-11 Research: Pentagon Eyewitnesses](https://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/witnesses.html)** > [@](#): > > Do you know what my position is? I think there is a misconception here that I am supporting a “missile” theory, despite the fact that Rumsfeld and other ex-officials have said the same thing several times in fact. Food for thought again. I know what Rumsfeld said, and I don’t think you understand the context of what he was saying, and why he choose that term; nor does Rumsfeld believe that a missile hit the Pentagon. Who are the other ex-officials that you think accept a missile theory? Why don’t you tell us what is your position then? You seem to want to defend anything but a jetliner hitting the Pentagon. You’ve had ample time to elaborate. And any particular reason why DNA of the passengers isn’t evidence to you either? razncain ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/286 "2009-01-19T00:24:32Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > You referred to ‘stand-down’ orders previously. Do you have an opinion (or better yet, evidence) of what the USAF and NORAD were doing that day? Or how long flight 77 was allowed to fly deviated from its flight path with no cabin audio? This is my evidence. Im not just asking questions, this is actually public information now. I referred to the poster’s movie-plot description and asked if he had any evidence to back up his claims. I was not making any claims myself. And, finally, we have a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who says he’s NOT “just asking questions.” Do I get some sort of prize for that? Also, would you like to retract your claim about having no explanation for the lack of stock market records on 9/12/2001? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/287 "2009-01-19T00:27:01Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > The reason I made this thread was in the hopes of tapping some anonymous resource (like a pilot, or boeing employee) that might be able to provide something I’ve never seen before. Fine. I am a pilot. What you have presented does not hold up. We have some pilots here who fly big Boeings and Airbuses, but their jobs require them to be away for days at a time so they will show up when they check in to the forum (I hope) although frankly we’re all getting tired of rebutting this stuff. The Boeing employee might also show up, but I have no control over him. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/288 "2009-01-19T00:39:08Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Fine. > > I am a pilot. > > What you have presented does not hold up. I’m a pilot too, and I agree with **Broomstick**. I was also in the Civil Air Patrol, where we were trained to recognise wreckage. First: An airplane often doesn’t look like an airplane if it crashes. Second: The images that have been posted here, and which have been seen over the last seven and a third years, look like a plane crash. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/289 "2009-01-19T00:39:42Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Ok, lets talk about “eye-witness accounts” then (without assuming they could be pursuaded to change their story). > > [9-11 Research: Eyewitnesses Accounts](http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html) > > This is not a “CT” site, most accounts talk about a 737-757. > > There are some inconsistencies- Dechiaro, Evey, Ford, **Hovis** , **O’brien** , Seibert, Skarlet, Slater, **Wheelhouse** and Wright Yes, inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts are TYPICAL. That’s why investigations _routinely try to obtain as many as possible_. People bring their own pasts and biases to any event. They have different viewpoints (literally). Civilians and non-pilots will process visual information different than the military and pilots. A barely glimpsed airplane + proximity to military owned structure may cause someone to _assume_ an airplane is military when it is not. Most people do not get close up views of airliners actually in flight. Untrained people are _terrible_ at judging distances and size - and _trained_ people only slightly better. Someone inside a building struck by an airplane will have a difference experience than someone rocked by wake turbulence outside. Dispersing jet fuel is _frequently_ mistaken for white smoke (I did this once myself). In other words, I don’t see evidence of some vast conspiracy in those eyewitness accounts. I particularly distrust non-pilot civilian identification of airplanes moving at high speed because they are _terrible_ at doing that. C’mon - you had people “identifying” this as everything from a B737 to a _propeller_ airplane (inconsistent with the jet engine parts found inside and the _lack_ of piston engine or prop parts). Some of these folks saw a glimpse of airplane and made _assumptions_. (And lets be real - visually there isn’t much to distinguish a B737 from a B757 - there’s a size difference, mostly, but unless you put one of each together you aren’t likely to spot it.) ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/290 "2009-01-19T00:39:53Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > That’s because this board does not permit you to post pictures at all, although you can link to them. They also frown on extensive copy-and-paste - just link to your page of interest. > NONE of the airplane “vaporized”. I don’t know where you get that notion. Some of it certainly _burned_ but there was a fire, which is not unknown post-crash. > > A lot of the airplane was shredded at impact. This is also a common feature of airplane crashes. I don’t know why you find it mysterious. Those “2 or 3 pieces” you reference are the LARGE pieces of debris - around them \*\*\>I\< \*\*certainly see lots of other debris which could plausibly be from an airplane (or from office furniture - not being there I can’t say for sure) > What connection are you trying to make here? I linked to another image of another crashing airplane, said image “confiscated” by the investigators. > > When I was based at Palwauke Airport (now Chicago Executive) we had an airplane roll over on take-off. The resulting debris had different paint on it, but the remaining shreds strongly resembled what is shown on the lawn of the Pentagon. I got a good luck at quite a bit of it flying over the closed runway that was studded with airplane fragments. What is shown in the pictures linked looks _entirely_ consistent with a destroyed aircraft + fire in my limited but genuine experience. > No, we wouldn’t. As I explained, a jet of that sort is fast enough to pass a camera between frames. In this case low does NOT mean slow. > Nope, it wouldn’t. I personally have spoken to a pilot who knocked over a tree MUCH more substantial than a light pole with an airplane weighing a mere 2000 lbs and going a mere 80 mph. I also flew the airplane in question (this was some time after the fact), and saw the remains of the tree, which were hung in the hangar (somewhat like a trophy) where said airplane was stored. > > A much, much heavier airplane traveling much, much faster can certainly knock over a lightpole and keep going. > The word you are looking for is “fort” and no, the Pentagon is NOT built as a fort - it’s a _freaking office building!_ Geez, you are _ignorant_. Third paragraph, first sentence of [this wikipedia article.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon) Not good enough for you? The first sentence of this page of the [Official Pentagon Website.](http://pentagon.afis.osd.mil/facts.html) **It’s an office building** , not a fort. Thank you! If the Pentagon is a mere ‘office building’ with no “reinforced masonry” or “bomb proof” elements, then how could airplane wings leave no mark on the wall? the windows closest to the point of impact were still intact. there are images taken a few minutes after the crash before the wall collapsed. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/291 "2009-01-19T00:44:12Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > Actually it is a conspiracy site, although not as extreme as the others in some aspects. Jim Hoffman, the owner of that site doesn’t accept much of the governments account and thinks it had to be a controlled demolition of twin towers and WTC-7 to help bring it down by using explosives and/or other devices. > > Since you’re using his site for eyewitnesses, you might want to take a look at how many eyewitnesses Hoffman reports of it being a missile: **ZERO.** > > [9-11 Research: Pentagon Eyewitnesses](http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/witnesses.html) > > I know what Rumsfeld said, and I don’t think you understand the context of what he was saying, and why he choose that term; nor does Rumsfeld believe that a missile hit the Pentagon. Who are the other ex-officials that you think accept a missile theory? > > Why don’t you tell us what is your position then? You seem to want to defend anything but a jetliner hitting the Pentagon. You’ve had ample time to elaborate. And any particular reason why DNA of the passengers isn’t evidence to you either? > razncain I am not saying (nor have I ever ) that a missile hit the pentagon. But here is a former 9/11 commissioner who suffered the same slip of tongue as Rumsfeld: ![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/o3LJXoXpAHE/maxresdefault.jpg)https://www.youtube.com/embed/o3LJXoXpAHE?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque I would really like to get off of this missile CT and move forwards with NORAD and ATC documents. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/292 "2009-01-19T00:46:01Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Thank you! > > If the Pentagon is a mere ‘office building’ with no “reinforced masonry” or “bomb proof” elements, then how could airplane wings leave no mark on the wall? the windows closest to the point of impact were still intact. there are images taken a few minutes after the crash before the wall collapsed. [http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military\_law/1227842.html?page=6](http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6) > [@](#): > > FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon’s exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings. > > Why wasn’t the hole as wide as a 757’s 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn’t punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon’s load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. “If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building,” Sozen tells PM, “it didn’t happen.” > > The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide — not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet’s landing gear, not by the fuselage. ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/293 "2009-01-19T00:46:33Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > I would really like to get off of this missile CT and move forwards with NORAD and ATC documents. You know you can open a new thread anytime you like, right? It’s pretty easy to do. Any comment on the stock market? ---
**Author:** ![Algorithm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/algorithm/32/12204_2.png) [@Algorithm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algorithm)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/294 "2009-01-19T00:50:30Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > I am not saying (nor have I ever ) that a missile hit the pentagon. Do you believe that an airplane hit the Pentagon? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/295 "2009-01-19T00:50:41Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > I don’t suppose you have evidence about the NORAD maneuvers or ATC tracking the plane for 40 mins deviating from the original flight path. Both would be critical in this instance. NORAD maneuvers would not normally be known to the public for what should be obvious national security reasons not requiring a conspiracy. There is a great deal of military airspace over the US, and it was know there were some training flights underway that day, but those flights, being for purposes of flight training and not combat, were _unarmed_. Nonetheless, two pilots training over Ohio were diverted to attempt pursuit although if they had found the hijacked airplanes their only recourse to bring them down would be ramming. This was revealed shortly after the events of 9/11 took place. If you search news archives from that time you will likely find it, including interviews with the pilots involved. ATC had trouble tracking the airplanes because the hijackers turned off the transponders that help the ATC radar systems identify and distinguish individual airplanes from, say, flocks of birds. The alternative is to go to primary radar which is a cluttered mess. As I have been in a working air traffic control tower where a controller was so kind as to show me the difference I know this from personal experience. Tracking an airplane in crowded skies without working transponder is not a minor thing, and may be effectively impossible. Turning off a transponder is a trivial act, involving no more than flipping a switch in the cockpit. Any _student_ pilot can identify and operate such devices, and the hijackers concerned, at least in one case, had a valid commercial pilot license as well as time in a simulator for the airplanes in question. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/296 "2009-01-19T00:52:11Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Fine. > > I am a pilot. > > What you have presented does not hold up. > > We have some pilots here who fly big Boeings and Airbuses, but their jobs require them to be away for days at a time so they will show up when they check in to the forum (I hope) although frankly we’re all getting tired of rebutting this stuff. The Boeing employee might also show up, but I have no control over him. Ok sir. Let me ask you this, have you seen the records showing the turns of the plane, to the specific degree, relative to the time that passed? I’ve heard numerous pilots explain that these types of maneuvers couldnt even be physically possible. I will be back with specific degrees. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/297 "2009-01-19T00:53:29Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > I am not saying (nor have I ever ) that a missile hit the pentagon. But here is a former 9/11 commissioner who suffered the same slip of tongue as Rumsfeld: > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3LJXoXpAHE](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3LJXoXpAHE) > > I would really like to get off of this missile CT and move forwards with NORAD and ATC documents. The “I’m not saying”, but you still come back with “evidence” that it was a missile game is getting tiresome… In any case even I can see that he was talking about is fears about what possible things that could hit the Pentagon in a national emergency, “missile, airplane…” The fact that the interview was cut right there when the commissioner mentioned “missile, airplane…” is enough for me to just conclude that this is once again a misleading editing by the conspiracy theorists of what the commissioner actually said. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/298 "2009-01-19T00:53:40Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military\_law/1227842.html?page=6](http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6) There are pictures, thatve been released, which show no such 75 ft hole immediately after impact. You need to check the timestamps. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/299 "2009-01-19T00:55:23Z")
> [@Garfield226](#): > > You know you can open a new thread anytime you like, right? It’s pretty easy to do. > > Any comment on the stock market? > **[9-11 Research: Insider Trading](https://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html)** > > Massive insider trading indicates official complicity in the crimes of 9/11/01 I will be back with info about the day after. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/300 "2009-01-19T00:56:39Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > NORAD maneuvers would not normally be known to the public for what should be obvious national security reasons not requiring a conspiracy. There is a great deal of military airspace over the US, and it was know there were some training flights underway that day, but those flights, being for purposes of flight training and not combat, were _unarmed_. Nonetheless, two pilots training over Ohio were diverted to attempt pursuit although if they had found the hijacked airplanes their only recourse to bring them down would be ramming. This was revealed shortly after the events of 9/11 took place. If you search news archives from that time you will likely find it, including interviews with the pilots involved. > > ATC had trouble tracking the airplanes because the hijackers turned off the transponders that help the ATC radar systems identify and distinguish individual airplanes from, say, flocks of birds. The alternative is to go to primary radar which is a cluttered mess. As I have been in a working air traffic control tower where a controller was so kind as to show me the difference I know this from personal experience. Tracking an airplane in crowded skies without working transponder is not a minor thing, and may be effectively impossible. > > Turning off a transponder is a trivial act, involving no more than flipping a switch in the cockpit. Any _student_ pilot can identify and operate such devices, and the hijackers concerned, at least in one case, had a valid commercial pilot license as well as time in a simulator for the airplanes in question. Actually I have researched this. Even if a black box transponder is turned off, the ATC can still track it on the radar. It doesnt resemble a flock of geese either. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567.md?page=16)