Posted on 12/09/2005 5:08:08 PM PST by concretebob
The rumor mill started humming Monday morning, Nov. 28, after ABC Radio aired the following report:
FBI and Homeland Security agents spent part of the weekend investigating the report of a possible missile fired at a plane leaving Los Angeles international airport. ABC's Alex Stone has the details.
... the pilots radioed air-traffic controllers saying what appeared to be a rocket had been fired at the aircraft and missed as American Airlines Flight 621 was climbing over the water. It had just taken off from LAX. The plane was enroute to Chicago ... When it landed, FBI agents spoke with the pilots. Sources say those agents now believe it was a flare or a bottle rocket that passed by and they don't think it was any threat to the aircraft.
This report did not run for long, possibly no more than once or twice. Still, thousands of people heard it, and many of those were understandably suspicious when no other major media outlet picked up the story.
Not satisfied with rumors, retired United Airline pilot, Ray Lahr, and aviation audio expert, Glen Schulze, decided to investigate. The pair have been cooperating in Lahr's ongoing Freedom Of Information Act suit in federal court against the CIA and the National Transportation Safety Board regarding the demise of TWA Flight 800. What they have found about the LAX flight is inconclusive, but intriguing, and deserves serious inquiry.
For starters, the flight was AA 612 and not AA 621 as reported. Lahr and Schulze checked its progress using the LAX airport monitor. Those interested in doing the same can enter Nov. 26, 12:49, 20-mile range, and then click on "start."
You will see every airplane aloft in the Los Angeles area on the map. In about a half minute, "AAL612" appears as a green aircraft crossing the shoreline. If you click on the aircraft, it will turn red, and the flight data will appear in a box to the right. Over the next few minutes, the aircraft turns south. At approximately 6,000 feet and off the coast of Redondo Beach, a new target will appear.
"The unidentified target's altitude does some funny things," observes Glenn Schulze, "from a constant 1,500 feet to suddenly showing 7,500 feet where it remains, which is the same altitude as AA FL 612 at this point in AA FL 612's climb-out."
According to Lahr, AA 612 seems "to split and become TWO! It remains TWO for a while, both targets moving together, then they separate, the mirror target fades, and AA 612 (thank God) is alone again, heading slightly south east."
The unidentified target appears for 12 to 13 sweeps of the FAA LAX TRACON radar rotating at a 4.7-second sweep rate. "This target can not be easily explained away as a radar ghost or artifact or swamp gas," adds Schulze, "as it exists and tracks over the ground for almost 50 seconds as it travels along with AA FL 612. Dynamite evidence!"
What makes the evidence particularly compelling is that the pilots apparently saw what the radar was reporting. Those who are interested in the pilot's commentary can go to the following site. The relevant conversation is at the very end of this segment, during the last minute. This conversation takes place several minutes after the incident and alludes to an earlier conversation.
ATC: Flare or a rocket?
AA 612: It looked more like a rocket.
ATC: American 612, how far away was it from your position?
AA 612: It was about half way between us and the coastline when we first called that last center guy.
Whatever the pilot saw prompted enough concern for LAX officials to contact the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. It also prompted a very serious report on ABC radio.
The most comprehensive reporting on the subject appeared Dec. 3 in an LAX area newspaper called The South Bay Daily Breeze. The headline says it all: "Smoke Trail Wasn't Threat to Plane, Say Investigators."
The article describes what the pilot saw as an "an unusual vapor trail," one that was "at least a mile below the airplane." FBI spokeswoman Laura Eimiller assured the readers that this presumed trail "absolutely posed no threat." This claim would be more reassuring had the FBI not also convinced the reporter that "whatever left the vapor trail did not appear on radar, and the pilot never reported seeing any kind of projectile."
The existing evidence would seem to refute all of those claims. The pilots saw not a vapor trail, but a "flare or a rocket." They saw it when the plane was no higher than 6,000 feet. Anything "at least a mile below them" would likely be swimming. The radar did pick something up, and the pilots considered the event sufficiently alarming to report it.
A veteran Airline Pilots Association safety investigator, Lahr was once much more likely to accept aviation authorities at their word. Having spent the last several years fighting them for information in the federal courts, he has grown increasingly skeptical.
The FBI may have its reason for quieting fears, Lahr understands, but as the distorted investigation of TWA Flight 800 has shown, a pacified population is a vulnerable one.
Or... it could have another meaning, one which we'd all prefer not to believe.
You programmed PASSUR?
I did see that...but I also saw it at 12:49. General Aviation item shows up in that area then disappears...
I suppose I do. I fly out of LAX regularly, and my aircraft is a much bigger target than AA 612. If I thought there was a threat of being shot at, I'd want to know. I've got a wife and two kids and a lot to live for. Fortunately, I've got enough practical knowledge of this stuff to see right through the BS spread by the likes of Jack Cashill. The man is a conman who makes a living off of other people's fear and ignorance. He is a fraud.
"Do you believe beyond a reasonable doubt this cannot be a missle?"
I would bet everything I own that what you are looking at on the PASSUR display is not a missile. I have absolutely no doubt that it is not a missile.
"Do you deny that according to PASSUR this object appears in front of AAL612 when AAL612 is over 6000ft altitude?"
You still don't understand what you are looking at. PASSUR cannot display anything real that doesn't have a transponder. In other words, if there really was something there, it had to have an IFF transmitter on board that was sending exactly the same codes as AA612. The company that created this system explains exactly what you are seeing here. It is a ghost image. It is not real.
"Do you deny that PASSUR identifies this object as AAL612, but at an altitude of 1500ft, at this point in time?"
As I have stated earlier, PASSUR does not identify anything. It merely reports information it is sent.
"Do you deny that PASSUR has this NEW object actually becoming AAL612 a few seconds after what appears to be a cross-over (or a couple or 3 cross overs) and that the originally tracked AAL612 out of LAX is lost?"
That is because the "new" object actually is a ghost image of AA612. It doesn't exist.
"Do you believe this object seen by PASSUR is a ghost object as defined in your post 46?"
Not even a doubt in my mind.
Sorry pal but I read ALL of the info on the PASSUR web site. PASSUR uses the return information but is also fed info from the ASR. In the event that the ASR returns a signal (ghost or not) PASSUR thinks it has to assign a designation to it (I believe - computers doing what they think is correct). Clearly evident by clicking on the icon on the dual radar track from PASSUR - the FAA ATC tapes may not have designated the bogey as the AA flight. By your explanation the bogey return the same IFF codes as the AA flight at least as far as PASSUR was concerned. How could that be? TCAS is NOT implemented on ALL commercial aircraft. ONLY those with FAA oversight. Many foreign freighters and other aircraft do carry TCAS. Also, it is entirely possible that this was another aircraft that wandered into the airspace with it's IFF turned off. I can turn IFF off on my plane anytime I want. Is it also possible that there a drug runners who have IFF spoofing capability (unlikely a 13:00 in LA but if the money's right)? EA-6B's can do it with the flip of a switch and they can return the appropriate radar signature for any aircraft they want. Did the AA pilot report a TCAS warning? I have not heard that if he did then the whole thing is probably just one big snafu.
Jerry Doyle has a guest coming up right now to talk about it.
That's not entirely accurate. Transponders are transmitters. They don't add anything to a target's radar cross section. They emit an electronic signal providing a "secondary" contact for radars tuned to look for that signal. A "secondary" contact is not a raw radar return. It is simply a radio signature transmitted from the target aircraft. And while you are absolutely correct to say radar can track passive objects, the system everyone is viewing in this thread cannot. It can only see "secondaries".
http://64.62.253.55/ksev700
Try this, good show.
This is a good ref for talk shows.
http://radio.findanisp.com/radio-shows-on-air.php
Is there an actual report of a reflectivity return from this "bottle rocket" or are the conspiracy buffs relying only on transponder signals? Anyway, what do you think the pilots saw? Temperature layers causing refraction?
A good read for everyone.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7148187/
Thanks and Merry Christmas
Welcome and Merry Christmas back at ya!
The conversation I listened to had the pilot saying it looked like a rocket.
Apologies in advance if you have done so previously.
uh ... never mind ... answered own question. duh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.