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.
From the information I saw, including the pieces of the airplane recovered (an incredible amount), it looked pretty convincing to me that there was an explosion in the fuel tank where they say there was. You could easily see the way the various pieces around the thank were distorted outwards, and also violently forced into adjacent structures by the event.
RW, both those statements are incorrect. I have seen nothing that states the pilots described "a missile track". And there is no radar data that shows "an unknown object." The only "radar" data I've seen is from the PASSUR system which can only show secondary data or occasionally a false "ghost image". Furthermore, you will need to explain why the pilots described what they saw as appearing halfway between their position and the coastline when the ghost image that some people want to believe is an actual object, is essentially superimposed on their aircraft.
RE: And stop assuming that government agents are hiding behind every story to pull the wool over your eyes.
I don't assume that. Why did you write that?
The simple number of posts you are making requires time and effort. You have much more passion on this topic than I ever could. Do you have a conflict of interest? Is there some financial interest you have in shutting this down? Is there some can of worms that might cause you personal pain? You certainly exhibit the signs of someone with a very personal interest in making sure that folks don't "go there."
No I don't think you are government. I think it's personal and private interests on your part. Maybe you have some legal exposure or financial exposure in some way, that if there was a broad concern about MANPADs impacting domestic airspace, you'd lose money, credibility or something else you care about. Again, your behavior tells me these things. If it were only academic interest and not personal pain level or downside, you would not invest so much energy into discrediting this thread.
"The article also refer to TRACON radar sweeps. I think this is more than PASSUR system."
The article (written by Jack Cashill) says this..."The unidentified target appears for 12 to 13 sweeps of the FAA LAX TRACON radar rotating at a 4.7-second sweep rate." The problem with taking anything from WND or Jack Cashill is that they don't really have any idea what they are talking about. They have one objective, and that is to make money. The fact of the matter is, there is no "FAA LAX TRACON" radar. The TRACON for the LAX area is in Southern California (San Diego) and is known as SoCal. If Jack somehow got a copy of radar data from somewhere other than the PASSUR system, he sure isn't sharing his info. Neither is anyone else, as there is no mention of such radar data in any source I've seen.
"Is it routine for the FBI to give a statement in lieu of the pilots?"
The FBI conducted the investigation. Who else should release a statement regarding their investigation? Incidentally, American Airlines also released information on the incident. They reported the following...
- Flight #612 was at 13,000 feet altitude - 7-10 miles offshore.
- Cloud ceiling was at 4-5,000 feet (someone on the ground or on a boat wouldn't have been able to see the aircraft)
- Captain saw straight vertical rocket contrail up to about 6,000 feet
- Rocket was approximately 3-4 miles away from flight #612
- That equals a horizontal separation of about 4 miles and a vertical separation of well over a mile.
- The captain never used the word "missile" and never believed the aircraft was a target of the rocket.
"My point is we have have enough of a real world threat to civilian jet transports from MANPAD to not just dismiss speculation as tin foil kookery."
I agree, but it becomes tin foil kookery when people start making stuff up (literally) and attribute "damning evidence" to information that reveals nothing of the sort.
Agree?
Agreed. The documentary I watched discussed in detail the evidence which would typically be found if the cause were a missile, or a bomb on board. And none of it was present.
When I saw that this was a World Net Daily article, I reached for my tinfoil hat. WND is almost as bad as Coast to Coast AM.
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.