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.
I don't feel expert enough to get involved with playing around with that web site, but I am interested in what people with some experience in air traffic control have to say about it. I'm not sure whether I can make discriminating evaluations without having spent many, many hours watching this stuff as it normally behaves.
Point to one thing I said that isn't a fact. And explain why using an obscenity is considered mature.
"I don't feel expert enough to get involved with playing around with that web site, but I am interested in what people with some experience in air traffic control have to say about it. I'm not sure whether I can make discriminating evaluations without having spent many, many hours watching this stuff as it normally behaves."
Just to add to my video watching expertise :) that craft doesn't reappear by 1300h.
I'm like you, but the coincidence of Flt612 "shadow" reading and the general aviation craft popping out of nowhere near by is interesting.
I haven't disputed any of your statements. I learn alot on these threads. However, when I am called things I do not like, I sometimes choose words poorly in anger.
How much of the available data have you actually watched? In the course of an hour, or 6 hours or 24 hours, how many false returns show up? The only targets that are going to show up on this system are aircraft with IFF transponders or false images. There could have been a 20 missile salvo fired at this aircraft, and not a single one of those missiles would show up on what you are looking at. That is just a plain fact.
For the ATC system to get confused like that, the bogey would have had to get pretty darn close.
"I can show you real RADAR loops that have loads of reflections. Sorry to bust your bubble folks, there is no story here, now please move along...lol"
Have you seen any that were coupled with pilot observation of unusual phenomena?
Not only that, but it was the only missile ever created that modulates its airspeed to fly alongside its intended target while it tries to decide how to destroy it. It is absolutely amazing what Cashill throws out there to generate his blood money income.
Well that would explain it if Venus could make a 1 minute radar track.
Since Reagan left office, there has been little difference in the administrations. Moderate Democrats and Moderate Repulicans will generally get you about the same results.
I'll give W. some credit if his Supreme Court justices turn out OK, rather than like some of the Eisenhower (Earl Warren) and Nixon (Blackmun) appointees. Other than that, how much has big government been reigned in by Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-(likely Clinton)?
Yep, if I ever get a bottle rocket that can fly 7500 feet up, just before I light it I'm gonna say:
"Hold my beer and watch this!"
I don't think this is pure paranoia. The pilot did report seeing something, and the FBI came out with a series of transparently ridiculous statements, including the whopper that a bottle rocket could reach 6000 feet.
I'm not saying that it WAS a missile, but I'd feel a little better about it if the FBI would make at least a faint effort to investigate it and report on it honestly.
And this is not the first time. With TWA 800, there were several witnesses with wartime fighter experience who said that what they saw was a missile, and that the color of the explosion was wrong for a fuel tank explosion. The CIA person who was sent in to explain it did a pathetic job, and the center fuel tank explanation never made any sense.
This recent incident follows fairly shortly after the preposterous FBI coverup of the suicide bomber in Oklahoma.
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a thorough and careful investigation. And I don't see why it's in our national interest to cover it up. Sure, the odds of being on a plane that gets shot down are very small; but if we are at war with fantical Islam, it would help to let people know that they are threatening us on our own home ground, if that is what is happening. Otherwise the Democrats will take advantage of the perception that nothing is happening and we should all go back to sleep.
"So, not only did our phantom missile miss, but it was also a dud? The terrorists were just out getting some target practice?"
Why did the missiles at Mombasa airport miss? I'd tell you, but loose lips...
Only when the mainstream media has been totally broken and demolished will spending cuts have a chance at succeeding. At least we have the tax cuts which have increased revenue to feed the bloated pig that is government.
Indeed, the reason why the AA flight info got transfered to the bogey was likely that the bogey got assigned the same info as the plane's transponder by the software.
Nice post.
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.