The Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) Oddity-- why did they go off early?

[spooked911]

http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2010/09/911-time-discrepancy-oddity-distress.html

Radio transmitters that are carried aboard aircraft and that are supposed to activate only in the event of the aircraft crashing went off in the New York area several minutes before the two planes hit the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. In events that, according to the official account of 9/11, should have been impossible, emergency locator transmitters (ELTs), which are intended to help locate crashed aircraft by broadcasting a distinctive signal, were activated over two minutes before American Airlines Flight 11 hit the north WTC tower and over four minutes before United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower. And yet no ELTs went off at the times these planes hit the towers, when we might have expected them to have been activated.

EMERGENCY TRANSMITTER WENT OFF OVER TWO MINUTES BEFORE FLIGHT 11 CRASHED
American Airlines Flight 11 hit the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46 a.m. and 40 seconds. <1> But two and a half minutes earlier, David Bottiglia, an air traffic controller at the FAA's New York Center, had received an important message from one of the planes in the airspace he was monitoring. At 8:44 a.m., the pilot of U.S. Airways Flight 583 told Bottiglia: "I just picked up an ELT on 121.5. It was brief, but it went off." (121.5 megahertz is an emergency frequency that ELTs are designed to transmit their distress signals on.) A minute later--about 90 second before Flight 11 hit the WTC--another plane in the New York Center's airspace reported the same thing. The pilot of Delta Airlines Flight 2433 told Bottiglia: "We picked up that ELT, too. But it's very faint." <2> According to author Lynn Spencer, "several" facilities picked up the ELT signal around this time. <3>

Peter McCloskey, a traffic management coordinator at the New York Center, later recalled that the ELT had gone off "in the vicinity of Lower Manhattan." <4> And, around the time Flight 11 hit the WTC, a participant in an FAA teleconference stated, "We got a report of an ELT in the area that was in." (Before it disappeared from radar screens, the track for Flight 11 had indicated the plane was about 20 miles from New York's JFK International Airport.) <5>

However, while an ELT went off minutes before Flight 11 hit the WTC, it appears that no ELT went off at the time of the crash itself.

EMERGENCY TRANSMITTER WENT OFF OVER FOUR MINUTES BEFORE FLIGHT 175 CRASHED
United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center at 9:03 a.m. and 11 seconds. <6> But, as with the first crash, an ELT was activated in the New York area several minutes before this plane hit the tower.

At just before 8:59 a.m., over four minutes before the Flight 175 crash, the pilot of Flight 583, who had reported the ELT signal before the North Tower was struck, told David Bottiglia at the New York Center that he had noticed another ELT going off. The pilot said, "I hate to keep burdening you with this stuff, but now we're picking up another ELT on 21.5." <7>

As with the previous crash, although an ELT went off minutes before Flight 175 hit the South Tower, it seems that no ELT went off at the time of the crash itself.

[SDuderstadt]

1. I know! I know! Ooh, pick me!

The "perps" forgot to synchronize their watches?

[hack89]

2. ELT's are not carried by commercial airliners

They are used by general aviation only.

FAR Part 91 - General Operating and Flight Rules

FAR 91.207 Emergency locator transmitters
(a) “Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, no person may operate a U.S. registered civil airplane unless-“
(1) “There is attached to the airplane an approved automatic type emergency locator transmitter...”,

Note: Per paragraph (f): (a) does not apply to (1) Before January 1, 2004, turbojet-powered aircraft;
(2) Aircraft while engaged in scheduled flights by scheduled air carriers; and (11) On and after January 1, 2004, aircraft with a maximum payload capacity of more than 18,000 pounds when used in air transportation.

[greyl]

3. To which he'll reply

"Doesn't matter - there weren't any planes anyway."

[spooked911]

5. Really, it's your problem to deal with, if you support the official story.

But certainly it doesn't conflict with what I think happened.

[zappaman]

6. so

are you now saying there were planes?

[spooked911]

9. NO.

More importantly, what are you saying about the ELTs going off early?

[zappaman]

10. a false alarm is a more logical explanation

than no planes, don't you think?

[spooked911]

24. I wouldn't conclude no planes just from this episode

but it does fit with a false plane scenario pretty well

[SDuderstadt]

30. Yeah, except for the multitude of witnesses...

who actually saw the planes, Spooked.

Again, this is why you're regarded so dismissively, dude.

[spooked911]

35. just deal with the OP

OK?

[sgsmith]

38. Deal with the OP?

Okay - I'll take a swing, knowing that in spooked land nothing is provable one way or another.

Prove to me that the ELTs came from the two accident aircraft.

Prove it.

No conjectures that "it doesn't make sense", or "they must have come from AA & UA".

ELTs using the 121.5 MHz frequency were crappy devices. Prone to activating accidentally, and prone to not activating when needed. They were used in the general aviation fleet, boating and personal sizes. ELTs don't transmit identifying information as to what they're attached to, so there's NOTHING that proves the reported triggers were related to the accident aircraft.

Prove to me that some guy in a Cessna wasn't manually testing his ELT just prior to or just after a flight.

Want an example of how crappy they were? When Steve Fossett crashed, there was no ELT activation. He flew into the side of a mountain with a clear view to the horizon, and nobody heard an ELT.

[spooked911]

42. I can't *prove* it. Nonetheless---

the evidence is clear that: ELT's went off in the vicinity of NYC and the ELT's went off twice, a few minutes before each flight officially crashed.

I find that remarkable, and almost impossible to be due to chance.

[zappaman]

44. "I find that remarkable, and almost impossible to be due to chance."

Does that fact that NO ONE else does, give you pause?

[SDuderstadt]

45. Back from your little...

"meltdown", Spooked?

You owe me a big apology.

[spooked911]

4. that may be

but why did they go off then-- or why were they reported as going off?

[hack89]

7. Ancient technology with 98 percent of alerts being false alarms

that's why it is being replaced.

* 98.5% of alerts detected are false (2006)<16>
* Fewer than 2 in 1000 alerts and 2 in 100 composite alerts are actual distress.<17>
* The Cospas-Sarsat system has no way of distinguishing between analog beacons and interference (from set top boxes, etc.)
* False alerts may result in a long and fruitless search by costly SAR assets, although rescue co-ordination centres typically analyse the circumstances, considering location, movement of the source and confirmatory reports before launching an operation
o Searches for interference signals and false alerts inhibit SAR assets from being available for real searches

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distress_radiobeacon

Again, it is impossible to correlate those alerts with any plane on 911. It may not have even been a plane.

[spooked911]

8. that may be -- however

for a plane in the New York area to have its ELT set off accidentally just before Flight 11 hit the WTC, and then the ELT on another plane in that area going off accidentally just before Flight 175 hit the WTC, would have been too big a coincidence to be plausible.

[mrarundale]

11. sounds like

they can be activated manually and they do not need to be attached to a plane, correct me if I am wrong. Sounds like you can buy one for $139.00....
Which would mean that Sdud is correct...somebody fucked up.

[SDuderstadt]

13. My name isn't...

sdud, dude. Most people call me sdude. That's MR. sdude to you.

[mrarundale]

15. people don't call me "dude" either, "dude"

but then I live in a city where people tend to be relatively well educated.....

[SDuderstadt]

18. Gee...

then what is a run-of-the-mill science-deniers like you doing there, dude?

[NYMdaveNYI]

23. ZING

Sdude 1

Mrar 0

[hack89]

12. How do you know it was a plane?

1. They were used on boats and ships - plenty of both in NY harbor.

2. Interference from consumer electronics are a huge problem - could have been some one's cable box.

3. 98 percent of all alarms were FALSE alarms.

Besides the fact that no commercial airliners were using them.

[mrarundale]

16. yeah.

but still, what would the odds be?

[zappaman]

17. "what would the odds be?"

what difference does that make?
What are the odds that number 34 could hit on a roulette wheel 3 times in a row?
I saw it happen once.

[hack89]

20. Since commercial airliners didn't carry ELTs on 911

the odds of it having any thing to do with 911 is exactly zero.

I don't see the point of the OP. What is your point?

[spooked911]

26. what don't you understand? Official reports said they went off!

so what should we conclude? Hmmm, maybe these weren't even commercial planes?

Or they were false alarms-- but why would they go off right before each plane officially hit a tower? The odds of that being random are incredibly low. So something really bizarre here happened. But you won't even try to process it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

29. you're not trying very hard to process it either

So far, all I've seen you do is repost someone else's article. I see no fact-checking, no nothing.

ETA: You seem to be assuming that there are only two possibilities: either the ELT signals came from these planes, or they were (very badly) faked as if they came from these planes. Those aren't the only possibilities, and the "very bad fake" hypothesis doesn't make much sense.

[hack89]

33. How frequently are false alarms detected?

seems like a good place to start answering your own question.

You need to show me why it is significant - how does this support any 911 CT?

[OnTheOtherHand]

28. are you sure?

As noted in the article referenced in the OP, at least two people talked to 9/11 Commission staff about ELTs. Here is part of the writeup of the interview with Paul Thumser of the FAA (which is very selectively quoted in the article).

http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-01169.pdf

Observations based on pilot experience

EL T. An Emergency Locator Transmission (ELT) cannot be triggered by a pilot in a B767. ELTs are tested at 00-05 of each hour. On a B767 impact would be the only way to trigger one. The ELT heard on 9-11 could have come from anywhere--121.5 civilian 243.0 military. A lot of times when an ELT is received outside the testing time a pilot will report that they set it off.

RCC (Rescue Coordination Center). The RCC is operated by the Air Force and they are the contact for credible ELTs. (Staff Note: We visited the RCC and they receive all ELTs; so many in fact that they are a nuisance and they have special procedures and software to manage that.)

Parameters for an ELT for that type of airplane (767) to be set off due to a hard turn or a hard landing aren't credible. The sensitivity setting on those ELTs is not low. For example, on the Egyptian air crash into the ocean there was no ELT set off. Thumser was the midnight supervisor, and therefore the OMIC that night. He vectored an airplane to investigate, and that plane did not pick up an ELT. Based on that example and others he·judged it would have to be a serious impact to set the ELT off.

That seems consistent with the statement that planes "certified for extended overwater operation" wouldn't be exempt from the ELT requirement -- although the article cited by sgsmith also says that "ELTs required for extended overwater operations are activated manually or by immersion in water, not by impact." I can't tell whether all 767s were required to have them.

So, it seems that the commission at least considered the possibility that at least one ELT signal detected on 9/11 came from one of the planes. Of course, it also considered the possibility that "(t)he ELT heard on 9-11 could have come from anywhere...." Since no one would necessarily expect an ELT signal from any of these planes, it's hard to imagine why evil conspirators would rig some to go off, too soon. The commission staff may have been interested in the possibility that plane crew(s) manually activated the ELT(s) to signal distress.

[mrarundale]

40. my point was

how likely was it that AUTHENTIC ELTs were detected on 9-11 in lower Manhattan, which were not from the alleged planes? (as opposed to STAGED)

[hack89]

41. Tell us how common false alarms were in NY

and you have gone a long way to answering your own question.

[mrarundale]

49. Tell me how common false alarms occur concurrently

and in the same location as a "terrorist" attack and YOU answer my question.

[sgsmith]

21. Confirming pre 2001 article re: ELTs

When I was flying (private, single engine land) one of the check list items was to check for inadvertent ELT activation after a hard landing. The devices had a bad reputation for not activating during an actual crash, or activating when they shouldn't have. I wouldn't put much credence in the idea that an ELT signal was related to the twin tower crashes.

Here's a commercial pilot saying the lack of ELTs on transport category was a bad thing.

http://cf.alpa.org/internet/alp/2001/jan01p24.htm

As airline pilots, we assume that if we crash, someone will know that the crash has occurred and will know exactly where we are. Many line pilots don’t realize that nothing is on board our airplanes to positively identify our location if we crash.

We need to have an emergency locator transmitter (ELT), or something like it, on board our airplane in case we crash so that airport rescue and firefighting (ARFF) services will be able to find us.

Roughly 40–50 percent of the pilots I have talked to are unaware that nothing is required by regulation or law—yes, there is a difference—to be on board our airplanes to quickly locate a crash site on an airport during low-visibility conditions.

Civil turbojet-powered Part 121 transport-category airplanes (that are not certified for extended overwater use) are exempt from a mandatory ELT requirement.

...

The most recent amendment, in 1994, required ELTs to be installed on powered civil airplanes used in air commerce. However, the law still exempted turbojet-powered aircraft and aircraft used in scheduled flights by scheduled air carriers holding certificates issued by the Secretary of Transportation. The law does not exempt aircraft certified for extended overwater operation, but ELTs required for extended overwater operations are activated manually or by immersion in water, not by impact.

[SDuderstadt]

14. As usual, as shown below, Spooked....

you don't know what you're talking about. It must be nice to live in Spookedworld where literally anything is possible.

[NYMdaveNYI]

22. I’d imagine Spookedworld....

looks like this

[mrarundale]

50. cool

I'd like to go there!

[SDuderstadt]

51. You're already there...

dude.

[mrarundale]

52. At least I'm not there

forever....

[spooked911]

25. what on earth are you talking about?

The signals went off, according to official reports. The question is why.

[SDuderstadt]

31. "what on earth are you talking about?"

Funny, we have the same question for you.

Dude, you keep ignoring all the reasonable explanations given here because of your confirmation bias. Again, it's just one of many reasons you're regarded so derisively here and you're the butt of ridicule in outside websites.

[terrafirma]

19. Here's what I love about the truther "mindset".

In this case, it's a huge coincidence that these ELTs went off for both flights.

In the truther world, it would also be a huge coincidence if they didn't go off at all.

And, based on the false alarm rate, it would've been a huge coincidence if they went of when they were supposed to.




Either way... it's always gonna be too big of a coincidence for them to believe it.

[spooked911]

27. Umm, no.

The point is that it is a huge coincidence that these both went off --even falsely -- BEFORE each plane hit a tower. What is so hard to comprehend about that?

[SDuderstadt]

32. Dude...

simple question: how many false alarms occur in the course of a given day? While you're at it, you might want to study the logical fallacy known as "found significance".

[terrafirma]

34. Nothing...

Given your penchant for seeing conspiracy in just about EVERYTHING, I was merely pointing out that any scenario involving these ELTs would be seen by you as extremely suspicious and as such, a smoking gun.

That's the beauty of being a conspiracy theorist... Anything can be spun to fit your mindset.

For example, I believe it was you who, years ago, thought it was suspicious that the fire department never deployed those huge airbags around the base of the towers for those people jumping/falling. Pretending for a second that they could've actually saved a person falling from 100 stories up, a legitimate truther could also spin the prompt deployment of such rescue equipment as illustrating the FDNY had prior knowledge of the attacks.

A.) The PTB ordered a stand down because they didn't want to intercept the planes.

B.) The PTB's readiness and success in intercepting the planes shows they knew ahead of time.


It really is quite racket you have going. I can guarantee that if any aspect of 9/11 transpired differently (WTC7 never collapsed, Flight 93 was successfully retaken and landed safe, Flight 77 was intercepted, etc.) you would find suspicion in those events as well.

[spooked911]

36. Nonsense.

In any case, what is your explanation for this? You realize the odds of this happening by chance are astronomically low, right?

[zappaman]

37. "You realize the odds of this happening by chance are astronomically low"

What are the odds of the same number coming up 3 times in a row on a roulette table?
When it happens, is it a conspiracy or a coincidence?
By the way, what were the odds that you claim are "astronomically low"?

[terrafirma]

39. It's not nonsense...

You can be dismissive of the facts, but there's no doubt that 9/11 would be seen as a conspiracy by you know matter what transpired or how it went down. We see this every time you're exposed to proof that refutes your ridiculous theories. You ignore it, then run off and find something else that's "too coincidental".

The explanations given so far have not satisfied you, so what's the point?

[spooked911]

43. "what's the point?"

That's the feeling I get every time I try to argue with you and your vocal ilk here.

In any case, there has been no proofs against my main points. I have seen some things here that show I've made a mistake, and I will admit that. But there's no proof against demolition or inside job, etc.

It's simply idiotic and frankly insulting to humanity to say there's no evidence of an inside job.

The question is what exactly happened and what can we do about it.

In terms of this particular evidence, it proves nothing, but is extremely fishy. The odds of ELT's going off accidentally at those times and locations are ridiculously low. That should be very clear.

[SDuderstadt]

46. Dude...

You don't have a single shred of hard evidence.

I hate to be the one to break it to you. It's why hardly anyone except people who share your delusions take you seriously.

[terrafirma]

47. Excellent question...

So what ARE you going to do about it since you've got this plethora of evidence that points to demolition?

When will the time for talk be replaced with the time for action?

I'm guessing it'll be sometime next to never....

[zappaman]

48. not gonna happen

but check out the top hit when you google "spooked 9/11"...always makes me laugh.