It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

There is NO SUCH THING As a Dissapearing Plane in the 21st Century.

page: 16
93
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: GeminiSky
a reply to: miniatus


Yes but even with 100 aircraft all flying in the same area...it is still possible to individually identify each aircraft's heading altitude range and speed...your local airport does it all the time!

GS


Local airport primarily relies on transponder data for tracking commercial craft, radar is useful for track unknown craft entering the airspace without a transponder so planes can be alerted if an object is approaching the craft.

Radar is NOT useful for identifying individual planes.. in otherwords, it won't know a particular radar echo's flight number or even what type of plane it is... just that it's at this altitude, this heading.. and has no transponder.. radar also has limited range..

Radar data is virtually useless in cases like this for many reasons.. it can't id a craft, it can't track beyond it's range, and different governments don't often share radar data.. still.. since you can't id a craft with radar, it wouldn't matter much anyway.

Transponders exist specifically to overcome the shortcomings of radar.. and provide a wealth of information about the flight, as well as the health of the craft.
edit on 4/28/2014 by miniatus because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: sean

4. It was an inside job and the plane was altered prior to flight and brought to a hidden location for reasons unknown.



Here is a typical example of DISTORTION/MISINFORMATION...thank our stupid news-media for that. Let me explain.

I am not a aviation "pro" whatsoever, but I am pretty sure I once read that certain courses are pre-programmed into the system. Put it very simple: Say there is an emergency on the plane and the pilot would want to go to the nearest suitable airport in an attempt to land he would likely only press a button or two and the plane would AUTOMATICALLY change course towards the new airport. The pilot will hardly have to "manually program" the entire course and all the way-points into the system each and every time.

So...this means that OF COURSE the course change and possibly re-routing of the plane for a (speculative) landing on a near-by airport was PRE-PROGRAMMED --- as the media reported. However, this does NOT mean that the pilot or anywhere else deliberately "programmed" the system before this flight just to execute this alternative program as part of some "evil plan".
Do you see what I am saying?

The "news" media reported that "someone programmed an alternative course into the system" - the rest, that the pilot intentionally programmed this course FOR THIS INCIDENT is pure speculation/nonsense/false information since *of course* this alternative course was already programmed, but who knows, maybe many years before as part of a standard procedure. Nowhere would "an alternative course was programmed into the system" imply that this is ANYTHING out-of-the-ordinary nor would it imply the pilot did it and that he did it as part of a plan in relation to this incident.

Also..when the first reports of this alleged "programming of an alternative course" appeared in the media I am pretty sure I remember some additional info there aka "yes, correct, there was an alternate course programmed"..but WHEN this happened we do not know. (This just as confirmation of how media are reporting "something" and how it can be interpreted entirely out of context so people read something which in reality is not even the case.)

I am sure someone more knowledgeable here can give their input. Would be nice.



edit on 12014RuMondayAmerica/Chicago53AMMondayMonday by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)

edit on 12014R000000MondayAmerica/Chicago34AMMondayMonday by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)

edit on 12014R000000MondayAmerica/Chicago08AMMondayMonday by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: GeminiSky
a reply to: skunkape23

I would really like to know what other forum members here think. This reminds me very very much of the 9/11 scenario. Where we spend billions of dollars on air defense, have surface to air missiles, and the most sophisticated radars, and yet somehow conveniently let an unresponsive, radio silent airliner, slowly fly around for an hour, after 2 other airliners ALREADY HIT the twin towers, then let it hit the pentagon, one of the most guarded buildings in the country. So so convenient.


Hardly convenient. More like "embarrassing." Turns out that our capabilities are slightly exaggerated...



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: miniatus

originally posted by: ZiggyMojo
Lets not forget, the US can track ICBM's when they're launched from Asia with our long range missile defense systems. Missiles travel much faster than a commercial jet and are also considerably smaller. The necessary tracking is different sure, but we have the capability to do it.


That's a whole different situation.. those defense systems are specifically set to track fast moving objects with the radar signature of an ICBM .. it's EASY to distinguish an ICBM in flight from a commercial jet liner.

Now with commercial jets... the sky is full of them, the congestion from commercial air traffic is really really high every day, and it's filled with similar aircraft.. Radar does NOT return flight number information, it only reports an object is in the sky at this altitude and moving in a particular direction.. trying to pick out a specific flight is like looking for a needle in a hay stack..

Fun Fact: As of 2009 the 777th Boeing 777 was put into service.. there's alot of those puppies in the sky..

Bottom line.. comparing our ability to track an ICBM which has a very distinct behavior that is noticeably different than commercial jets.. to commercial jet tracking is silly.

What we need to do is not have the ability to disable the transponder, the only issue with that is sometimes pilots do that because they aren't reporting reliable data which could be dangerous .. but that's not terribly common.. Perhaps we need an extra transponder that doesn't report it's data to the cockpit.. it would be a backup system for air traffic control to use in emergencies ..


What I've taken out of this; If you want to avoid ICBM radar detection, put your dirty bomb in a popular commercial plane. And also, commercial planes acting unorthodox in countries other than the USA is acceptable until visibly proven otherwise.


edit on 28-4-2014 by 0bservant because: Quoted wrong post. My Bad!



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: GeminiSky

Concerning your OP, I said the same thing about Osama. Why did it take so long to find him? We can tell what kind of screw (flat head of Phillips) is on the moving wing of a 747 from orbit -- but we couldn't find a 6'7" man in a remote rural country? Really? Reeeeeeealy? The man was on dialysis for gods sake on 9/11 to boot.

No, planes just don't disappear without any trace.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: miniatus

True, but I'm willing to bet the plane showed up as some kind of blip or blob on their screens. Even if it didn't have a transponder to identify the plane specifically, it still would reflect the radar waves back to the station.

How about we take all of the radar logs from the general vacinity and area that the plane was last confirmed to be in? Look at those logs for any unidentified craft heading int he same general direction as the plane was last known to be flying?

I mean really, this is pathetic.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: 0bservant

Congrats on your first post?

GS



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

You're vastly overestimating orbital optics. They're good, but not that good.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

It showed up on radar, which gets you a starting point, but what did it do once it left radar range? Once it leaves that coverage area, if it turns you'd never know.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: GeminiSky

Concerning your OP, I said the same thing about Osama. Why did it take so long to find him? We can tell what kind of screw (flat head of Phillips) is on the moving wing of a 747 from orbit -- but we couldn't find a 6'7" man in a remote rural country? Really? Reeeeeeealy? The man was on dialysis for gods sake on 9/11 to boot.

No, planes just don't disappear without any trace.



No they sure dont!!

GS



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: GeminiSky

Its not genocide ,
if its an accident...




posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: GeminiSky
a reply to: 0bservant

Congrats on your first post?

GS


Thanks?

I agree with your post, but I don't agree with people trying to debunk it without citing their sources or using human autonomy.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: camo1010
The future-tech weapons engineers on board that flight would more than likely have something to do with it.

That's quite intriguing. Wonder if they were the key or higher up persons
in the weapons development.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

So you are saying that militarizes and governments have entire areas that are not covered by radar signals? Well, that would be a good place for an enemy to strike from?

Oh, I was told about the optics from someone that should know about 15 years ago -- he could have been pulling my leg



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   
No, a plane can't just 'disappear". Our government, or at the least the powers that run the government and the higher ups that take their orders from even higher ups, know what happened to the plane, why, and where it is.
The passengers, the vast majority of them, are dead. There were probably a few on there that aided the pilot or pilots in what they did and they likely are still alive. The rest perished when the plane went to 45,000 feet and the air pressurization was shut off. Asphyxiation.
Why? They wanted somebody or some persons on that plane, dead. The Freescale 20 would be at the top of the list.
Its possible they wanted the plane for a later use as a nuclear delivery weapon, the target most likely being Israel. That would put Iran and Russia's fingerprints all over. With Putin and Obama doing their odd dance right now and the gearing up for another hot or cold war, that could be possible. But both Putin and Obama are only high placed actors, although Putin came by his power legitimately and wasn't a flunky stooge put in power like Obama.
So where is it? Possibly at the bottom of the ocean somewhere near Diego Garcia and the Maldives. If they put the plane down in the water, somebody had to pick the operatives and pilots up.( Unless they were immediately silenced and left for the sharks). Or it made the trip into a Soviet border territory and is under a camo net waiting until its needed.
I wonder what orders Obama is getting right now. Malaysia. Thailand. Asia. That other stooge Tim Geithner was educated there and there's a rotten smell that comes from there as it pertains to the two of them.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Of course. Radar can only see so far, because it can't curve around the horizon. They would have to scatter antennas all over the world for full time coverage. That's a big reason why AWACS are invaluable. The higher your antenna the farther it can see.

The optics on satellites are damn good, but they can only get so good without creating an entirely new technology for optics.

Not to say they couldn't have, but from what I've been told it would be hard to get them as good as people think they are without a really big lens.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Dutchowl

The plane didn't go to 45,000, it couldn't have at that point due to the weight. That turned out to be a faulty radar interpretation from a system that has a 10,000 foot margin of error, at long range.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Of course. Radar can only see so far, because it can't curve around the horizon. They would have to scatter antennas all over the world for full time coverage. That's a big reason why AWACS are invaluable. The higher your antenna the farther it can see.

The optics on satellites are damn good, but they can only get so good without creating an entirely new technology for optics.

Not to say they couldn't have, but from what I've been told it would be hard to get them as good as people think they are without a really big lens.


My father used to be in charge of three radar bases in Manitoba in the 80s, he would travel between about 4 of them for this very reason. This was during the late cold war. All those radar bases have been shut down, and radar in the northern parts of Canada are not used because of such a low threat. Most of what NORAD had no longer exists regarding radar, and although it's the most accurate form of detection it's no longer needed in today's world because in order for it to be effective it needs to be manned 24/7.
So basically yes, a plane COULD slip through radar in today's world, and a plane could disapear with today's digital world.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Here is one highly speculative theory:

****Warning the following post contains time travel****

What if in about 1 year, the 20 tech people on the airplane collaborated and created an advanced form of Artificial Intelligence?

What if this intelligence became self aware a century or 2 from now? What if it decided to eradicate humans?

Terminator comes to mind....

What if time travel existed, and humans realized that going back and "disappearing" that airplane was the least suspicious way of removing these scientists, and ensuring the AI was never invented?

Just sayin...


GS



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: GeminiSky

I didn't realize having friends and a lifetime of experience was a crime now.

I said I have friends that have been there not are there.



Um no one said any of that was a crime, just very fascinating is all...

You seem to be highly knowledgeable about almost everything your reply to...could you enlighten us at to your background and how you gained access to such a deep well of knowledge?


GS




top topics



 
93
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join