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.
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
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.
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.
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 ..
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.
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.
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.