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.

 

How do you explain away the planes?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
What technology does the NORAD have to track planes over the USA short of AWACS? NORAD's primary mission is to prevent bombers to get to USA and accordingly sensors are set up that way.
And the ATC might not be able to track the aircrafts effectively, as in areas with primary radar coverage they'd be one unidentified blimp among other blimps and in areas without primary radar they'll be invisible.

Btw between 1991 and 2001 there was ONE reported interception inside the USA - the Pane Stewart one. Others were exclusively int he ADIZ over oceans, air traffic coming in or out.
It was also SOP to head the scramble fighters over the sea first, as even the hijack scenarios were mostly including incoming overseas flight.
Also the oceanwards departure avoided large air traffic junctions, to give some time to get the civillian planes out of the way. So the ocean departure makes sense in the light of pre-0911 SOP.

NORAD ops on 0911

EDIT to add link



NORAD, has radars ALL over the USA. They are all linked to one single system. NORAD can see every single aircraft flying in all of USA at one time. They are the North American Air Defense, there is no blind spot. They are there to protect our airpsace.

Also there is NO area of sky that is not visible by radar by some type of ATC.

The link you posted is wrong, because they AWALYS have at least 2 F-16's in the air at all times around the Eastern edge of the USA. ESPECIALY around the White House and Pentagon. In that link they only talk about F-16's that were not even airbourn yet. Also you say most highjackings come from overseas? That is your opinion but is not the truth. B.T.W. Not to long ago before 911, NORAD sucesfully shot down a cessna plane that was heading for the Capitol buidling in DC.

It is NORADS job to be there at all times, and they usualy are, except on 911.


Also you say ATC would see only one blip after another? Well, im sorry to say but all flying aircraft have transponders that identify them in the air. Each 911 flight turned off their transponders right when they went off course.. so... the blips would stand out way more than any other aircraft in flight, since they will be the only blips in the air that dont report its alttitude and flight number.



[edit on 23-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]




posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by joxang
But Bin Laden had a hell of a lot to do with the taliban regime in afghanistan which, correct me if I'm wrong, was the country the US invaded after 9/11.


We didn't invade Afghanistan right away. There were CIA opperatives there for over a month after 9/11 before we attacked. Rummy was throwing a hissy fit because he wanted to be in control of everything but Bush had Tennet and the CIA go in first instead of Rummy's army. This made Rummy mad and wouldn't send troops in until he was in charge of everything. As soon as Bush appointed Rummy as the head of everything, what do you...the army invaded.


I'd like to see proof of this statement right here, right now.

Links, or whatever.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
It is NORADS job to be there at all times, and they usualy are, except on 911.

[edit on 23-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]


We have gone back and forth briefly about NORAD before, but I never clarified. Are you supporting the current 9/11 conspiracies here? Or what's the deal?



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tha Troubleshoota

Originally posted by Griff


We didn't invade Afghanistan right away. There were CIA opperatives there for over a month after 9/11 before we attacked. Rummy was throwing a hissy fit because he wanted to be in control of everything but Bush had Tennet and the CIA go in first instead of Rummy's army. This made Rummy mad and wouldn't send troops in until he was in charge of everything. As soon as Bush appointed Rummy as the head of everything, what do you...the army invaded.


I'd like to see proof of this statement right here, right now.

Links, or whatever.


www.pbs.org...

sacramentofordemocracy.org.../view/4011

I suggest you watch the program before you poo-poo it away. There's your proof...right here, right now.

Edit: I don't have a transcript, but in the video you will be told what happened between Rummy and Tennet.

[edit on 6/23/2006 by Griff]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I'd like to see proof of this statement right here, right now.

Links, or whatever.


www.pbs.org...

sacramentofordemocracy.org.../view/4011

I suggest you watch the program before you poo-poo it away. There's your proof...right here, right now.
[edit on 6/23/2006 by Griff]

Who put the PBS presentation together? WGBH or a third party? Sounds somewhat conspiracy-related from the webpage, but I'll see if I can get this on video or online.

As for the 2nd link...kind of dubious just by the domain/title name. Kind of like me trying to send you solid "proof" and then sending you a Michael Savage link. Not exactly as much proof as it is commentary.



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Hey ATSers. I am new.

To answer this question, in the operation northwoods document, it was outlined specifically that unmanned drones could be shot down in place of the real plane.

This means they had the technology to do this in the 50's....even more improved now.

Something that struck me was the "terrorists" turned off the transponders. Though the planes would still be seen as a "blip" on conventional radar, all info....eg. flight number, altitude and so on, could not be seen by FAA. So why turn off the transponders.

This is also answered in ON document... Have the unmanned flight fly at a higher altitude than the real plane. when transponders are turned off, FAA only sees one "blip" thus allowing the decoy to inconspicuously replace the real plane.

Another interesting note. One of the pilots of the 911 planes, worked for the FBI, and was previously involved in a mock drill in which a plane crashes into the pentagon the....the year previous to 911.



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
NORAD, has radars ALL over the USA. They are all linked to one single system.

Some evidence? Seems that NORAD pesonnel stating they have no coverage of the USA territorry (short of AWACS if it is airborne, of course) is not enough for you so you have to know something NORAD doesn't...



NORAD can see every single aircraft flying in all of USA at one time.

Again, how so?



They are the North American Air Defense, there is no blind spot. They are there to protect our airpsace.

Prior to 0911 their misson was oriented for threats coming from overseas - primarily bombers. Again, show some evidence, seems that NORAD isn't aware it can magically see the entire USA on their radars directed above oceans to cover the ADIZ.



Also there is NO area of sky that is not visible by radar by some type of ATC.

Yes. But there are areas where there isn't a primary radar coverage. In these areas the plane without transpoder disappears.
Believe me, blind spots were even over my tiny country at the height of Commie paranoia.



The link you posted is wrong, because they AWALYS have at least 2 F-16's in the air at all times around the Eastern edge of the USA. ESPECIALY around the White House and Pentagon. In that link they only talk about F-16's that were not even airbourn yet.

Again, your evidence? Seems NORAD wasn't aware there are always airborne jet fighters.



Also you say most highjackings come from overseas? That is your opinion but is not the truth. B.T.W. Not to long ago before 911, NORAD sucesfully shot down a cessna plane that was heading for the Capitol buidling in DC.

When? Just found how a Cessna got ALMOST shot down in 2004 - security measures were changed a bit, don't you think? And I didn't say that, again, NORAD said that prior the 0911 it was seen more probable the hijacked aircraft will come from abroad.



It is NORADS job to be there at all times, and they usualy are, except on 911.

It's NORAD's job to be there all times in case say Russia gets crazy and launches Tu-160's...



Also you say ATC would see only one blip after another? Well, im sorry to say but all flying aircraft have transponders that identify them in the air. Each 911 flight turned off their transponders right when they went off course.. so... the blips would stand out way more than any other aircraft in flight, since they will be the only blips in the air that dont report its alttitude and flight number.

Yup, I see, it is easier to track unidentified blip which disappears as it passes areas without primary radar coverage than to track A/C with transpoder turneds on.



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pedro Sanchez

Something that struck me was the "terrorists" turned off the transponders. Though the planes would still be seen as a "blip" on conventional radar, all info....eg. flight number, altitude and so on, could not be seen by FAA. So why turn off the transponders.

This is also answered in ON document... Have the unmanned flight fly at a higher altitude than the real plane. when transponders are turned off, FAA only sees one "blip" thus allowing the decoy to inconspicuously replace the real plane.

Another interesting note. One of the pilots of the 911 planes, worked for the FBI, and was previously involved in a mock drill in which a plane crashes into the pentagon the....the year previous to 911.


The controllers have two views. One with the transponders and one with just radar. The main view depends on the transponders and gets all information from those responders. When the transponders are turner off, they have to switch to radar. The idea is that with all the comotion they may not catch it, or that it will buy them enough time until they figure it out and switch over.

But to say that they would have swapped the planes at different altitueds without being seen? That's a bit faqr fetched. While watching radar they would see the two blips merge. Even in the blind spots it would be a plan based on pure luck. Would you devise a plan of such grand a scale and base it on something that is pure luck?

And then to continue on with your theory, they would then have to divert the original planes, land them. Kill the people and blow up the planes, then transport the plane parts and bodies as well as the passengers belongings to the inpact sight and plant it all there within a few hours.

And please site your source about a 9/11 pilot working for the FBI as well as working on a mock drill in which a plane crashes into the pentagon. I cannot debate that without some kind of source. It sounds like th usual conspiracy site taking many things out of context and mixing them together to make a sensational scenario.



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 05:38 AM
link   
hey snoop...
before i go further can you show me two things, 1st, how to quote someone...and 2nd the proper way to source on ATS...im afraid i only know MLA
... I understand What you say about the merge as i thought of this myself, and as apparently Lemnitzer thought of when he drafted the Operation Northwoods. There were so many flights at that time, it would be far to easy before the highjackings were reported to have to planes cross paths and or merge....and if we're talking about a military plane, i'm sure they probably have certain cloaking capabilities...but as i said earlier, the merge would be quite inconspicuous before the planes went off course and were noticed by FAA.



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 05:42 AM
link   
also, any unmanned or military plane used for a switch, im sure wouldn't have the convetional tags (DELTA 1989, for example) as it is military, and wouldn't carry a flight number like the passenger planes that FAA follows on radar.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
Well the Hijackers failed flight school, and personally I don't think they would of had the skills to pilot those planes.

What we do know is that some of the hijackers were trained by the US Military (according to MSNBC.)

Although MSNBC have removed the article from their website (they forgot to remove the send this article to a friend page, Google for "Hijackers may of been trained by US Military".)


I'm not sure if they actually failed flight school, though I know they did poorly in there grading becuase they couldn't take off or land, and they didn't have to take off or land on 9/11.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by nt327

I'm not sure if they actually failed flight school, though I know they did poorly in there grading becuase they couldn't take off or land, and they didn't have to take off or land on 9/11.


Like I said before. I would think flying at top speed close to the ground would be harder to do than land. Any pilots want to verify or deny my claim?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join