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.

 

Boston Air Traffic Controller Says 9/11 An Inside Job w/video

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
BTW SNAFU, I might not know much about ATC but I do know that after two planes have crashed into the WTC, I wouldn't be thinking that the third plane that loses it's communication and transponder would be a crash. I mean how smart are these guys at FAA?


funny, because you seem to have a decent grasp on the english language. then why is it you dont seem to understand the concepts of "confusion" and "miscommunication?" go back and read it again. when youre done, if you have a reasonable question that i havent already answered ten times, please feel free to ask it.




posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   
What is so uneducated about a man stealing a plane and using it as a missile? It clearly happened and you keep saying it never has. Who's being uneducated here? Who's not telling the whole truth here?



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
funny, because you seem to have a decent grasp on the english language. then why is it you dont seem to understand the concepts of "confusion" and "miscommunication?" go back and read it again. when youre done, if you have a reasonable question that i havent already answered ten times, please feel free to ask it.


OK...will this question do? After two planes have crashed into the WTC buildings, why would you guys assume that the third plane that lost communication would have crashed? That in itself is a little uneducated to me.

Speaking of education, what degree do you posses? I have a Civil Engineering degree...you?

[edit on 1/9/2007 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
What is so uneducated about a man stealing a plane and using it as a missile? It clearly happened and you keep saying it never has. Who's being uneducated here? Who's not telling the whole truth here?


man, i have met some thick-headed people, but you take the cake. that's not what i said, you know it and are attempting to spin my words out of context with what i actually said to discredit me simply because you dont like the information i have to offer, as it doesnt fit with your preconceived notion of what happened on 9/11, and i am not going to repeat myself again.

oh, and by the way, what was it you were saying about lies:


Originally posted by Griff
BTW, I have no preconcieved notion of anything other than you guys at ATC should have done your jobs better. PERIOD!!!!!


you sure about that? let's review some of your posts on other threads, shall we?

this is from your thread why no people have come forward:


Originally posted by Griff
What, no one wants to come into this thread and say "it would have taken thousands of people to be in the know"? BTW, I don't understand how people can believe that 20 some terrorists (19 highjackers and a few planners) can orchistrate 9/11 but it would take thousands if the US government did it. I guess the US government isn't as intellegent as some Saudi terrorists?

[edit on 1/8/2007 by Griff]



Originally posted by Griff

None of this happened with the 19 hijackers? All of the above happened, so I guess the 19 hijackers infiltrated the US government to make sure ALL of the above was executed with precision? Really? Give me a break.

Funny that you say that you would have to fool the FAA. I guess the 19 hijackers did this also?


and that's only one thread.....authored by you. nope, you didnt come into this discussion with any preconceived notions. should i go back and find more of your posts reference your preconceived notions about 9/11, or do you just want to go ahead and retract that statement, and maybe apologize?


Originally posted by Griff
OK...will this question do? After two planes have crashed into the WTC buildings, why would you guys assume that the third plane that lost communication would have crashed? That in itself is a little uneducated to me.


which part....the one where i have explained it three or four different ways, or the one where you still dont seem to grasp the concept after all of that? fine, i'll try to spoon feed it to you one last time.

an air traffic controller primary duty is the "safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of air traffic" throughout the country and the world. we are not guardians of the nations boundaries....that is norad's job. we simply assist to the best of our ability. the guys who were working flight 77 at indy were on position working some of the worlds busiest air traffic. they did not have the luxury you did of watching everything unfold on television. they were too busy insuring that your wife and kids, or your parent, or brothers and sisters, got where they were going safely. at the time flight 77 dropped off of the scope, information was just starting to filter down to facilites across the country. go back and read my post in which i typed, verbatim, the orders that came down from the command center and the times they were sent. by the time indy got up to speed with what was going on, flight 77 was already in washington center's airspace as just another primary target. do you finally get it? they were actually doing their jobs, not sitting around a tv getting all of the information spoon fed to them by the media. they probably had no idea the full extent of what was happening until they were finally relieved and could go listen to the reports. and do you know what? everyone working that day got every single commercial airliner and private aircraft in class alpha airspace out of the sky without a single accident. do you know how many lives we are talking about here? hundreds of thousands. and you fault controllers because they didnt have the necessary information to make a decision that was contrary to all of their training at that time? who is the uneducated one? fault the government for not taking the failed attempts that ultima posted about and training us to deal with a successful one. give credit to the terrorists who, knowing our procedures for dealing with hijacks because the government at the time wasnt smart enough to classify those procedures, moved swiftly to turn off the transponders and cause as much confusion in the air traffic system as possible to allow them just enough time to kill themselves and just under 3000 more. blame an agency and a government that has to see death before they will change procedures. but dont blame the guys and gals who, every single day, handle literally million of lives....and they do it while the faa is reducing their pay and reducing staffing levels at facilities nation wide so that they have to work more time on position for less pay.

if that's not clear enough for you, then dont bother responding. because i just dont know any other way to explain it.




Speaking of education, what degree do you posses? I have a Civil Engineering degree...you?


oooh...."mine's bigger than yours." how childish can you get, and what exactly does a civil engineering degree have to do with aviation?

but for the record, i have 5 years on the job experience in the military, an additional 9 years civilian, and during that time i still managed to pick up up a degree in aeronautical science. do you want to compare colleges too....or maybe practical experience in the real world? or maybe lives that we have saved? ever received any awards for talking guys down to a safe landing while they were panicked in a plane on fire with a smoke filled cockpit? ive forgotten already....who's is bigger again?





[edit on 10-1-2007 by snafu7700]



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
man, i have met some thick-headed people, but you take the cake. that's not what i said, you know it and are attempting to spin my words out of context with what i actually said to discredit me simply because you dont like the information i have to offer, as it doesnt fit with your preconceived notion of what happened on 9/11, and i am not going to repeat myself again.


I'll let the thick headed remark go at this time. This whole arguement stems from you saying that a plane has never been hijacked and used as a missle. I have shown you one incident that it did happen. All I'm trying to get at is that protocol should have been in place.


oh, and by the way, what was it you were saying about lies:


I don't see where the connection is that you say I was lying. That thread is a hypothetical "IF THE GOVERNMENT DID IT". Maybe I didn't make that clear enough in that thread. For that, I appologize. Also, I guess I do have preconcieved notions because everyone does. Including your preconcieved notion to CYA and your FAA and ATC buddies also. Not a shot at you because you have to admit to it. I know I would be.



do you finally get it?


Yes, I do. Thank you for explaining it to me with just more than miscommunication. I think I missed a page or two in this thread. I think that is how I missed the important information you posted earlier. For that, I also appologize.



and what exactly does a civil engineering degree have to do with aviation?


Nothing, I just got a little hot headed when you were calling me uneducated.



ever received any awards for talking guys down to a safe landing while they were panicked in a plane on fire with a smoke filled cockpit?


Congratulations. No sarcasm...genuine congrats. Now, can we have peace because I never wanted to get into this flame war with you in the first place.





[edit on 10-1-2007 by snafu7700]



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Now, can we have peace because I never wanted to get into this flame war with you in the first place.


the way to have a peaceful and productive conversation is not to call people liars and assholes. if you can refrain from those kinds of petty remarks, i am perfectly happy to return to the regularly scheduled thread.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:28 AM
link   
SNAFU,

I have apologized and tried to make amends with you twice now. You are the one who started the flame war by calling me ignorant and uneducated. I did not call you a liar until after this. A person who can not except an apology in my mind is an a hole. Sorry to be blunt. Either you can accept my apology and we can move on or you can do what you are doing now, which is not unlike an a hole. Good day.

Edit: Mods. I am sorry for taking this thread into a flame war. I am now going to stay away from this thread.

[edit on 1/10/2007 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
SNAFU,

I have apologized and tried to make amends with you twice now.


the first time was to save your own butt, because you knew you were wrong and didnt want me to respond. the second, i think, was genuine, and i responded in kind....sorry you didnt see it that way.



You are the one who started the flame war by calling me ignorant and uneducated. I did not call you a liar until after this.


even now you still try to misrepresent the facts. you'd better go back and reread the timeline of events. it all went south when you called me a liar.....then i'm an asshole.



A person who can not except an apology in my mind is an a hole.


a person who can not see when an apology has been accepted without the other specifically saying "apology accepted" is an ignorant individual....sorry to be blunt.

i'll say it again, if you can refrain from such comments, i am perfectly happy to return to a peaceful conversation. if you can not handle my facts without name calling, then it is indeed best that you not return.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Alright, I'll return. I apologize for not seeing that you accepted it. Now let's move on.

I have a question for you. How did NORAD normally work pre 9/11? What I mean is, what was their protocol for a hijacking inside the USA? I know it never happened before 9/11 but they would have had to have some sort of protocol for that scenerio. Looking forward to you educating me on these issues. No sarcasm.

Edit: Just for the record.


the first time was to save your own butt, because you knew you were wrong and didnt want me to respond.


That is not true at all. If I knew I was wrong and didn't want you to respond, why wouldn't I have edited my posts instead? That is where you mistook what my intentions were.

[edit on 1/10/2007 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I have one more quick question SNAFU. I think I may have asked this before but I forget. Why do they have an off switch for transponders in the first place? Wouldn't an automatic transponder that can't be turned off be a better way of tracking any plane that may be hijacked?

Well, I guess two questions.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I have a question for you. How did NORAD normally work pre 9/11? What I mean is, what was their protocol for a hijacking inside the USA? I know it never happened before 9/11 but they would have had to have some sort of protocol for that scenerio. Looking forward to you educating me on these issues. No sarcasm.


well, i've answered that one too, but in the spirit of meaningful discussion:

protocol for a hijacking was to give the hijacker as much leeway as possible. by that i mean crews and controllers were trained to be as docile as possible. give them as much as possible for the sake of the passengers....who's lives meant everything. having never worked a hijacked aircraft myself, i cant really say when or how norad would become involved pre-9/11, as our responsibility was to inform the supervisor, who would in turn inform the operations manager, who would inform the command center, who would in turn inform norad. i believe it was up to the command center and norad to decide whether or not fighters would be scrambled. however, recently things have changed quite a bit, and in a move that is far too long in coming, those new procedures have been classified. instead of being able to read about said procedures online in the controller's manual, they are for the most part in a separate book that is not accessable online. furthermore, only those who truly need to know are briefed on said procedures.


Originally posted by Griff
Why do they have an off switch for transponders in the first place? Wouldn't an automatic transponder that can't be turned off be a better way of tracking any plane that may be hijacked?


now that, my friend is an excellent question, and one that i have never considered before. quite honestly i dont have an answer for you. it does seem that it would make more sense to slave the transponder to the electrical system so that it can only be turned off when turning off other systems mandatory for flight.....in commercial airliners anyway. there are other small aircraft that do not have electrical systems and therefore are not required to have transponders...but neither are they allowed to fly in areas like the washington metro air defense zone. sorry i cant give you a better explanation on that one.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
however, recently things have changed quite a bit, and in a move that is far too long in coming, those new procedures have been classified. instead of being able to read about said procedures online in the controller's manual, they are for the most part in a separate book that is not accessable online. furthermore, only those who truly need to know are briefed on said procedures.


I think that's a great idea. You said before that that is how the terrorists knew of our procedures right? We should have thought about that, but I guess hindsight is 20/20..


[sorry i cant give you a better explanation on that one.


No problem. Thanks for answering my questions. I wasn't aware that smaller planes don't need transponders. I do have alot to learn in your field. Thanks again.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I'd hypothesize that the transponder can be turned off for a couple of reasons. Firstly, no-one envisioned that an aircraft (civilian anyways) wouldn't want to be found. Even during old school hijackings, the hijacker wouldn't want the plane to not be found because normally they would require ATC to get them into their airport of choice (especially if they made a significant navigational change). So chalk another one up to "Why would anyone do that?"

Secondly, and I'm assuming here because I don't know for sure, but presumably at airports having a whole stack of aircraft squawking on the ground would clutter the scope of approach and departure controllers. Procedure is when you get in the cockpit, you switch the transponder from "OFF" to "STBY" so it warms up (takes about three minutes). Even this is optional if you have an avionics master switch, if you do then you can leave your transponder on "STBY" all the time. Then, on entering the runway, you turn the knob from "STBY" to "ALT". This squawks both Mode A and Mode C. There is also an "ON" position, which is only used if advised by ATC, an "IDENT" button if ATC want to confirm your squawk as you, and a "TEST" position.

As I said, I'm assuming it is mainly due to clutter that you can turn the system off (or at least prevent it from squawking by going to "STBY").



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
Why do they have an off switch for transponders in the first place? Wouldn't an automatic transponder that can't be turned off be a better way of tracking any plane that may be hijacked?



They are looking at briging out a new transponder that either can not be turned off or if it is turned off it will signal the ATC of a problem.

I will have to find the inforamtion on these new transponders.

[edit on 10-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Willard856

Secondly, and I'm assuming here because I don't know for sure, but presumably at airports having a whole stack of aircraft squawking on the ground would clutter the scope of approach and departure controllers.


maybe in the past, but with the newer equipment we have many different settings to help with the clutter. for instance, a data block (all the aircraft's info from callsign to speed) is attached to the target via what we call a "leader line." basically it's a line leading from the target to the data block. we have eight different positions around the clock that we can set this line up. additionally, we have three different lengths for the lines, so we can stagger them out. i have been busy enough that i had seriously overlapping data blocks, but it's not an everyday thing. pretty much the only time i ever have anyone squawk standby is when i have a flight of military aircraft....and that is simply because the conflict alert doesnt like two aircraft at the same altitude withing a mile of each other....it gets quite annoying to watch continuous blinking on the scope.

of course, if someone's mode c is inaccurate, we would ask them to turn off the altitude encoding, if possible.

and, of course, i have to add the caveat that i have never worked approach control....but as a private pilot i have never been told to squawk standby until airborne. obviously you are a pilot as well willard.....ever been asked to squawk standby until airborne?



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Sorry, maybe I didn't explain things well (did I say standby? I meant "ON" if requested to cease Mode C. You shouldn't ever be asked to squawk standby airborne. As you say correctly, ATC may ask you to stop with Mode C due to your altitude being out by greater than 300 feet. Standby simply means the system is powered up, but doesn't respond to interrogation. If you go standby airborne, and are out of primary, then you disappear.

So, the only thing I can think of is that the ability to turn the transponder off is a throwback to days when the scopes couldn't be decluttered? Anyway, like I said, I'm guessing here. Do you know if the new ADS-B systems will be able to be turned off? I'll have a look around myself, but if you know off the top of your head...



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Willard856
Do you know if the new ADS-B systems will be able to be turned off? I'll have a look around myself, but if you know off the top of your head...


quite honestly i have no idea. i know very little about the actual systems....when i quit flying i quit staying up on the new stuff. the only thing i fly anymore is a minimax ultralight. ultima mentioned something about new transponders that couldnt be turned off and said he'd be back with more info.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Willard856
Secondly, and I'm assuming here because I don't know for sure, but presumably at airports having a whole stack of aircraft squawking on the ground would clutter the scope of approach and departure controllers. Procedure is when you get in the cockpit, you switch the transponder from "OFF" to "STBY" so it warms up (takes about three minutes). Even this is optional if you have an avionics master switch, if you do then you can leave your transponder on "STBY" all the time. Then, on entering the runway, you turn the knob from "STBY" to "ALT". This squawks both Mode A and Mode C. There is also an "ON" position, which is only used if advised by ATC, an "IDENT" button if ATC want to confirm your squawk as you, and a "TEST" position.

As I said, I'm assuming it is mainly due to clutter that you can turn the system off (or at least prevent it from squawking by going to "STBY").


That actually makes alot of sense and I hadn't thought of that. Thanks for the answer. I believe you are probably right.

Edit: Until I read SNAFU's post. Thanks guys for debating this. I guess we'll have to wait for Ultima to get back to us....or do research myself (Ugh).

[edit on 1/11/2007 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
quite honestly i have no idea. i know very little about the actual systems....when i quit flying i quit staying up on the new stuff. the only thing i fly anymore is a minimax ultralight. ultima mentioned something about new transponders that couldnt be turned off and said he'd be back with more info.


Little more info for you.

www.navair.ca...

The Rapid Response Team (RRT) on Aircraft Security recently made recommendations for changes to aircraft design and operation that would help meet the demand for increased onboard security. An FAA-published report states that these modifications should include a method to ensure continuous transmission of a hijack signal, even if the flight deck selected code or function is turned off. Three suggested modifications that can be accomplished quickly are:
- Ability to set and lock in the hijacking code so the hijacker cannot disable it
- A panic button that initiates the hijacking code in an emergency situation
- An independent transponder that cannot be disabled by the hijacker

The Transponder lock installs behind the transponder control panel using existing wiring. No new wiring is required. When a pilot channels code 7500 using the existing control panel, the Transponder lock switches on and continuously transmits code 7500 until a company unique unlock code is channeled on the control panel and the aircraft is on the ground. Activation of the lock is indicated by a short (3 second) activation of the display test function on the control panel. Power interruptions do not defeat the lock. After the lock is engaged, the control panel ATCRBS output is ignored, precluding the transponder from entering standby or channeling another code. All TCAS mode selections continue to operate normally from the controller panel after the lock is engaged.
Optionally, an external PANIC switch may provide a direct trigger for the Transponder Lock. An AUX power input provides for switching the transponder to a backup power source, if the lock is enabled and primary power is lost. These optional features require the addition of two wires at the control panel.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join