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.

 

An Opportunity for CIT and P4T

page: 6
1
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I can understand what you are saying, but I still don't get if you have 1000 blips on your screen and 4 are not showing the transponder data, what is the confusion? Obviously, those four are the ones that are hijacked. No?


As I understand it, the two radar screens are not combined, they are independent. You can either have all planes showing ID, or all radar returns, not both.

I don't know how accurate this is, and have no experience in it personally, but this is what I have gathered from my research on 911 related events. Hopefully someone with more experience can confirm it.




posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


well a radar screen can get pretty cluttered, and it is bad especially when if you have two or three or four aircraft without transponders somewhere in the mix, and you dont know where to find them (among other non-aircraft radar returns). Plus its dangerous because then you dont know what altitude they are flying at and that itself is a hazard. The two pages I posted should help you understand this scenario a little bit better.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Thanks for the explanations exponent and gen. But, then we go back to my original question of why hasn't anything been changed in the last 7 years? Why can a transponder still be turned off? Is this not a security risk for the entire country?



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


as for that I dont know. You;d have to check with an FAA person. I dont know! Sorry!



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


One who admits that they don't know something earns my respect.



BTW, welcome to the 9/11 threads.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Not all aircraft are IFR (flying on an instrument flight plan), therefore are not required to have a transponder on (except in certain airspace and altitudes).

Primary targets (without a "sending" transponder) do sometimes clutter a radar, the controller has the ability to "eliminate" them from his display, if necessary.

Background: Airline flights are assigned a specific squawk code to be entered into the transponder at departure......It is not that unusual for a controller to request "recycle squawk", turn off and turn back on, ident (push a button that sends a signal, or change the assigned code.

If a radar return that was "squawking" a particular code has a transponder failure or turns it off, the FAA radar will continue to show the data block without altiitude or directional changes for a short period.

Before you flame me for giving out secret information, Please note that I am Always compliant with USC Title 18 Ch 37 Secs 793 & 798

[edit on 18-10-2008 by habu71]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by jthomas
 


You seem to have a great inside scoop on the folks that worked at the pentagon. Could you please point me to the people in charge of security, (CCTV cameras specifically) I would love to put this thing to rest once and for all.


There is nothing to put to rest. Whether cameras recorded AA77 hitting or not is independent of all the other massive evidence that demonstrates AA77 hit the Pentagon. The fact that 9/11 Truthers insist on ignoring all the evidence by trying to claim one must have videos to prove AA77 hit the Pentagon will go down as one of the prime examples why 9/11 Truthers lack any critical thinking skills.

Which is why you will dispute this: www.flight77.info...


Specific questions for this person would be, how manny cameras were looking at that side of the pentagon at that time? Did the people in charge misplace all that footage? Is there any reason why this footage is not being released to the citizens of the United States whos tax dollars pay your sallary?


What's stopping you? What's stopping you, CIT, or P4T, from interviewing over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage from inside the Pentagon in the hours, days, and weeks after 9/11. DO tell us why all of you who whine endlessly that you're "just asking questions" chicken out of asking those ordinary citizens who were there?


Most would have to admit that if this mystery footage was to appear showing a big plane full of people smacking into the pentagon, folding up into a 16' tube and going through 6 walls of reinforced concrete, there is no argument and more importantly, YOU are correct and just.


In other words, you are making a claim of what happened without having a video to show wings "folding back"?


Maybe one day this key information will surface. Untill then, your side of the story doesn't have enough glue to hold togeather. Nobody believes peoples testimony. People make mistakes. The camera never lies.


In other words, you are willing to ignore thousands of pieces of independent evidence, thousands of people who had access to the wreckage, claim that the FDR showed AA77 was too high to hit the Pentagon while simultaneously claiming the FDR had to have been planted in the Pentagon, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum. That unless you EVER see a video, than no proof that AA77 hit the Pentagon will ever exist.

Answer this question. Did the Titanic hit an iceberg and sink? How could you possibly know?



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by GenRadek
 


One who admits that they don't know something earns my respect.


Which is why you never earned respect when you would not admit you are wrong about numerous claims you have made that I debunked.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Which is why you never earned respect when you would not admit you are wrong about numerous claims you have made that I debunked.


Care to name a few? I'll admit them if and when I'm proven wrong. Not so much for you. But, have a nice day looking up past posts. I'm going to go enjoy mine.


And this is from the person who says the burden of proof is not on the one tasked with that burden.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
Which is why you never earned respect when you would not admit you are wrong about numerous claims you have made that I debunked.


Care to name a few? I'll admit them if and when I'm proven wrong. Not so much for you.


You're the one in denial, Griff. It's on the record. Look at any exchange between you and me. I easily showed how mixed up you are. Every time.

Of course, you can deny it all you want. It's the nature of the beast. I don't care. But it's on the record.


And this is from the person who says the burden of proof is not on the one tasked with that burden.


You see, you admit that there are posts in which you tried to shift the burden of proof for your claims to someone else. You got spanked royally. In fact, I remember you running away, hurt.

This is from the one who showed everyone how you tried many times (unsuccessfully) to shift the burden of proof from your shoulders to someone else. It was amazing displays of your 9/11 Denial.

And you wonder why you earned derision instead of respect, Griff? That's what intellectual dishonesty will get you.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


When there have been actual conspiracies involving high up government officials of some other sort of misdeed who usually drops a dime? If you guessed government employee then you guessed right. In the case of Watergate it was Deputy Director W. Mark Felt who talked. That's preety high up on the food chain Griff. Watergate was a second rate burgalry involving a small number of people. Yet it could not be kept secret. However you want us all to believe the feds have kept all these people from talking.

Abu Grahib is another example. Who blew the lid off the whole thing? Someone like you? No, an Army enlisted man did. Did these facts ever enter your mind Griff? Or do you still want to imply that all government employees are mindless robots.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


You are lumping me in with someone else. I would certainly change my thought process If I saw the footage that has been surpressed. I am fully aware there is evidence on the side of the offical story. I am also aware there is a huge lack of evidence on the same side. A lot of questions are left unanswered. My big question is why is this footage not released? It certainly does make people like me think there might be some guilt on the governments side. If not then why not just put it out? As for the deaths of innocent people, we saw over and over again the people falling/jumping out of the buildings. Horrific, sad, awfull, but we still saw it.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


You are lumping me in with someone else.


Denial is denial is denial.


I would certainly change my thought process If I saw the footage that has been surpressed.


Yet you refuse to articulate why anyone would need video footage when ALL of the other evidence has already conclusively demonstrated that AA77 hit the Pentagon and no evidence to the contrary has ever been presented.

Your claim that videos have been "suppressed" has no basis in fact. In fact, you have this and haven't even refuted it:

www.flight77.info...


I am fully aware there is evidence on the side of the offical story.


There is no "official story." That canard has been repeatedly debunked for years. The fact that you have to resort to that 9/11 Denial canard only shows your lack of concern for actual evidence.


I am also aware there is a huge lack of evidence on the same side. A lot of questions are left unanswered. My big question is why is this footage not released?


What footage? See: www.flight77.info...

Now, again, let's here your cogent, rational explanation why anyone needs videos to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon. If you can't do it, then please don't claim you need it to prove AA77 hit the Pentagon.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by habu71
 


No I won't flame you!

Thanks for the extra info. I don't have this kind of access to info.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


I do remember seeing this site you posted on FLight77, being used to show how stupid, or illiterate, Alex Jones is. He used this site to show how the FBI is holding 85 videos from the Pentagon that show "what really hit" the Pentagon, and prove they are hiding something. However, this person called slimebuster made a video pointing out how big of a liar AJ is. In his own (AJ's) source, the site says, of the 85 videos, one shows the actual impact (parking lot camera) and two show indirectly the impact, (the Citgo Station and the Doubletree Hotel). The rest had nothing else to do with the Pentagon or were taken hours or days later. Some weren't even from the Pentagon but from a Kinko's in Florida! Here is the video! Enjoy!

www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Its happened before where controllers lost site of the aircraft they were watching on their radar screens. Unfortunately I never worked in a control tower, (though a friend of mine's father does work at O'Hare as a tower controller). Plus I hear its WAAAYY too stressful. I suggest you ask someone who has worked in this field to explain it better. Lord knows I wouldnt want to be a tower controller. (Though the radar screens are pretty cool!)

is there anyone on this site that has radar experience or tower controller experience?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join