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.

 

Planes can be Electronically Hijacked, This is fact.

page: 8
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

I, would have to 110% agree with you on all yous said.That being said .I believe it was a multinational,gig.

a few CIA, a few ISI, a few NSA, a few FBI, probably a few under the DNI,
and im sure a few from other nations , maybe no more then 11 or 13 people actually knew the whole gig.
Most where probably,doing,their job that day, as there where ,clearly proven, to be atleast 15 military/FEMA/DOD/CDC combined drills going on that day. Webster Tarpley,connects some dots.

And i am not aginst all the alphabet soups.I come from a family steeped in military/GOV/state, agencies, which include , the FBI,GBI,ATF,Secrete Service,USAF,USNavy,Civilian(lockheed martin) and the Coast Guard.

But hear tons of (cough) stuff , at family gatherings from both sides of my family.

There are Rogue elements through out them all.

Who do you think was involed ? just wondering.


[edit on 11-10-2009 by lycopersicum]




posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 


Here is the most undebunked 911 remote control aircraft story on the web.


This article comes from

Tom Flocco.com
tomflocco.com...


Witnesses link missile to small military jet parts found at Pentagon on 9/11
Date: Monday, May 23 @ 01:59:41 EDT
Topic: 9-11 Attacks


Missile & remote control systems added to small jets before 9-11; same parts found at Pentagon

Two civilian defense contractor employees--told to remain silent--say other workers quietly retro-fitted missile and remote control systems onto A-3 jets at Colorado public airport prior to September 11 when similar A-3 parts much smaller than a Boeing 757 were found at Pentagon

Presidential candidate says scores of retired and active military and intelligence officials would testify before current grand jury probing government involvement in 9/11 attacks

by Tom Flocco

Fort Collins, Colorado -- May 26, 2005 -- TomFlocco.com --
According to two civilian defense contractor employees working at commercial corporate facilities at Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport (left), in the months before the September 11 attacks U.S. Air Force defense contractors brought in A-3 Sky Warrior aircraft under cover of darkness to be completely refitted and modified at the small civilian airport in Colorado.

The revelations are important evidence for a reportedly ongoing secret 9/11 probe because widely available Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) photographs taken during the attacks clearly show that the few aircraft parts found at the Pentagon belonged to a small jet very similar to a modified A-3 Sky Warrior--not the American Airlines Boeing 757.

It is not known whether all members of Congress are aware of the under-the-radar-screen grand jury proceedings, who has already testified, and whether the probe is purposefully being kept from public knowledge, according to government intelligence sources.
The two witnesses say that separate military contractor teams--working independently at different times--refitted Douglas A-3 Sky Warriors (above) with updated missiles, Raytheon's Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) remote control systems, fire control systems, engines, transponders, and radio-radar-navigation systems--a total makeover, seemingly for an operation more important than use as a simple missile testing platform for defense contractor Hughes-Raytheon.



The employees asked not to be identified for personal safety reasons and fear of job retaliation; but both told 2008 independent presidential candidate Karl Schwarz (left) "the Air Force brought in separate teams to do top-secret military work unrelated to commercial aviation at our airport, and we were told by our bosses not to discuss what we had seen with anyone."

The witnesses were quite fearful about several recent "suicides, car wrecks--mysterious deaths--directly related to the aviation experts" working on the systems that were installed on the A-3’s at Fort Collins-Loveland--having breached the government-blocked information flow at great personal risk, according to Schwarz--but providing more evidence for a New York 9/11 investigation.

Schwarz, a former Republican from Arkansas now living in Georgia and running as an independent to clean up government corruption and crime told TomFlocco.com that he met with the employees for about an hour in February to discuss the issue.

The witnesses told Schwarz that each jet was placed in a hanger just big enough for a work crew and one A-3 Sky Warrior; and "we were under strict orders not to discuss what the military teams were doing or what we saw."

The presidential candidate told us "there are about 150 retired and active U.S. military and federal intelligence officers who will come forward and testify regarding government involvement in the September 11 attacks--but only if there is a serious criminal grand jury."

Small plane evidence moved at Pentagon

The approximate 16-foot entry hole at the outside facade of the Pentagon on 9/11 has been the subject of countless questions by those who say the hole was caused by an air-to-ground missile (AGM) fired from a small military jet rather than an impact from a Boeing 757.

Interestingly, the Hughes division manufactures the AGMs; and the Raytheon division maintains the last few A-3 Sky Warriors in operation save 2-4 Air Force jets--while also manufacturing the Global Hawk UAV remote control systems.

Some reasons cited to support a missile hole include evidence that a) the wings and rear stabilizer caused virtually no damage to the outside walls and windows at point of impact, b) no 757 interior or exterior parts were found at the scene, c) the soft nose of a 757 would have had difficulty piercing through three Pentagon wall rings, and d) three aircraft parts found were similar to the somewhat outdated but still serviceable Douglas A-3 Sky Warrior military attack jet rather than the much larger Boeing 757.

Air-traffic controllers from the Washington, DC sector originally said the incoming plane was a military jet according to reports; but no grand jury has called them to testify and they have been strangely gagged from speaking out.

One air traffic controller from another Northeast sector revealed to a 9-11 widow that FBI threats were made of both a personal and career nature: "You are ordered never to speak about what you saw on your screen during the attacks; and if you do, things will not go well for you and your family."
Curiously, a large piece of wreckage was found in the entry hole; but the public was kept from closely observing what appears to be a sheared-off piece of wing from a much smaller jet than a Boeing 757.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Presidential candidate says scores of retired and active military and intelligence officials would testify before current grand jury probing government involvement in 9/11 attacks


There you go. If scores of officials are willing to testify in a probe like this, just get the people a venue. Give them the time of day.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by PrisonerOfSociety
 



Imagine, for a moment 'Prisoner'...that I could sit down with you, either in a non-operational trainer, with just photos of the panels and a FEW buttons and lights that simulate the real thing, or go whole hog and be in the real simulator...and in a very short time I could solve your problems about getting lost and not knowing how to navigate...

BECAUSE of the technology at your fingertips, in a modern jet.


So in answer to your question, i knew the basics but to fly a 757 over distance and aim for a small target...no. The navigation alone would be a headache.


Nah, piece of cake. Can you type? Use a computer?? THEN, you already are half-way to navigating a 757.

Because of the popularity of MicroSoft and their flying software, there are plenty of websites that also show you how...heck, you don't even need me, unless you have questions that the site doesn't answer.

Google for terms like "FMC" and "Boeing"...wait, allow me. (You'll find a lot of sites that want to sell you complete guides. But, if you hunt you can find some info for free..."FMC" is flight management computer...sometimes you will see it called "FMS" also, for 'system')

here's one...(forgive the funky music, not my video!)

It covers a to more than you need to know...but just watch how easy it is when on the "RTE" or "LEGS" pages to insert a waypoint. once you have a waypoint inserted and selected, it displays right there on your EHSI.


...yes, they're showing you a 737...a 'next generation' to be precise, so the panel arrangements are a bit different...that's considered more of a "glass cockpit" than the B757/767...I call them "half-glassed"...(little joke).

But the CDU interface is basically the same.

here's a better video: (no music)

(you can ignore all of the "PERF" and "INIT REF" input stuff, that's done before takeoff.

On the B757/767 the EHSI is the lower CRT screen, below the EADI.

here:
www.airliners.net...
Look over on the Captain's side, you see the EADI and the EHSI below it (partially hidden by the control wheel).

Over on the pedestal is the panel with the controls for the way you want to display information on the EHSI. See the leves called "STAB TRIM"? Just left of those.

Left knob, with black center? That's the range knob, (from 10 to 320 NM)and the black button is the TCAS on/off display...(any airplanes that become a threat will display REGARDLESS of switch position...if you get a 'TA' or 'RA' alert...)

Right and slightly below is the display selector knob...changes from 'Plan' to 'Map' to 'VOR' and 'ILS' Some airplanes (like ours) also have an 'HSI' mode, where it looks just like a mechanical HSI. These are options selected by various customers when purchasing the airplanes.

The square button is the WX RADAR on/off switch.

The concentric knobs are brightness/dimming controls.

Other part of that panel has nothing to do with the FMS...it is the 'DH' (decision height) set knob...just an electronic altitude bug used mostly for some instrument approaches...although some pilot's technique is to use it even when VFR for varios reasons, all a matter of personal preference.

Whew!!! See how easy this actually is? Harder to write about it than to just show you, though.



I suppose there's no real need to know flap, radio and speed settings


Correct. Although, not seen in THAT photo, the comm and nav radio tuning heads are there, aft on the pedestal. The FDR data show that in the case of AA 77, the DCA VOR/DME was tuned in...suggesting that they knew how, simply by switching the mode selector to 'VOR' (which makes the tuning head active) and then knowing how VORs work, that was yet ANOTHER way to navigate, once in range of the VOR....

See?

Questions?

[edit on 11 October 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 



This article comes from

Tom Flocco.com



Oh, not again! (face/palm)

Sheesh! He's already thoroughly discredited. But some people refuse to look into his credibility....the facts about him are out there, for all to see....
___________________________________________________________
Adding,
here....debunk THIS:



Tom Flocco Now Thoroughly Discredited

Introduction – September 23, 2005


With many thanks to the reader who pointed out the following discrepancies which more or less confirm Tom Flocco's status as a prime disinformation agent. We've had our suspicions for some time but the following proves them quite conclusively. First off, Poland and Austria do not share a common border, yours truly should have picked that up immediately but geography was never a strong point at school. Likewise the Italian lyra is no longer tenable currency, it ceased to be legal tender on February 28, 2002. Which makes claims about fake lyra currency all the more improbable along with everything else claimed by the recent guest on Jeff Rense's internet radio show.

Moreover, a reader has just informed us that location of events reported on Flocco's website has now changed. From being the Austrian Polish border, as originally reported, it's now moved to the Polish German border, which actually exists. Seems like Flocco got wind of his mistake and is now trying to recover his tattered credibility. Ed.


www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...




[edit on 11 October 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by trueforger
 


Sorry, but this whole notion is just imagination run amok.



Back on topic,I'm thinking of a auto pilot type homing device like that used in an instrument landing.


Firstly, VERY different animals. No way to put a full ILS into a building...AND, here's a point that seems to be forgotten...we KNOW that the autopilot was disconnected on American 77. He turned it off at about 0929, before starting the turn to descend and line up on the Pentagon.

Unfortuantely, we have no FDR data from NYC.

And, in any case, there is no autopilot system that would allow the combination of speeds and maneuvers seen...Human pilots. Also, the concept even of a Human via remote is laughable...BECAUSE of the high speeds. It is extremely difficult to have a "feel" for the plane, using just instrumentation and sight alone.



... and then the perps would have to override the cockpit controls with a clandestine patch put in somewhere along the way.


See above. Fantasy.



Which cuts off the radio.


????? What is the point I miss here? "the" radio?? All three of the VHF transceivers?

So far, we've seen this wild speculation cross boundaries, going from (If I got this straight)...

---Empty airplanes (somehow 'switched' with the passenger jets) full of fuel and explosives, remote controlled.

---The passenger jets, fitted "somehow" with this R/C, yet the poor hapless real airline pilots were 'helpless' to do anything???

---Similar to above, but the terrorists DID hijack, except they were duped and didn't mean to crash, it was all part of the "plot".

Did I miss one?

Scenario number 1 is wrong on many, many levels and is too ludicrous to entertain.

Scenario number two? Even MORE ludicrous! Anyone who believes in this just has no idea of how airplanes work, and how pilots think, and how much we know, etc.

Scenario number three...same.

ALL of this is baloney...and it staggers my mind WHY people wish to over-complicate this event.

The simplest scenario was---the event of Air Piracy by suicidal jihadists who wished to cause as much damage and mayhem as possible.

It surely is no secret that those religious zealot loons are willing to die for their twisted "cause". Why is that so difficult to accept?



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   
So the short of the long is that in this thread no one has been able to disprove the topic. All that I have seen is wanna be know it alls that are just willfully ignorant trying to prove their self worth by arguing about nothing.


Most people know the truth about 911. These forums are to spread the truth. Some are debatable but the methods used to push the official story has actually been destroying it. Is there really an official story?

The delusional reality that some of the trolls that hang out here at ATS have been pushing/defending and their methods are quite transparent, annoying and futile.

Dont let these people sway you from investigating, spreading and knowing the truth. Dont let the people that were sacrificed on September 11th to start major conflicts in the middle east go in vain.

You people covering up the truth have a place in hell. Whatever that may be for you, thats where you will go and you know it.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by trueforger
Back on topic,I'm thinking of a auto pilot type homing device like that used in an instrument landing.This way a 'target' could be placed in the building and then the perps would have to override the cockpit controls with a clandestine patch put in somewhere along the way.Which cuts off the radio.All covered by the confusion of alla those 'mock excercises' that day.


Bada bing bada BANG
Yeah buddy!!! that's all she wrote. No pilots no people. Just fly me to the moon wacker world electronics. Can we say Raytheon?



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainAmerica2012
So the short of the long is that in this thread no one has been able to disprove the topic. All that I have seen is wanna be know it alls that are just willfully ignorant trying to prove their self worth by arguing about nothing.


That's how it goes, though.

I have seen people even argue that bombs can't be detonated remotely via radio signals, just so they could erroneously argue that miles of cables would need to be installed into the buildings.

And don't even mention the possibility of classified technology. Oh, god! You'll never hear the end of it.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
WRONG!!!!! Wrong, wrong, wrong. This to any pilot is enough to show that this guy is an idiot. OR a liar, not certain which.

A transponder, firstly, does NOT receive, other than the intrrogatory from the radar facility, which it then 'squawks' back to. AND, the transponder does NOT "operate automatically"!!!! Utter nonsense.


I just want to make sure I am reading this correctly. Wrong! Transponders do NOT receive anything EXCEPT for the signal that they receive.


WRONG!!! Each transponder has four digits, each can be dialed from Zero through seven. There is no eight or nine.

This gives a possible combination of 4096 different transponder codes. (Astute readers who are mathematicians will note that there are more 'possible' combinations, but certain codes are NOT used...hence the 4096, which you will sometimes see the transponders referred to by.)


This gives you 4096 to choose from unless you do the math, then you will see that it is much more than 4096 but we only choose from 4096.

Just trying to follow you.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 

In my scenario,there'd be pilots,people,patsies and perp's.The pilots take off with the people aboard.The patsies jump up to take control,but the perp's turn the controls via an override to a program which guides and homes in on the targets where the charges have been going off all in sequence,before and during the collision.Doable and low number of operatives.P.S. then come the 'pologists.


[edit on 11-10-2009 by trueforger]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
I just want to make sure I am reading this correctly. Wrong! Transponders do NOT receive anything EXCEPT for the signal that they receive.


I thought the same thing when I read that. It seemed awfully contrived.

'NO! WRONG! THEY DON'T RECEIVE SIGNALS! ... except for that one... BUT YOU'RE WRONG!'



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 



Originally posted by weedwhacker
A transponder, firstly, does NOT receive, other than the intrrogatory from the radar facility, which it then 'squawks' back to. AND, the transponder does NOT "operate automatically"!!!! Utter nonsense.





I just want to make sure I am reading this correctly. Wrong! Transponders do NOT receive anything EXCEPT for the signal that they receive.


Yeah...not my best description on that.

But, you just about have it correct. Every radar sweep from ATC has an 'interrogatory' signal as part of it. A transponder that is active will ONLY receive, and respond to that. I understand it, as a user, without being the person who designed the bloody thing...guess I could look it up on the web for you?? And then link it?

Or, just tell you from my experience...part of every professional pilot's procedure will include the transponder (among a whole host of other things). In the airlline biz we teach "flows"....you train on an airplane type, get familiar with the cockpit layout, and learn a pattern to follow...the "flow" precedes the ritual "reading of the checklist"...because, unlike what you may have seen in Hollywood movies, a checklist is not a "challenge and do" thing, it is "challenge and acknowledge" that something has been done. Hence, the "flow"....

But, the act of rote checklist "challenge and acknowledge" is imperfect, since we are Human after all.

Important, what we call "killer items" aren't missed...not much, anymore...and modern jets have various warnings and alerts for them....

But, we were talking about the transponder. Let me find a photo for you....

www.airliners.net...
This isn't exactly my airline (!!) since I'm not Vietnamese....not that there's anything wrong with that...but they have the same model transponder as us...it's on the center pedestal, in the center, near the bottom of the photo. It's right between the two audio select panels (the ones with the dozen or so little buttons sticking up). Below it is a VHF comm panel, probably #3. Anyway, two concentric knobs, each rotates to select a different digit, shown in the window. The "on" switch really doesn't have an 'off'...it's called 'STBY'. Then it's 'ON' and 'ALT ON' for the Mode C altitude reporting....now, of course, there are various other switch positions, with the advent of TCAS..."TA", "TA/RA"...since TCAS requires the Mode C altitude reporting, then it is implied...sometimes there's even a separate switch, to turn 'OFF' Altitude reporting, in case it's giving out bad info...then the TCAS is affected, since the other airplanes won't know your altitude....but that's just a lot more information t han needs to be addressed here....anyway, they ALL are placed into "STBY' the same way...OR one could find and pull the circuit breaker....

There are actually TWO transponders, and only one control head...only one can operate at a time, there's a tinly toggle switch to select between #1 and #2. Little button in the middle is the "IDENT" button, you push if requested by ATC...it helps them find you, and/or positively identifies you by altering your scope return icon for about 30 seconds or so....makes you stand out in the pack, so to speak.

Back to what I was saying...it is standard to turn the transponder to "STBY' as part of the 'After Landing flow' and checklist challenge/response. reverse for the "Before Takeoff' routine....

When you get your clearance at the gate, prior to departure, you dial in the assigned code. IF you forget to change it from the previous flight's, and take off, when you are switched over to Departure control they will get annoyed with you, because they see the wrong code....OR, IF you forget, and miss it on the "Before Takeoff" check, and it's still in 'STBY' then they are annoyed as well.

Common terminology is "Verify squawking XXXX" or "Check transponder on"...something similar....then EVERYONE knows you're a dunce that moment...and you owe your buddy a beer on the overnight....

BTW...extra credit for that Shanghai Airlines photo....they are conducting an autoland practice, which is periodically done in nice, clear weather. How do I know? because all three autopilots are engaged (the three buttons lit up on the glareshield Mode Control Panel). 2,000 is set in the altitude window, throttles are at idle because they haven't leveled off yet...but moments after this photo was taken, the throttles would be coming up to hold airspeed. flaps are at 5, landing gear is still up. Speed is selected at 170. this is typical for that portion of the instrument approach. Autobrakes are set to '2'...we usually use at least '2' for autolandings, sometimes '3'.

I can see on the EADI that they are centered on the localizer, but they have not yet 'captured' the glideslope. Our procedure was to configure at one 'dot' below the G/S, gear down and flaps 15. Then, nearing G/S capture, flaps 20, then 30, and "Landing Checklist".

That's about as good as this monitor's resolution will let me see, there.

Oh, that company also uses the "Single cue" flight director. We use the "Dual cue" style...each has its benefits, and drawbacks...but the key is the FAA...they want you to have some sort of standardization fleet wide, so once you select the option, you stick with it, or suffer tremendous training costs.



This gives you 4096 to choose from unless you do the math, then you will see that it is much more than 4096 but we only choose from 4096.

Just trying to follow you.


Like I said, I didn't design the thing!!! Transponders were first invented a LONG time ago....most codes from '0000' to '0099' aren't used. ALSO, anything with the first two digits of '75', '76' or '77' aren't used. '7500' is the hijack code, used covertly. Guess that's not much of a secret, anymore. '7600' means loss of voice comm....'7700' is the emergency, or MayDay squawk. It is good technique, IF your squawk is changed while inflight, to either switch to 'STBY' first, or to not cycle through any leading '75, 76 or 77' digits, because if left there long enough a radar somewhere will respond to it....

So, if you wish to do the math, feel free to knock yourself out. I really can't be bothered....


[edit on 11 October 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I think you completely missed my point. You said that it can NOT receive anything but it does receive something.

Then you said that that configuration limits you to 4096 unless you do the math and then it is more than 4096.

Do you see the problem with the sentences? It takes no encyclopedic answers to respond either.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 



This article comes from

Tom Flocco.com



Oh, not again! (face/palm)

Sheesh! He's already thoroughly discredited. But some people refuse to look into his credibility....the facts about him are out there, for all to see....
___________________________________________________________
Adding,
here....debunk THIS:



Tom Flocco Now Thoroughly Discredited

Introduction – September 23, 2005


With many thanks to the reader who pointed out the following discrepancies which more or less confirm Tom Flocco's status as a prime disinformation agent. We've had our suspicions for some time but the following proves them quite conclusively. First off, Poland and Austria do not share a common border, yours truly should have picked that up immediately but geography was never a strong point at school. Likewise the Italian lyra is no longer tenable currency, it ceased to be legal tender on February 28, 2002. Which makes claims about fake lyra currency all the more improbable along with everything else claimed by the recent guest on Jeff Rense's internet radio show.

Moreover, a reader has just informed us that location of events reported on Flocco's website has now changed. From being the Austrian Polish border, as originally reported, it's now moved to the Polish German border, which actually exists. Seems like Flocco got wind of his mistake and is now trying to recover his tattered credibility. Ed.


www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...




[edit on 11 October 2009 by weedwhacker]


"This is your captain speaking"
You can only fool yourself with that post weedy.
It mentions NOTHING about an A3 bomber.
IT mentions absolutely nothing about them being retrofitted in Denver.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 



I think you completely missed my point. You said that it can NOT receive anything but it does receive something.


Are you being intentionally infuriating? Is this a game?

I have explained what a transponder IS, how it OPERATES and how it is USED, and what it DOES.

It DOES NOT receive any magical "electronic hijacking remote control" signals of ANY KIND. Period. It is not connected in any way, shape or stretch of the imagination to any of the control functions on an airplane.

It sits there, does its little jobby job...or it fails (that's why there are two on modern jets).

The very premise of this thread, and the "electronic hijacking" nonsense is flawed from the start, BECAUSE of a lack of understanding about the true nature of the transponder device.

It comes from someone's over-active imagination.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


You need to reread the original post in question. I am addressing your own choice of words. You contradict yourself twice and it makes for a confusing post. It also brings your understanding of what you type into question. Since you still cannot grasp what it is you said so wrong, I have more than a few serious doubts about your level of comprehension of the posts you yourself leave for us. I know a transponder does not receive signals to control the plane. I never argued that. If you want to say that planes cannot be controlled by remote control, you are wrong. There are youtube videos of the military testing these remote controlled planes out. Project Northwoods considered a remote controlled plane - because they had them to use.

You need to go back to that post and see if you can figure out what I so CLEARLY pointed out is wrong with it.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 




I am addressing your own choice of words. You contradict yourself twice and it makes for a confusing post.


Oy, vey!! Why not shoot me in the head for typing in haste, and get rid of me that way!!

IF you can't figure out from the other writings by now that I know what I'm talking about, even if my writing skills are lackluster (compared to your incredible typing skills and impeccable wit), then I can only conclude that this attitude is intentional, and is a joke of some sort...a sick joke.

As to the other points in your post I'm replying to? READ the OP, please...because the entire basis of the OP is flawed, from the start, as I stated. Again, nice try to deflect and obscure...another part of the "joke"?



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Listen! You said this -

The transponder does NOT receive any signals...

...except for the signals that it DOES receive.


Do you see the problem with that statement??????

Then you said this

This limits it to 4096 choices...

...actually it makes it possible for more than 4096, they just only use 4096.


See the problem here?????????????????????

It does not but it does. It is limited but not limited. I am not picking on your typing skills. I am pointing out your lack of logic. If you are trying to prove that the OP is flawed, you are going to need to make statements that make some sense yourself. You cannot state that something does not do something except that it does and then state that something limits something to a certain number except that it does not limit it to that number. You contradict yourself twice. You do a complete 180 on both statements. This is no joke. You are the one trying to point out people's flaws in their post right???? Did you not state that you are here to point out how flawed the OP is???????? Well, I am pointing out how flawed your post is. You did not type poorly or use bad grammar. You completely contradict yourself and cancel out the point you were trying to make. If you still do not understand what is wrong with your post, I know for certain that your level of intelect is far below what your cut and paste posts portray.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


OK....I see it's about nitpicking, then?


Listen! You said this -

The transponder does NOT receive any signals...

...except for the signals that it DOES receive.

Do you see the problem with that statement??????



yeah----I see a problem.

I should have taken more time to edit it precisely for your approval, that was my problem. Of course, an intellectually honest person would be able to understand it in context...but, because I write what I know, and am not quoting from a technical manual that Goober found online for me....(shaking head...)


Then you said this

This limits it to 4096 choices...

...actually it makes it possible for more than 4096, they just only use 4096.


Same thing...ya know, that's me talking. BUT, let's let Goober and Wiki speak for me...(and if I'd done this the first time I would have been accused of just knowing it BECAUSE I Goobered it.....sheesh!!!)


...Squawk codes are four-digit octal numbers; the dials on a transponder read from zero to seven inclusive. Thus the lowest possible squawk is 0000 and the highest is 7777. There are 4096 combinations of these four digit codes, which is why they are often called "4096 code transponders."


en.wikipedia.org...(aviation)

...from 'wisegeek'...not nearly as precise....


Transponders were originally developed to be attached to objects which needed to be located, and are still used in this manner today. A transponder functions by receiving a signal, called an "interrogator" because it is effectively "asking" for information, then automatically conveying a radio wave at a predetermined frequency. In order to broadcast a signal on a different frequency than the one received, a frequency converter is built in. By receiving and transmitting on different frequencies, the interrogator and transponder signals can be detected simultaneously.

The first use of a transponder was onboard an aircraft during World War II, as part of the Identify Friend or Foe (IFF) system. By answering secret interrogation frequencies, pilots could indicate to radar operators that they were friendly aircraft.

Transponders are still common today in both military and commercial aviation. They receive a signal from the ground, and then automatically reply with an identification code for air traffic controllers, as well as altitude information. In aircraft applications, transponders are also configured to amplify the signal in order to make the plane more visible on radar.


www.wisegeek.com...

See the problem I have? i can discuss till I'm blue in the face those things that I know, and use my own clumsy way of describing them...and get told I'm contradicting myself ---OR---I can cite outside sources, and then be blamed for simply data-mining and not really knowing anything other than what Goober finds...my dilemma is, speaking to laypeople who can't tell the difference.




top topics



 
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join