a transponder any one can easily turn off during flight
why?
a functioning transponder is the only thing that separates a commercial aircraft from an ungainly ballistic weapon.
so when skeptics of the official report wanted to know why air control couldn't track the hijacked planes, the answer was simply "The transponders
were switched off by the hijackers."
and the experts, investigators and population at large accepted this answer.
but why? it makes no sense. why would a device integral to the safety of the passengers, crew, aircraft and safe navigation of said craft be so simple
to turn off? further more, in what situation would a certified airline pilot have just cause to deactivate the apparatus in mid flight?
a transponder constantly relays the aircraft's speed, heading, altitude, co-ordnance and other very important information to air control towers. in
turn, air control updates flight paths to adjust for weather, taxiing into runways and preventing mid air collisions. so this device certainly needs
to be functioning perfectly before take off, during flight, after landing and every second between.
but despite it all. it still seems perfectly acceptable that a random stranger familiar with an aircraft's control panel can just stroll into the
flight deck and flip a switch. rendering the craft as a simple indistinguishable radar blip in a sea of air traffic. does it still seem reasonable?
for contrast ill pitch a similarly unreasonable idea. there were no planes. they were missiles. no good? how about one more...
XX years ago, a secret contingency plan was made to start a war and or garnish political support with or against any country(s) in the world. it can
be used in any country and against a variety of targets at almost any given time. but there's a catch. you can only do it once. because after you use
this weapon, all the rules will change. luckily you can use it several times in that one cataclysmic day. so long as you have the proper number of
brainwashed lackey's.
is this the "why"? it could be. perhaps its all just a massive oversight. but if this was a smoking gun, the barrel has since cooled and the haze
lifted by a swift breeze.
i guess every device needs an easily accessible on/off button. if not as a necessity, then at least for the sake of simply selling more on/off
buttons.
|
Originally posted by acornco
a transponder any one can easily turn off during flight
why?
Do you know anything about aircraft? Air traffic control? Tower control at a field? Ground control at a field? Do you think having 2 dozen or more
aircraft at a busy field, all with their transponders on, all within a few feet or a hundred feet or a half a mile of each other would clog up and
clutter up an ATC screen to the point that it would be unusable for departing or arriving aircraft or aircraft transiting the airspace?
When was the last time you landed in an airliner? How long did it take to get to your gate after you were wheels on the deck? What sort of
information is being sent to ATC screens? Alt? Whatever the field elevation is. Speed? Taxi speed of 20 or 30 or 50 knots. Call sign? All that
information on a controllers screen would kill situational awareness in specific areas. Think of the DC area. Andrews AFB, Baltimore-Washington
Intl, Dulles, Reagan National, all fairly close Think of NYC. LaGuardia, JFK almost co-located.
Of course transponders have "off" or "standby" switches that shuts off the information.
|
reply to post by trebor451
Well put Trebor. Although a transponder is required for flight, it is not a critical safety of flight item. I does enhance safety, but is by no
means critical. The Radar controller can still see the aircraft and the pilot/co-pilot don't turn off their eyeballs!
We operated the system safely without transponders for many years.
Another thread in the long list by a poster who doesn't have a clue about the subject addressed.
|
Another Brick in The Wall
|
Russian/Al CIAda/Taliban/North Korean/Iranian/Iraqi migs busting airspace don't use transponders either, yet four planes turning off their
transponders around the same time and crashing within a 200 mile radius wasn't noticed?
Look the public 'control range' for an E4B. Then look at the videos of 9/11 clearly showing issues and discrepancies with planes, also two different
frames of city/tower shots being combined, pentagon camera missing frames and the issues that arise - I do live, public display video jockey work and
do the same sort of mixing all the time, so it sticks out like a sore thumb to me!
The issue is there is all sorts of evidence to support planes, some evidence to support no planes, evidence of frame mixing or cgi but the fact of the
matter is that jet fuel didn't cause 3 buildings to disintegrate on live tv. Was it thermite and conventional explosives, DEWs, missiles or what...
perhaps we will never know? We must never forget or loose sight of this important fact - it's the one thing that people who question the 9/11
official fairytale can easily share on common ground - that steel and concrete buildings don't simultaneously fail like that.
[edit on 18/10/09 by GhostR1der]
|
reply to post by GhostR1der
Well now, there's a better job waiting for you. It's at NIST. After all, you're smarter and better educated than all of those dozens of the best
scientists there who disagree with you. I'm sure you'll straighten out those guys and find the twoof! 
|
