It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Transponders On 9/11

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 05:54 PM

A central piece of evidence that is ignored,pretty much by everyone, is the transponders.

The transponders were, apparantly turned on and off at various times during the flights of the machines that hit the WTC and the Pentagon.

Quite apart from being largely pointless for hijackrs to have done this, those with that level of experience could not have had the ability to have done this. No other hijackers have.

Sherlock Holmes said, eliminate that which is not possible and whatever is left must be the truth, no matter how ludicrous it seems.

So, if they cold not have turned on and off the transponders, what is the conclusion?


If this did not happen, how come NORAD showed this as such? There si ONE BIG CASE OF THIS HAPPENING, namely in 1982, and since this wold appear to be the only possible way that this could have happened, it leads to STUNNING CONCLUSIONS as to who did 9/11 mass murder and how it was done.

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 05:55 PM

IN 1982, the United Kingdom went to fight the Argentinians over the Falklands.

A large amount of normal munitions were dropped on ships without any success, largely because they were dropped from a height that was too low. However, one weapon proved devastating against the Royal Navy - the Exocet missile which sank The Atlantic Conveyer, HMS Sheffield, HMS Antelope etc.

The reason for its success was not its immense explosive power, but because it was, in effect, invisible to all electronic warfare systems and hence Sea Wolf and Sea Dart anti-missile systems were useless. To defend against it, the Royal Navy had to line the decks with crew with binoculars in a chance to obtain at least some few split seconds of warning of an inbound Argentinian Exocet.

So, why was the Exocet so invisible. The answer which ws in the Press at the time is ludicrous but true, because it was French-made.

When NATO planners originally developed a coordinated electronic warfare system, they had set a common standard. In any West- Warsaw pact sea battle, it was viewed that radar and systems wold have only split seconds to respond before being destroyed. There was not time to deal with cluttered screens, so the NATO systems, including NORAD only show 4 types of flying missiles/aircraft on screens:-

- Your own country's missiles and aircraft
- Warsaw Pact and possible allies missiles and aircraft.
- Civilian aircraft
- Neutral country's aircraft and missiles.

Hence to unclutter the screens, one particular group of flying objects were coded so that they just do not appear on STANDARD NATO screens... missiles and aircraft belonging to YOUR CLOSE ALLIES. Hence the Royal Navy could not see Exocet missiles because their transponders do not show up on their radar.

Likewise, the transponders for missiles and aircraft belonging to the Royal Navy wold not have shown up on NORAD screens. If the US Navy had fired at the Pentagon, it wold have appeared on numerous radar screens, but if the Royal Navy had, it would be as if the transponders had been turned off.

So, did the Royal Navy have any ships near the eastern seaboard of the USA on 9/11?
The answer is YES, I have already checked. The was a nuclear submarine which left port about a week earlier which was on its way to the Far East. That would have put it just off the eastern seaboard of the USA on 9/11. Did she have any missiles missing on arrival in the Far East? Actually, yes. 6 Tomahawk missiles were unaccounted for onboard when she docked 3 weeks later.

So would no-one have seen if this submarine had launched the attack on the Pentagon? Actually yes. Langley's radar systems are old and non-standard. And here is a possibility that The Truth Movement will not consider. That Langle's launch of 3 fighters to Whiskey 386 was no accident nor them trying to get the aircraft "out of the way". but in actuality Langley correctly identified where the attack on the USA was coming from.

So who COULD have launched the Royal Navy's missiles at the Pentagon? Despite being the party of socialism, dead against contracting out, Tony Blair's Labour Party, bizarrely contracted out the maintenence of all the Royal Navy's missiles and electonic systems in 1999 I believe it was. The Contracctor now is free to rewire the missiles and control systems as they see fit. And since the missiles are housed in tiny silos onboard, they can even paint them to look like aircraft and no-one would even know.

How could they be launched? In the UK, the anit-nuclear lobby is huge, so any radiation leakage by missiles would be serious and the captain would have to launch and programme them to self-destruct which they would do IF not rewired by the contractor.

So, who is the Contractor that Tony Blair brought in to maintain all Britain's Tomahawk missiles and all the submarine control systems including radiation alert systems?

KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT - subsidiary of Halliburton, run by DIck Cheney

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 10:43 PM
reply to post by aristocrat2

You show a complete ignorance of the function of a transponder

a transponder when receives radar signal from ATC radar broadcasts
or "squawks" a response which includes flight code and altitude back
to ATC where shows up on radar scope. Allows ATC to clearly see traffic in area

To fly in Controlled airspace requires a transponder with altitude capability
either Mode C or S

The 9/11 hijackers turned off transponders to camoflague themselves -
while not totally invisible shutting down transponders deprived ATC of
clear signal and altitude information. ATC forced to rely on primary
radar rflection and try to separate hijacked aircraft from clutter

The Mode S transponders aboard Boeing 767 and 757 aircraft, such as those used on 9/11 as "flying bombs," deliver aircraft identification and altitude and can supplement FAA’s radar by "providing ATC and traffic alert collision avoidance system (TCAS)-equipped aircraft the ability to determine position and heading information," according to DoT. "A lesson from 9/11 is the importance of ensuring continuous transponder communication with ATC, regardless of a hijacking.

"Without the transponder switch in a fully active position, ATC can track an aircraft only by primary radar, which does not indicate aircraft identity and altitude," states DoT. "The loss of this information causes other aircraft to lose awareness of the flight in progress."

Another issue for the task force to consider has been power management. Besides disabling the transponder by switching the unit to "standby" on the control panel, hijackers could simply disconnect the appropriate circuit breaker. To prevent this would require changing the circuit breaker switch to ensure that the power supply was switched from the bus that hijackers could control to a secure power source.

American 11

At 8:21, American 11 turned off its transponder, immediately degrading the information available about the aircraft. The controller told his supervisor that he thought something was seriously wrong with the plane, although neither suspected a hijacking. The supervisor instructed the controller to follow standard procedures for handling a "no radio" aircraft.107

United 175

Minutes later, United 175 turned southwest without clearance from air traffic control. At 8:47, seconds after the impact of American 11, United 175's transponder code changed, and then changed again. These changes were not noticed for several minutes, however, because the same New York Center controller was assigned to both American 11 and United 175.The controller knew American 11 was hijacked; he was focused on searching for it after the aircraft disappeared at 8:46.123

American 77

The failure to find a primary radar return for American 77 led us to investigate this issue further. Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56. But for 8 minutes and 13 seconds, between 8:56 and 9:05, this primary radar information on American 77 was not displayed to controllers at Indianapolis Center.142 The reasons are technical, arising from the way the software processed radar information, as well as from poor primary radar coverage where American 77 was flying.

United 93

From 9:34 to 10:08, a Command Center facility manager provided frequent updates to Acting Deputy Administrator Monte Belger and other executives at FAA headquarters as United 93 headed toward Washington, D.C. At 9:41, Cleveland Center lost United 93's transponder signal. The controller located it on primary radar, matched its position with visual sightings from other aircraft, and tracked the flight as it turned east, then south.164

By shutting off transponders hijackers were able to degrade the radar
return from the aircraft and effectively "hide"

Our aircraft experts can probably elaborate on this

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 10:52 PM
reply to post by thedman

I think what the OPer is getting at is not that the planes should have disappeared from radar altogether, which seems to be what you're suggesting.

I think he's pointing out that whilst tracking the planes using the reflective radar signal, a 'friendly' missile could be fired without it appearing on radar.

As you point out, however, I'm not that familiar with transponders. I would like to think that a missile could be picked up by radar even without the transponder giving information about altitude, etc.

Are all missiles traceable by radar? Are they too small? Too fast? Designed not to appear on radar? I'm sure there are many on ATS who could provide some more info on this.

Interesting theory, though. Star and flag for bringing something to the table which hasn't been discussed a thousand times already...


posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 10:53 PM

Originally posted by thedman
Our aircraft experts can probably elaborate on this

Nope, it's not worth the effort as the OP has no clue just as you've already stated. Transponders on missiles?

posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 02:24 AM
reply to post by Reheat

Originally posted by Reheat
Transponders on missiles?

Guidance was to be a simple radio control MCLOS system for use against daytime targets, but night-time use was considerably more complex because neither the target nor the missile would be easily visible. For this role a new system known as Rhineland was under development. Rhineland used a transponder in the missile for locating it in flight (as read by a radio direction finder (RDF) on the ground) and a radar unit for tracking the target. A simple mechanical computer guided the missile into the tracking radar beam as soon as possible after launch, using the transponder and RDF to locate it, at which point the operator could see both "blips" on a single display, and guide the missile onto the target as during the day.

A second development was underway that used only a single cross-shaped radar beam that was rotated while pointing at the target. Like the Rhineland system the missile was first directed into the beam via the transponder, and from there would keep itself centred in the beam. It did this by listening to the radar signal, if it was off course it would hear pulses instead of a steady signal, and automatically place itself back in the middle of the beam.

From here.

I don't know. Maybe it IS rocket science...


[edit on 3-11-2009 by Rewey]

posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 02:48 AM

Originally posted by Reheat
Transponders on missiles?

Washington - President Obama will pursue a ship-based missile defense system as an interim measure to protect Israel and Europe from a short-range Iranian missile threat, as he backs away from a controversial ballistic missile defense system favored by the Bush administration...

...If it picks up something like a missile, the ship can launch a standard missile armed with a transponder in its tail. The transponder allows the ship's system to steer the missile to the target to destroy it.

From here.

Am I missing something? Why is the thought of transponders so hilarious?

I know you said it's not worth the effort to explain, so maybe someone else can have a go?

Maybe some courtesy around ATS wouldn't go astray? Just because the OP doesn't have your working knowledge of transponders...


posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 12:42 PM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 06:48 PM

Originally posted by trebor451
...asinine things ever put forth by the Troothers.

Pretty sure mods are giving out warnings for that now. It's not that hard is it? T-r-u-t-h.

That's how you spell it.

I'm still not sure how YOU spelling a word wrong is supposed to make US look stupid. Anyway...


posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 07:12 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 08:04 PM

Originally posted by aristocrat2


... who did 9/11 mass murder and how it was done.

The terrorist pilots studied the 757/767. They knew where the transponders were and how to turn them off because they turned them off. Some terrorists turned off the transponder, some did not. One plane changed the code. Turning off your transponder does not bring interception; it gets you a radio call asking what is wrong.

19 terrorists murdered on 911. Did the terrorists pilots study the 757/767 aircraft more than a lot of people studied 911 and transponders? Yes. Someone can look up the transponder in a 767/757 and figure out how to turn it off. How long does it take someone to find how to do it?

There is no way to use missiles unless they are the same size and weight of the airliners. Plus in the missiles you have to pack DNA from the passengers and all the parts of the aircraft. What does that missile look like? That missile looks like Flight 11, 175, 77 and 93. The impact velocities gave the planes energy equal to 1000 to 2000 pound bombs. Kinetic energy is equal to the mass times the velocity squared. An airliner like Flight 175 going 590 miles per hour packs the same energy as 2093 pound bomb. No need for missiles the terrorists used speed to kill. The 66,000 pounds of jet fuel in the WTC attacks had the heat energy of 315 tons of TNT, what missile can carry that kind of payload?

The missile idea is nonsense because in addition the damage was from a kinetic energy impact, not explosives.

You know all the nerdy kids in school taking physics, chemistry and calculus; those kids are not baffled by 911 they use science and extensive research to guide conclusions, not opinions, fantasy and hearsay.

How it was done. (Caution; plot so complicated some people will not understand it.)
Kill pilots.
Fly plane into building.

Two very complex steps, makes me wonder if the terrorists had to write down the steps.

Who did it?
19 terrorists

The terrorists scored 75 percent; and after their plots was discovered they were 100 percent failures; Flight 93 passengers have the record for figuring out 911 and taking action; the 911 truth movement came in last.

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 08:11 PM
" Kill planes into buildings". Unreal. How simple. Reducing all of the astronomical odds and scores of inexplicable anomalies to a simple if that makes any sense at all. How could anyone believe the official story? How? It staggers the sound mind to realize that people out there actually somehow discount all the sticky little facts that blow their story apart...amazing.

Kill the pilots, indeed. No one from the government has ever even attempted to try and tell us HOW 8 pilots were all ' killed', or ushered to the rear of the plane, as one claim was..but of course you cannot come up with any logical and likley scenarios that have a chance of being possible. So you just skip the details and assume that all 4 planes were so lax with security...and their luck was so good...and their fighting prowess so acute...that they could : Melt thru doors as if not there...knock out or kill 8 pilots...all in a manner that didn't affect the controls.

Also, not ONE pilot pushed the call button and radioed a distress call..imagine that!! A cockpit being rushed by a couple of small men with nothing but suposed box cutters..and not ONE thumb could push the radio button...funny huh?

Of course official story drones MUST ignore all the odds...all the details...all the facts..and stick with a general, sweeping statement that makes no sense but sounds grand.The official story will not even touch the subject;it is so impossible to believe that they run when asked about the dynamics of the actual cockpit takings.The odds of four planes, with 8 pilots, being attacked so fast and so perfectly that it was virtually INSTANTANEOUS...and totally overwhelming...all by small men with boxcutters. Yeah, right.

I could go on and on but it is a waste of time; the drones that would swallow the official lie do not base their beliefs on empirical evidence but a faithn that somehow they must be right....only that mindset would allow them to ignore all the facts.

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 09:44 PM
reply to post by richierich

Also, not ONE pilot pushed the call button and radioed a distress call..imagine that!! A cockpit being rushed by a couple of small men with nothing but suposed box cutters..and not ONE thumb could push the radio button...funny huh?

Flight 93

At 09:28:17, a crew member in the cockpit began shouting, "Mayday! Mayday! Mayday!" over the radio amidst sounds of violence. A Cleveland Air Traffic Controller replied "somebody call Cleveland?", but received no reply.

Thirty-five seconds after the first Mayday call, the crew made another transmission. Someone in the cockpit shouted, "Mayday! Get out of here! Get out of here!"

Looks like crew did get distress call out

Before 9/11 cockpit doors had about as much resistance as a screen door

Could be easily kicked open - assuming it was closed and locked which was not always the case. Also was opened with common key called
"Boeing key" kept by flight attendents. On several of the flights
hijackers attacked flight attendents first - whether to intimidate the passengers or to get the key is not known.

As for pilots - they are strapped into seats wearing seat belt/shoulder harness. Pilots seats are set low in the cockpit so hijackers would be
standing over the pilots from behind slashing downward. Pilots would
be at complete disadvantage trying to resist attack from behind and above
while strapped into seats.

posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 06:48 AM

Of course official story drones MUST ignore all the odds...all the details...all the facts..

WHOOPS. See Thedman's post. The, um, official story drones, do not tend to be the ones that ignore the facts.

With the exception of Flight 93, the other three crews were not expecting to be attacked in their seats. After talking to the pilots I work with (most of whom are civilian airline pilots), prior to 9/11, most of them wouldnt have thought twice about hearing the door open behind them because they "knew" it would be a flight attendant coming in. Two people, one hand each to knock the headset off, the other hand holding a small knife....over in a couple seconds.

Flight 93 got off its mayday because they had been alerted.

posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 08:29 AM
I would think hijacking a plane is not an easy thing to do. Hijacking it without the pilot being able to alert ground control is nearly impossible. The pilot has only to punch in a four digit code to alert ground control to a hijacking. So the hijackers took over the plane by the rather crude method of threatening people with boxcutters and knives, and spraying gas (after they had attached their own gas masks I guess), but somehow took control of the plane without the crew first getting a chance to punch in the hijacking code. Not just on one plane, but on all four.
So now that our incredibly lucky hijackers have taken control of the planes, all four pilots fly them with breathtaking skill and certainty to hit targets which many skilled pilots say would be very difficult on the first attempt, keeping in mind these guys actually went out drinking and womanizing the night before their great martyrdom, even leaving their Korans in the bar -- really impeccable Islamic behavior -- and then got up at 5 a.m. with a hangover the next morning to pull off the greatest covert operation in history.
It gets better. Their practical training had allegedly been limited to Cessnas and flight simulators, but after brushing up on their skills by reading the flight manuals (that they left in their car) on the way to the airport this was no barrier to the unflinching certainty with which they took over the planes and skillfully guided them to their doom.
*Inspiration from

posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 09:36 AM

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

With the exception of Flight 93, the other three crews were not expecting to be attacked in their seats. After talking to the pilots I work with (most of whom are civilian airline pilots), prior to 9/11, most of them wouldnt have thought twice about hearing the door open behind them because they "knew" it would be a flight attendant coming in. Two people, one hand each to knock the headset off, the other hand holding a small knife....over in a couple seconds.

Flight 93 got off its mayday because they had been alerted.

IDK Swampfox, I have always wondered if somehow Ziad had talked his way into the jump seat.

Lets think about it...

The plane is hijacked at almost the same time that they receive that message warning them to beware of cockpit intrusion. Imagine Stahl reading the ACAR message probably in disbelief, knowing that they had basically a stranger behind them. He sends a confirm message just to make sure. While at the same time telling Ziad(?) that he needs to exit the cockpit now, triggering the beginning of the hijack.

This could explain why everyone claimed that there was only three hijackers.

new topics

top topics


log in