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.

 

9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

page: 234
100
<< 231  232  233    235  236  237 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_ You are free to contact the FAA if you do not believe the source that you cited.
Please be adult enough to read post. You stated you had data about the radar reconstruction. Pease be adult enough to supply evidnece to support your claim. PLEASE be adult enough to answer the question. Yes i would also like to see this so called data , when it was collected and if any other radar screens show the plane that day at that time. [edit on 19-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]




posted on May, 19 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1Please be adult enough to read post. to support your claim.
Sigh. What I said is the article you quoted says there was additional data. I have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of your source. If you doubt the source, perhaps you should not quote from it?



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_ Sigh. What I said is the article you quoted says there was additional data. ?
You stated you had data. I asked you for data. Do you have data on the radar reconstruction, YES or NO?



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_ Sigh. What I said is the article you quoted says there was additional data. ?
You stated you had data. I asked you for data. Do you have data on the radar reconstruction, YES or NO?
Can you quote where I said that, please? Otherwise I might accuse you of lying. I'd hate to be edited... It almost sounds like your deliberately making accusations to wiggle away from what I presented from your source... [edit on 19-5-2008 by _Del_]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_ Can you quote where I said that, please? Otherwise I might accuse you of lying.
Here is your quote

Originally posted by _Del Information was not displayed, but was collected.
Where and when was the data collected? Was it on anyones radar screen? If not then it was off radar. [edit on 19-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 Here is your quote

Originally posted by _Del Information was not displayed, but was collected.
Where and when was the data collected? Was it on anyones radar screen? If not then it was off radar
That's from the source material. It says the info was not displayed in Indianapolis. This does not mean it was not displayed elsewhere.

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... FAA ATC software did not allow the display of primary radar data from the "tertiary" and "quadrary" radars"
Tertiary and quadrary radars had "skin paints" of the aircraft. This was not displayed in Indianapolis because of software limitations. I do not know where the tertiary and quadrary radars were located. Only that the source says they tracked the aircraft. Again, this is all from the source material available to anyone with reading comprehension; I don't claim to have this info in my grubby hands, and yet have no reason to believe the source is lying.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_ It says the info was not displayed in Indianapolis. This does not mean it was not displayed elsewhere.
What thats what i am asking you, do you have infomratoin that it was displayed elsewhere? If not then the plane was off radar.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 What thats what i am asking you, do you have infomratoin that it was displayed elsewhere? If not then the plane was off radar.
The quote says they had skin paints from other sources. Is there a reason those other sources would not be able to see their own primary returns that you can think of?



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I assume the radar data from that day would be recorded and archived away somewhere, probably not available to amateur investigators but the evidence would have been preserved. I know it is here in Oz where all radar data from all sources is preserved for a minimum period even if no air traffic incidents are reported.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_ The quote says they had skin paints from other sources. Is there a reason those other sources would not be able to see their own primary returns that you can think of?
Do you have infomratoin that it was displayed elsewhere? If not then the plane was off radar.?



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 Do you have infomratoin that it was displayed elsewhere? If not then the plane was off radar.?
The quote says they had skin paints from other sources. Is there a reason those other sources would not be able to see their own primary returns that you can think of?



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_ The quote says they had skin paints from other sources. Is there a reason those other sources would not be able to see their own primary returns that you can think of?
Do you have infomratoin that it was displayed elsewhere? If not then the plane was off radar.?



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_ The quote says they had skin paints from other sources. Is there a reason those other sources would not be able to see their own primary returns that you can think of?
Do you have infomratoin that it was displayed elsewhere? If not then the plane was off radar.?
The quote says they had skin paints from other sources. Is there a reason those other sources would not be able to see their own primary returns that you can think of?



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_ The quote says they had skin paints from other sources. Is there a reason those other sources would not be able to see their own primary returns that you can think of?
Last post on this. Do you have infomratoin that it was displayed elsewhere, YES or NO?



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 
Yes. I have information that the flight was tracked the entire time and that additional radar data existed which was unavailable to controllers in Indianapolis. If you read the report cited, you would have that information too.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_ Yes. I have information that the flight was tracked the entire time and that additional radar data existed which was unavailable to controllers in Indianapolis.
Ok, so who tracked it. Whos radar screen was it on?



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 08:13 PM
link   
I don't know. I only know that the source says it occurred. Do you know that it did not? Perhaps you can contact them and receive the information.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_ I don't know. I only know that the source says it occurred. Do you know that it did not? Perhaps you can contact them and receive the information.
Well i am just trying to find out if anyone had flight 77 on thier radar screen. If not then Flight 77 was off radar.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 
Well that source seems to say it was on the radar, doesn't it? Isn't that what tracked means?



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_ Well that source seems to say it was on the radar, doesn't it? Isn't that what tracked means?
But was it on anyones radar screen to SEE? If not then it was off radar, Isn't that what off radar means?







 
100
<< 231  232  233    235  236  237 >>

log in

join