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: 235
100
<< 232  233  234    236  237  238 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2008 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Well, technically, No. That's not what off the radar means. And if you don't know the answer to the question I can't imagine why you would state that it was in fact one answer or the other. Particularly when the citation shows they had the data at other locations.




posted on May, 20 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_ Well, technically, No. That's not what off the radar means..
Either show what radar screen the data was on or admit the plane was OFF RADAR SCREENS. I cannot make it anymore simple.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 
ULTIMA, you are deflecting again, and deliberately, it seems. Why don't YOU prove how many radar screens AAL77 was 'off'....you seem to know so much. No, instead, you 'claimn' to do research, then challange others to bring it....but you never SHOW any research!!! What you provide are innuendo...and, as I've pointed out on another related thread, completely inaccurate references from an incomplete report....you use 'outlines' of in-depth reports, when you find something to bolster your claims....but you don't read through...or, you (dishonestly) ignore that which contradicts your claims, and conveniently ignore it. Poor research methods, I say.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker ULTIMA, you are deflecting again, and deliberately, it seems.
This quote goes for you believers also

Originally posted by jfj123 If you make a claim on this thread, back it up on this thread. If you refuse, please leave this thread. If you can't play nice, I'll ask the mods to send you home. This is the LAST time I'm going to ask before contacting the mods. Please stay within in the requested topic confines as listed at the beginning of this thread.
[edit on 20-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 
ULTIMA, please stop 'cherry-picking' quotes!! I DO NOT do that to you, the least I would expect, is some respect likewise from you.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker ULTIMA, please stop 'cherry-picking' quotes!! I DO NOT do that to you, the least I would expect, is some respect likewise from you.
That real funny, you should really learn to practice what you preach. When have you even shown any information to deabte what i have posted or to support your claims?



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 
ULTIMA, your response is a non-sequitor. I NEVER select any of your posts out of context...EVER! I respond cogently, and coherently to what you write. And, when I catch you in a mistake, I don't 'quote-mine' from your post, I respond in full. Others can certainly take the time to review our various posting records, on the thread, and decide for themselves. dagnabit! spelling ewrrors!!! [edit on 5/20/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker Others can certainly take the time to review our various posting records, on the thread, and decide for themselves. dagnabit! spelling ewrrors!!!
Only people that cannot post evidence have to resort to talking about things like speeling errors. I have and can post lots of information to support what i claim. Its too bad no one will be adult enough to admit it and have to misquote or change topics. [edit on 20-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 
Just my observation here You've been adamant for a long time that the plane was off radar (your original claim was ALL radar) for a period of time and that time has been gradually reduced by good data provided by other posters. Now, from your own source, it's been pointed out that it was off radar at only 1 site for technical reasons making the whole 'off radar' thing considerably less of an absolute fact. This is just like the 'all the fuel was recovered' or the 'not a 757 wheel' thing and many others. Just leaving off a few words and sentences from the reports or statements to get the effect you want is what I call selective myopia. Your response has been to attack the posters instead of the issues. Are you looking for truth or just attempting to defend a truth you already decided on, whether it's right or wrong? EDIT: - I see the paragraph formatting is still broken [edit on 20/5/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum You've been adamant for a long time that the plane was off radar (your original claim was ALL radar) for a period of time and that time has been gradually reduced by good data provided by other posters.
I have been asking for information about what other radar screens the data was on. No one has posted any information on other screen it was on. If the data was on no other rader screens, than as stated the plane was OFF RADAR SCREENS. [edit on 21-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 I have been asking for information about what other radar screens the data was on. No one has posted any information on other screen it was on. If the data was on no other rader screens, than as stated the plane was OFF RADAR SCREENS.
I'm wondering on what other screens the data was not displayed. You haven't posted information on other screens on which it was not displayed. If the data was on other radar screens, then as stated, the plane was ON RADAR SCREENS. [edit on 21-5-2008 by _Del_]



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_ I'm wondering on what other screens the data was not displayed. You haven't posted information on other screens on which it was not displayed.
Its your claim that it was on radar and there was radar reconstruction, so its on you to post the evidence. Do not try to twist or back out on the claim you made.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_ I'm wondering on what other screens the data was not displayed. You haven't posted information on other screens on which it was not displayed.
Its your claim that it was on radar and there was radar reconstruction, so its on you to post the evidence. Do not try to twist or back out on the claim you made.
The citation said it was tracked. It would be difficult to track if it was not on the radar. I claimed I believe the source. You are claiming it was off the radar, so it's on you to post the evidence accordingly. Do not try to twist or back out on the claim you made.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 05:55 AM
link   
Could there be any locations along the route of AA77 that were not covered by any radar at all for a plane flying above 25000'? I doubt there would be any such locations in the entire continental US but any more detailed info is welcome.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum Could there be any locations along the route of AA77 that were not covered by any radar at all for a plane flying above 25000'?
Well i am sure their are dead areas (like terrrain or other reasons to get off radar), i would have to look up some detailed areas. I am sure if you knew where the dead areas were at and flew low you could avoid radar if you wanted.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 
It depends on altitude and location relative to the various ARTCC antennae and whatever TRACON you may be close enough to, in line of sight, assuming no geographical obstructions. I truly doubt the hijackers planned it out to that detail, they just knew the confusion gained by placing the transponder to STBY would result in minutes of scrambing by the various controllers to attempt to acquire the Primary target. 25000 feet is high enough, at least on the Eastern seaboard, for good coverage....but the radar coverage in the US isn't as perfect as most are led to believe. However, when a beacon code is entered into the system on the ground, and received from the airplane, then the computers are networked to keep the data block on the screens, and interpolate if there is a momentary loss of the beacon. Very often, on longer flights, we will be told to change our 'squawk'....because it (the one assigned before departure) is the same as someone else's (assigned hours after we took off) Remember, there are only 4096 discrete codes on the transponder. 0000 is not used....1200 is for VFR traffic only, 1400 for VFR traffic in an MOA. 7500, 7600 and 7700 are also discrete codes for various purposes. (Hint....the digits only range from 0 to 7) ANY combinations that begin in 00, 75, 76, or 77 are also not used, regardless of the last two digits....same with 12 and 14 as preceding digits. The antiquated systems still in use today (thank you very much Congress!!) will trigger/respond to the first two digits.... To show (slightly off, but example) in Europe, due to radio frequency congestion, they have gone to additional spacings in the VHF Comm freguencies...they refer to them as 'channels'...not so in the US. So, jets that fly to Europe had to have new Transceivers, to accomodate the change)



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 
Thank you for your knowledgeable, reasonable post about a topic on which you have personal experience.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by CatHerder
 



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker ...but the radar coverage in the US isn't as perfect as most are led to believe.
Basically what i stated in prior post. Also if you know where the dead areas are you can go off radar.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_ Thank you for your knowledgeable, reasonable post about a topic on which you have personal experience.
And your experience is ???????????????????????????? I will be waiting for your education anad background in this topic.




top topics



 
100
<< 232  233  234    236  237  238 >>

log in

join