Why am I still getting laughed at when I tell people that the 9/11 attack was questionable??

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Does someone know, when a plane's transponder is turned off, would that plane be the only plane without an ID code on the radar screen??

Well if you were at a small ATC area you could have small planes that do not require transponders.

Also you might not have a ID for a military plane.

reply to post by Leo Strauss


It is my understanding that they do not show up on the same screen. From what I've read, primary radar only shows blips and secondary radar shows the flight number.

They do not work at the same time, on the same screen. The controller has to switch modes between the two types and they are not interlaced on the screen.

reply to post by Griff


I think you're getting to separate incidents confused. The one that jfj123 is referring to happened this weekend in a tunnel near Los Angeles. The one you're thinking of occurred a couple of months ago near San Francisco.

Correct me if I am wrong as my experience with radar was quite limited but I believe this is how it works. The radar picks up the contact, while the transponder signal is picked up separately and matched to it. The transponder is basically a radio signal. If the transponder is turned off they still have the contact with out I.D. I seem to recall pilots being asked to change there transponder frequency as different ATC stations began handling them. That is why the FAA ordered all planes to land, so they could establish the hijacked planes.

Military aircraft have a similar signal referred to as FRIEND or FOE, only the frequency is kept secret.

I wonder why they can be turned off at all.

reply to post by BlueTriangle


Blue Triangle: You need to get out Rick Santorumville, Pronto.
This past Sunday I was at a Borders Book Store at a mall in No. Jersey.
The Area is Staunchly Republican. Yet, I overheard many conversations
that have made it clear to me that the public's awareness is turning to suspicion
that the OFFICIAL STORY doesn't add-up and provokes many more questions than it answered. I guess driving us into the biggest depression ever is making people ask
questions again. Late is better than never....

originally posted by wsamplet
The radar picks up the contact, while the transponder signal is picked up separately and matched to it. The transponder is basically a radio signal. If the transponder is turned off they still have the contact with out I.D.

Secondary radar sends a signal to the transponder and then the transponder interprets what information is needed and sends a signal back . If the transponder is turned off then it doesn't receive the signal and does not send one back.

Today, virtually all ATC radar installations are equipped with both primary and secondary radar capability. However, the FAA is threatening to decomission primary radar from its enroute facilities. If they did this, centers would no longer be able to "see" any aircraft that were not transponder-equipped or whose transponder failed. Center controllers and pilot groups like AOPA are opposed to this, and it remains to be seen if anything comes of it.

public-action.com

because your not on ATS

seriously, though, i think ATS is the only place where one can talk about "alternative topics" without being ridiculed (and that is sad)

the world isn't ready for the stuff that we discuss here...

go on and try it one day, you'll see

To the OP, not to be rude but it because the 9/11 theories are laughable.
As for how radar works the primary and secondary are one in the same.
The primary signal is sent out and comes back after hit what ever it hits, this could be a plane, a flock of birds or cars on a highway. The secondary signal comes from the transponder squawking an ident number for the ATC.
You can turn off the primary so as to not clutter the screen with pointless info.

Thanks for the responses to my question.

The follow up question is, ofcourse, would the fact that the transponder is off make the plane easier to see on the radar screen??

Once radar contact was made it seems as though the unidentified planes were tracked the entire route with the exception of one of the flights over W. VA and Ohio.

If that is the case then there were a total of 4 planes to be tracked. That does not seem that overwhelming a task???

It looks like I may have been wrong about primary and secondary radar not interlacing on the screen. Back to Google I go.

The responses from primary and secondary radar are combined, so that the controller sees not just blips on their screen, but bits of information tagged to them. The aircraft system that provides this extra information is the transponder.

everything2.com


[edit on 15-10-2007 by Boone 870]

originally posted by Leo Strauss
The follow up question is, ofcourse, would the fact that the transponder is off make the plane easier to see on the radar screen??

It depends. Normally ATC uses secondary radar with transponders. They can switch to the primary radar function but, primary radar shows everything that it picks up on the screen. That includes airplanes, helicopters, rain, clouds, flocks of birds and even moving vehicles on the ground.

Once primary is turned on it shows everything that can be picked up on the controller screen including the aircraft that are being tracked with transponders that are set to show up in his sector.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Gazman
Is it just me or are you getting it as well?? People TO THIS DAY still reckons im a idiot or a nut...

43% of Americans think the government is hiding something... but this doesn't seem like the case in Australia...

[edit on 8-10-2007 by Gazman]

Well most people do not want to admit that the government might have done something wrong. They want to live in thier safe little fantasy world.

As Ultima1 well knows, belief doesn't trump evidence; "might" or "could have" is not evidence. It's hard for people to give up their beliefs in the face of contrary evidence and that is why we see 9/11 Truthers avoiding evidence in favor of their beliefs. You'll note that they hate to be questioned about their claims and assertions.

Its just too bad that the people that still believe in the official story cannot provide any facts or evidence to support the official story.

As Ultima 1 also knows, there is no "official story." There is only the evidence and that evidence is what 9/11 Truthers want to - no, need to - avoid. That evasion is as true today as it was when that 9/11 denial took roots in late 2001.


A reminder:

"The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."

www.sciam.com...

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Thanks for the responses to my question.

The follow up question is, ofcourse, would the fact that the transponder is off make the plane easier to see on the radar screen??

Once radar contact was made it seems as though the unidentified planes were tracked the entire route with the exception of one of the flights over W. VA and Ohio.

If that is the case then there were a total of 4 planes to be tracked. That does not seem that overwhelming a task???

The problem is that you're not seeing the Radar info and transponder info at the same time. You're either looking at a whole screen full of blips, or a screen full of transponder info. If they turn off the transponder, you have to switch to Radar, and then figure out which blip you're looking for.

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by Griff

 

I think you're getting to separate incidents confused. The one that jfj123 is referring to happened this weekend in a tunnel near Los Angeles. The one you're thinking of occurred a couple of months ago near San Francisco.

I was starting to get that impression. I'll have to look into this new one. Thanks for the heads up.

Originally posted by seanm
As Ultima 1 also knows, there is no "official story."

Yes, i agree the official story from the media is BS.

But do you believe the official report from the 9/11 commission is BS too ?

Originally posted by PistolPete
Leapin Logic!

Let's start with the Pentagon. We have the no plane theory even though there's debris found, bodies found, and many eyewitness accounts. Simply saying there's evidence that no plane hit the Pentagon when you have no evidence of what you think actually did, or even a consensus of what the alternative was, is not even close to a strong enough argument for most people to indict their government in a mass conspiracy. Really.

Just because someone is "thinking out of the box" doesn't mean they aren't mistaken.

How about the WTC's? Now we have eyewitnesses that say they heard explosions and things that "sound like bombs". And this is the largest logic flaw of them all: To believe no plane hit the Pentagon you have to believe all eyewitness accounts were sanitized, untrue, or mistaken. Yet we're supposed to believe that what these people think they heard are wholly accurate.

Not to mention the fact that people are asked to believe that someone was able to get bombs in there and plant them.

And I agree, the NIST report is definitely flawed and there are a lot of questions to be asked about the WTC's. But again, there's not enough evidence for most people to indict the government here.

It seems that there were many people with foreknowledge of 9-11. This fact hardly ever gets any attention.

Bin Laden was/is a CIA asset. Again, usually just a throw-in during a debate about the towers. When in actuality, this is where your strongest argument about an inside job lies.

Hell, the very fact that the bin Laden family is in business with the Bush family is something that's not capitalized on nearly enough.

Why the 9-11 movement doesn't get the respect it should is not because people are scared, or blind, or sheep. It's because they've focused on hard to prove, if provable at all, theories.

All-the-while the more grounded theories are skimmed over and not given the attention they deserve because it's easier to have intellectual pissing contests with math equations. You also can't make a neat flash animation with a death metal soundtrack about "put" options.

The easily plausible ideas can't be heard over the din of the absurd ones. Forty-three percant of Americans think the government is hiding something. That doesn't mean they think it's a hologram or a bomb or a "no plane" theory.

If the "movement" isn't careful, they're going to scare that 43 percent away.

APPLAUSE, APPLAUSE AND APPLAUSE SOME MORE!!!
This is it folks, clear and concise, educated and eloquent.
Mr. Pistols logic should be the cornerstone of the movement, this is what we should be about.
My personal favorite documentary is "Who killed John Oneil?" which concentrated on the undebatable, factual truths that Mr. Pistol was knocking about above. The movie set it all up for the viewer in an entertaining but unmistakable plot.
If the goal is for the truth to spread, the truth must be packaged properly.

deleted post

[edit on 18-10-2007 by snoopy]

I know I am late to the discussion, and I have read one page back in the thread, ... has anyone brought up the dialogue of Diane Sawyer of GMA during the 9/11 attack saying the code for the transponder must have been "known" by the terrorists...

reply to post by coastlinekid


I’m not exactly sure what you mean but I think you either mean the code that identified the particular aircraft, which they could have read on the transponder its self or the code informing ATC that there is a high jacking in progress (keying in 7777on the transponder) in which case they wouldn’t care because they killed the pilots or removed them from the cockpit.
But it really sounds like Diane Sawyer was just talking to hear the sound of her own voice as is often the case with live braking news.

reply to post by Gazman


people think that the gov is supposed to protect you. it is. i couldn't belive it at first either i would fight about it till i was blue in the face. the only reason i fought about it was because i was scared. if i went to the 'other' side where everyone was proving that the gov did it what would happen in the long run. but i over came THAT fear then came another one. If our gov did this to control it's citizens then what would happen if they became desprate. or when/why other govs would do it and if they would learn from the US gov's mistakes.

i feel the gov did this because with 'everything' that happens there are a group of us that disagree with what the gov says and try to prove it (we have been VERY successful with 9-11). but i fell they attacked there own soil because they felt like they were losing control of us and they wanted to send a message out to ALL of us. that message was "Look at what we have done, look at what you can do about it, and look at who belives you".

my fear that will never go away is...who's next?