Who Has "The Burden of Proof"??

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by BlueRaja
If you turn off the transponder, you'll disappear from their screen.

This is actually a false statement. They would not disappear from the screen. Just the transponder information would disappear. The blip would still be there.

How hard is it to track something that you had been tracking but just turned off it's transponder? Why can't you just follow the blip? The blip would still be there.

I concur, BlueRaja is wrong here. Radar uses energy wave returns to track an entity in time and space. A "transponder" is simply a beacon that transmits other identifing information about the object. Turning off the transponder on a plane isn't going to make it disappear on radar. Flying low enough will. You think the HUGE budget spent on steath technology would have been cheep, HAHA, just cut out the transponder and you can be stealth. Not that easy, little harder to trick radar returns, thus the enormous costs for development.

Originally posted by jthomas
Just what DO you want, Griff?

Simple. No more secrets and lies. And don't tell me there are not secrets and/or lies. Because you'd be part of the lying then. Why is the truth so difficult for the government to give to it's people? You know, the ones who actually fund this country?

And funded the investigations I might add.

Does NIST plan on paying me back for the money they wasted on the fire tests that they say they knew weren't of any value from the start? Why did they even attempt them then?

But, I'm straying off topic again. I do have a habit of that. One of my short commings.

[edit on 2/28/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by percievedreality

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by BlueRaja
If you turn off the transponder, you'll disappear from their screen.

This is actually a false statement. They would not disappear from the screen. Just the transponder information would disappear. The blip would still be there.

How hard is it to track something that you had been tracking but just turned off it's transponder? Why can't you just follow the blip? The blip would still be there.

I concur, BlueRaja is wrong here. Radar uses energy wave returns to track an entity in time and space. A "transponder" is simply a beacon that transmits other identifing information about the object. Turning off the transponder on a plane isn't going to make it disappear on radar. Flying low enough will. You think the HUGE budget spent on steath technology would have been cheep, HAHA, just cut out the transponder and you can be stealth. Not that easy, little harder to trick radar returns, thus the enormous costs for development.

The screens ATC use are not raw radar data. They have radar screens too, but they'd have to go to the radar screen to track something that didn't have a functioning transponder. If you have screen full of blips, that makes it a difficult task to pick out which target was the one that didn't have the transponder on.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
The screens ATC use are not raw radar data. They have radar screens too, but they'd have to go to the radar screen to track something that didn't have a functioning transponder. If you have screen full of blips, that makes it a difficult task to pick out which target was the one that didn't have the transponder on.

How hard would it be to discern the 4 blips that don't have the transponder data out of all the blips that do? Or do birds produce a blip also? I ask as a real question.

reply to post by Griff


My point is that there weren't 4 blips without transponder data among a screen full of other blips with this info. In order to see the blips they'd have to look at the actual raw radar info. The screen with the transponder info doesn't show the raw radar data. On the radar screen, you'd have a lot more than 4 blips to look at. If you read the accounts from that day, and all the effort it took to ID, and separate the friendlies and unfriendly targets, you'll see it was much more than simply looking for 4 blips without transponders on. That's why it's so important for airliners to have functioning transponders. Otherwise, you'd have thousands of blips, without an ID, azimuth, speed, altitude, etc.. info flying around, and no way to tell specific aircraft which direction to turn to avoid collisions.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
If you read the accounts from that day, and all the effort it took to ID, and separate the friendlies and unfriendly targets, you'll see it was much more than simply looking for 4 blips without transponders on.

That's what I'm trying to understand. Why wouldn't it be just looking for 4 blips without transponder data? Do birds give blips? What gives a blip other than aircraft?

That's why it's so important for airliners to have functioning transponders. Otherwise, you'd have thousands of blips, without an ID, azimuth, speed, altitude, etc.. info flying around, and no way to tell specific aircraft which direction to turn to avoid collisions.

I understand what a transponder is for. My question is why is it so hard to discern 4 blips out of those hundreds that do have blips and put 2 and 2 together to figure out that those are your highjacked airlines?

Unless of course there were added blips without transponders because of the war games.

Originally posted by Griff

Unless of course there were added blips without transponders because of the war games.

Exactly!!!!!!! Back to my original arguement here Griff, great job, thanks for backing me up. Care to explain this one BlueRaja? Or are you going to argue that the war games did not introduce false radar signals (transponders included or not) onto civilian radar screens that day.

Remember that military and civilian radars share alot of hardware at various installation sites. No wonder it was so hard for them to find the four planes, they (civilians) weren't part of the ongoing war game. They weren't privy to false radar signals being introduced that day, they were totally caught off guard, just as was planned and expected, so they would not be able to interfere. Planned incompentance, IMO.

reply to post by Griff


I will try to be more clear so that there is no way my point can be misconstrued.

The screens that ATC look at are not radar screens per se, in that they do not show raw radar data with blips from the radar return. The screens that they look at show transponder information, though they have radar backup. It's not a matter of simply looking for blips without transponders turned on. Without the transponders on, they wouldn't even be on their screen. That's why they had to switch over to using radar screens, and order all air traffic to land, so they could distinguish who was who amongst the hundreds or thousands of blips. Does this make things clear, or are we gonna continue this circular discussion?

reply to post by BlueRaja


No, it's not more clear. You're saying that there are two different screens, correct?

One has the transponder info and the other just the blips. How hard is it to track the same blip on both screens that don't have a transponder ID attached to it?

That is my question. Are there other things that give blips? Or just aircraft? If it's aircraft, then why is it so hard to track something using 2 different screens?

I'm sure AT controllers can multi-task?

reply to post by Griff


I suggest you read the accounts from the ATC folks if my explanation isn't clear. The systems they had in place at the time weren't as user friendly as you seem to think, because they weren't designed to be air defence systems.

reply to post by BlueRaja


That would be hard to do since the FCC ripped up and tossed out their testimony. Now wouldn't it?

reply to post by Griff


Here's the problem you run into- yes radar can track the planes, but....if the planes changed course, altitude, etc.... after turning their transponders off, it would make it more difficult to figure out which blips were of interest.
The system in place wasn't as user friendly with regards to having both sets of data right next to each other, and that was the problem. I understand this in no longer the case, with that vulnerability identified.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
The system in place wasn't as user friendly with regards to having both sets of data right next to each other, and that was the problem.

Ah. That clears up some of the problem I was having visualizing it. Thanks.