IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Transponder Function, Switching off transponders

SENPM
post Sep 8 2007, 12:40 AM
Post #1





Group: Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: 8-September 07
Member No.: 2,052



On the wikipedia page about Flight 11 it says

"Because Flight 11's transponder was off, United States Air Force pilots did not know which direction to travel to meet the plane. NEADS spent the next several minutes watching their radar screens in anticipation of Flight 11 returning a radar contact. The nine minutes of advanced notification about the hijacking of Flight 11 was the most that NORAD received out of the four hijacked aircraft on 9/11.[16]" *

I don't understand this. As I've understood it, the only thing that happens when a transponder is turned off is that the name, height and speed information disappears from the radar blip. The plane would still be VISIBLE although not identified. Right?

The controller should be able to provide the Airforce pilots with vectors straight to the unidentified aircraft, just by watching it on screen. Shouldn't they? If it disappeared from radar it must have been because it flew under the radar coverage floor.

I'm not a pilot, just a flightsimmer, but this statement just doesn't add up to me.
Can any experienced pilot help me get an answer to this?

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_flight_11

This post has been edited by SENPM: Sep 8 2007, 12:42 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Sep 8 2007, 11:05 AM
Post #2





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



Switching off a transponder will not cause an aircraft to become invisible, since it will still be seen by primary radar. As you correctly pointed out, a transponder signal is merely a secondary radar source which provides additional information such as air speed, altitude, etc. Furthermore, the flight paths of both 11 and 175 were in an area of primary radar coverage.

A more in-depth discussion can be found in the thread...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...showtopic=8803

Hope this helps! thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andrewkornkven
post Sep 8 2007, 03:44 PM
Post #3





Group: Newbie
Posts: 52
Joined: 17-October 06
Member No.: 105



QUOTE (SENPM @ Sep 8 2007, 04:40 AM)
On the wikipedia page about Flight 11 it says

"Because Flight 11's transponder was off, United States Air Force pilots did not know which direction to travel to meet the plane. NEADS spent the next several minutes watching their radar screens in anticipation of Flight 11 returning a radar contact. The nine minutes of advanced notification about the hijacking of Flight 11 was the most that NORAD received out of the four hijacked aircraft on 9/11.[16]" *

I don't understand this. As I've understood it, the only thing that happens when a transponder is turned off is that the name, height and speed information disappears from the radar blip. The plane would still be VISIBLE although not identified. Right?

The controller should be able to provide the Airforce pilots with vectors straight to the unidentified aircraft, just by watching it on screen. Shouldn't they? If it disappeared from radar it must have been because it flew under the radar coverage floor.

I'm not a pilot, just a flightsimmer, but this statement just doesn't add up to me.
Can any experienced pilot help me get an answer to this?

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_flight_11

Your instincts are absolutely correct. Flights 11 and 175 were watched all the way down by FAA controllers, who could very easily have vectored fighters close enough for an ID and potential shootdown. The notion that NEADS couldn't launch their fighters because they "couldn't find" the hijacked planes is disinformation, in my opinion. That notion has been completely demolished by David Ray Griffin and Robin Hordon in the book Debunking 9/11 Debunking.

First of all, we know that Boston Center was providing very accurate postion reports to NEADS of AAL11. This is Boston Center military liaison Chip Scoggins quoted by Griffin:

QUOTE
I was giving NEADS accurate location information on at least 5 instances where AA 11 was yet they could never identify him. . . . I originally gave them an F/R/D, which is a fix/radial/distance from a known location; they could not identify the target. They requested latitude/longitudes, which I gave them; they still could not identify the AA 11. . . . I gave them 20 [miles] South of Albany heading south at a high rate of speed, 600 knots, then another call at 50 South of Albany.


It is plausible that the NEADS technicians couldn't find the target on their scopes with this information-- but, so what? As Griffin/Hordon point out, NEADS had the authority to launch the fighters immediately and head them in the direction of Albany/JFK.

It is just common sense that you don't need the exact position of a target to initiate a scramble. Griffin quotes Hordon:

QUOTE
Where does it say in any regulations or protocols that the NORAD personnel need to observe the target first? . . . If there is trouble, you go to where a trusted professional says the trouble is, and you begin to "snoop, intercept or search" for that trouble on the way there, then you get real close after you find the target.


This reasoning applies to at least three of the four flights. Only AAL77 was not known to be tracked by FAA controllers all the way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Sep 8 2007, 11:51 PM
Post #4





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Well if the FAA or NEADS scopes were spoofed that day, injected, then how meaningful are the radar transcripts?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pinnacle
post Sep 11 2007, 03:51 PM
Post #5





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 276
Joined: 14-November 06
Member No.: 242



According to the NTSB report the Joint Surveillance System radar
covered all four flights from take-off to impact. NORAD could see the JSS radar
at all times so they never lost track of them. This makes the whole story of a "phantom flight 11" very suspicious since NORAD would have seen the track of this "phantom" and would not have needed to rely on the FAA to tell them about it.
As an side issue I just read the testimony of NORAD Chief Ralph Eberhardt and he
clearly says that NORAD conducted 147 air defense missions in the year 2000.
Also in 1999 a NORAD radar controller got an air force airman of the year award for conducting successful scramble/intercept radar control.
So why does the 9/11 Report never mention these 147 missions or the 1999
"airman of the year" who controlled 42 successful intercepts of "unknown riders"?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Sep 11 2007, 10:23 PM
Post #6





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Nobody can spoof any system as well as one who designed that system or works in it daily.

I'm at that part of Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon" where he deals with NORAD and FAA events and that testimony at 911 Commission. Ruppert confuses a few very small points regarding controllers & dispatchers, but by and large he has done his homework.

It seems to me, and I hate to be repititious, but if either FAA or NORAD or both radars were spoofed that day by experts, then it seems the whole subject about who saw what on radar is mostly irrelevant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
weedwhacker
post Sep 12 2007, 11:12 PM
Post #7





Group: Guest
Posts: 15
Joined: 12-September 07
Member No.: 2,108



A transponder is not turned 'OFF'... it is placed into STBY (standby) unless the CB (circuit breaker) is pulled to remove all power to the unit. EVERY 757 and 767 has TWO transponders, contolled by one panel on the center console. So, if ATC says they lost the data block, they are obviously on the VHF freq that we're using at that point. IF transponder '1' fails, we switch to '2', then ask the controller if he has the data block. This takes several seconds. Some airlines alternate between TRANS 1 and TRANS2 depending on the flight number...odd or even...that's just a way to determine if one of the transponders is doomed to fail. Once the DATA block is lost, current ATC RADAR is not designed to track 'primary' targets at high altitude. What's more, as each airplane was highjacked, they were in different Centor Sectors. Even if one was in Cleveland Center's Airspace, every CENTER has sectors. Lost comm was very common before 9/11, and usually not a cause for concern. AA11 and UA 175 went west, so after NewYork Center they wer handed off to Cleveland. AA 77 was handled by WASHINGTON Center at first, then they lost the hand off, since there was no response. UA 93, which left late, and was delayed during taxi, would have initially worked with New York Center, and handed off to Cleveland Center. SO, maybe some of my details are shaky, but any pilot who flies above 18,000 ft knows what I'm talking about.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
weedwhacker
post Sep 12 2007, 11:32 PM
Post #8





Group: Guest
Posts: 15
Joined: 12-September 07
Member No.: 2,108



Anyone in the airline industry knows that there used to be a 'Common Strategy' for highjacking events. It pre-supposed that the highjacker was mentally disturbed and/or easily fooled. WE were never briefed about a cockpit incursion, and suicide 'bombers' using our airplanes as wepons.

The 'Common Strategy' was taught to airline employess, not limited to Pilots and Flight Attendants, it was also taught to Air Traffic Controllers. THAT scenario is outdated, now. 9/11 meant we had to adapt our tactics. Of course, I won't say what changed, I just want to talk about the past tactics. My point is, during the events of 9/11, the old mindset prevailed. THAT is why many minutes passed, and communications were not instant. We live in a Governmental Conspiracy Theory!! If these morons were that good, we wouldn't be in Iraq right now. Think about it.....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StevenDC
post Sep 13 2007, 03:41 PM
Post #9


Nitpick


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 26-December 06
Member No.: 374



"We live in a Governmental Conspiracy Theory!! If these morons were that good, we wouldn't be in Iraq right now. Think about it..... "

767Captain, so are you saying that everything happened just the way the news and the 911 Commission delivered it to us?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 27 2008, 01:42 PM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



A couple of links for technical transponder information:

http://www.rockwellcollins.com/ecat/at/TPR-901_2.html#N33581

http://www.icao.int/icao/en/ro/apac/adsb_2003/wp18.pdf

http://rockwellcollins.com/content/pdf/pdf_2269.pdf

This post has been edited by dMole: Jan 27 2008, 01:45 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
honway
post Feb 25 2008, 08:29 PM
Post #11





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 61
Joined: 19-November 07
Member No.: 2,493





Above is a gif showing snapshots of the recorded real time data available all the way to impact.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
honway
post Feb 25 2008, 08:51 PM
Post #12





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 61
Joined: 19-November 07
Member No.: 2,493



QUOTE
"We live in a Governmental Conspiracy Theory!! If these morons were that good, we wouldn't be in Iraq right now. Think about it..... "

I think there is a false assumption here.

You seem to be thinking the powers responsible for our involvement in Iraq have the best interests of the United States in mind.
The non-elected rulers, as Barry Goldwater described them, did not have the interests of the United States in mind when
the 9/11 attack was planned and executed.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq is not in U.S. interests.

However, the Iraq operation is entirely in the interests of the non-elected rulers and their global agenda.

Iraq is going the same way the occupied territories in Israel are going. That is the reason the Israelis were brought into Iraq.

The non-elected rulers do not want to see a sovereign, independent Iraq no more than they want an independent
Palestinian state. Perpetual occupation is the strategic goal and that will be the case for years to come, regardless
of who is elected President.

To the planners of 9/11, the current state of Iraq is a complete success.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Feb 25 2008, 09:29 PM
Post #13





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



i am uncertain as to the accuracy of what the 767 captain is saying concerning commercial transponders and primary radar coverage, but i am pretty sure of this, controllers in new york center, boston center went to great lengths to move aircraft out of the way so as to avoid any mid-air collision in the northeast corridor[i continue to find it odd how this effort is never discussed].

concerning morons, other than the amerikan electorate,were there any elsewhere?

for instance, though it goes unrecognized in the main, we know from paul o'neill - the bushit's first sectreas - that in the first cabinet meeting[jan 2000] after the inauguration of the resident, the objective of invading iraq was introduced by the dauphin and his puppeteer: plans to conduct that invasion were promulgated.

i am also very certain that cheney's secret meetings with the hydrocarbon extraction companies were devoted to discussions as to how the iraqi hydrocarbons were going to be redistributed. that is why the bushit regime campaigned so devotedly to preserving the secrecy of those meetings. it is also my speculation that the reason france, germany et alia refrained from joining the "coalition of the amerikan gangsters" was that their cut of the iraqi theft was going to be slim to nil.

additionally, the invasion may have always been intended to be a slow bleeding of the "host"[the amerikan electorate]. war profiteering benefits a few very handsomely[the bush family owes the beginning of its fortune to ww1 profiteering] and the longer the profiteering can be maintained, so much the better. real profiteers do not like short wars - virtually endless wars are the goal[every war profiteer learned the lesson of amerika's invasion of seasia[essentially 1954-1975].

iraq within 5 years has exceeded the "looting" of the us treasury during the almost 20 years of the seasian invasions[vietnam,cambodia,laos]. i think you can see how the war profiteers would have an interest in having iran and afghanistan proceed for 20 years.

the question for me has always been, how come so few can connect the dots? and that is how i came to this board... by and large, it is one of the few "connect the dots" sites with few unabashedly ignorant, argumentative trolls.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 25 2008, 10:43 PM
Post #14





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Albert

So few WANT to connect the dots. My theory is that within the human psyche are defense mechanisms meant to protect from knowledge that might harm a person's view of the world outside. It is stronger in some than in others.

Some people have told me, "I simply do not WANT to know about this". Just that simple.

A subconscious mechansim will prevent some folks from acknowledging the brutal truth.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Feb 25 2008, 11:20 PM
Post #15





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



yes, i cannot disagree with you about that.

even the owner of the met lab that i use, even though he knows that the usg's sty is completely bogus, will not go there intellectually.

and even other pilots, are completely comfortable with the debris analysis that was never performed.


worse still, all are quite comfortable with the usg conducting the mass murder of what might be millions of iraqi, afghani noncombants.

i have been propelled by this into reclusiveness. men, women - i find it depressing how many believe whatever the state tells them.

but then, we get to this stat, supposedly, 60% of the electorate do not believe in the state's official story. would you tell me where these people are hiding? i have only run into 1-2 over the last 7 years.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Mar 9 2008, 02:23 AM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (honway @ Feb 25 2008, 05:29 PM) *
Above is a gif showing snapshots of the recorded real time data available all the way to impact.


Ummm, the above is a presumably-PROCESSED .GIF showing "snapshots" of ALLEGEDLY "recorded real time data"....

I believe that I've seen this exact .GIF several times on several threads here before. Is there some INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE DATA (preferably FAA data since that hasn't been PUBLICLY released in 6+ years) perhaps??

One of the "cornerstones" of the Scientific Method is independently-repeatable results, often using the same data set but with different analytical methods. Computer (and other) animations and internet videos are considerably lacking in those respects IMHO...

My $0.02.

This post has been edited by dMole: Mar 9 2008, 02:26 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 12 2008, 04:19 PM
Post #17



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Some FAA data is slowly being released since October 2008 from an FOIA request.

Details are at:

New Aa77 Animation Released By Faa Supports North Side
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=14629
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Nov 16 2008, 10:50 PM
Post #18





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Transponders were switched off so we couldn't track them

is the same as . . .

The hot jet fuel fires melted the steel

is the same as . . .

Cheney's use of the word "intercept" to suggest that it means "shoot down a plane" instead of "position a plane next to another plane so that you can decide what is going on and what to do".

It gives the ignorant jsut enough to believe the Official Story.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
keroseneaddict
post Nov 17 2008, 08:57 PM
Post #19





Group: Core Member
Posts: 130
Joined: 12-September 08
From: An Island off the coast of RSW
Member No.: 3,813



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Nov 16 2008, 09:50 PM) *
Transponders were switched off so we couldn't track them

is the same as . . .

The hot jet fuel fires melted the steel

is the same as . . .

Cheney's use of the word "intercept" to suggest that it means "shoot down a plane" instead of "position a plane next to another plane so that you can decide what is going on and what to do".

It gives the ignorant jsut enough to believe the Official Story.


"intercept" does not mean shoot down.....intercept means being vectored to find or merge with a target. Once within "seeker" radar range, the pilot must request authority for further action unless previously given.....

And, as 767captain said (I think), transponder off would create a primary return only after the data block disappeared. NORAD (NEADS) radar has better capability to quickly track primary returns, FAA radar can easily lose a primary target, because it is designed to track transponder signals.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 21 2008, 05:44 AM
Post #20



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



A somewhat troll-infested, AA77-specific related discussion that appeared to have a few merits is located at:

Flight Transponders, Question re "turned of by hijackers"
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=919
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st January 2020 - 07:43 PM