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
Major Nasypany Said Plane Is Lost In Sea Of Blips When Transponder Off, I Thought It Was "sore Thumb?"

Munkle
post Feb 13 2015, 05:00 PM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 15-January 11
Member No.: 5,591



The Vanity Fair piece: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/08/norad200608

Researching, pilots and ground control please discuss. In this Vanity Fair article claiming to put to rest "conspiracy" talk, is the following passage:

QUOTE
"When the hijackers on American 11 turned the beacon off, intentionally losing themselves in the dense sea of airplanes already flying over the U.S. that morning (a tactic that would be repeated, with some variations, on all the hijacked flights), the neads controllers were at a loss.

"You would see thousands of green blips on your scope," Nasypany told me, "and now you have to pick and choose. Which is the bad guy out there? Which is the hijacked aircraft? And without that information from F.A.A., it's a needle in a haystack.""


QUESTION: I thought when a transponder got turned off, a plane on radar stood out like a sore thumb, for that very reason, the transponder is off, and it can then be "tagged." So which one is it? Lost in a sea of blips, or sore thumb? Does type of radar equipment matter? Article also reads:

QUOTE
"by 9/11 the scopes were so old, among other factors, that controllers were ultimately unable to find any of the hijacked planes in enough time to react. Known collectively as the Green Eye for the glow the radar rings give off, the scopes looked like something out of Dr. Strangelove and were strikingly anachronistic compared with the equipment at civilian air-traffic sites."


LAST QUESTION: How hard is it to turn off a transponder? I read somewhere it is not as easy as flipping a switch.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/08/norad200608

This post has been edited by Munkle: Feb 13 2015, 05:02 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SteveF
post Feb 13 2015, 05:49 PM
Post #2





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 20
Joined: 25-February 11
Member No.: 5,677



Thank you for those questions, Munkle!

I hope to see some good answers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Truthissweet
post Feb 14 2015, 10:20 AM
Post #3





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 245
Joined: 25-August 14
From: Third rock from the sun
Member No.: 7,913



The perps are very smart people in that they still have someone like you asking about the transponder. That is exactly what they want you to do. They knew those in the pilot and airline industries would eventually ask questions. By the time questions were asked the perps were well into their goals of 911 plan.

There was no flight 11. Yet, we still discuss what supposed hijackers accomplished on that day. I am more concerned with 'passengers' who never flew on flight 11. The perps did a bad job regarding this part of 911.

One day, all the fine work by those who run this forum in relation to all things aviation, will be used in a legitimate court of law to prosecute the perps. Hopefully sooner than later.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Feb 14 2015, 05:44 PM
Post #4





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 578
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



Hear, hear, I'm with you on that. Search as I might, I can find no hard evidence that there
were planes used in these "attacks". On that day, over 400 tons of aircraft completely disappeared without a trace.

The two parts that were found, were analyzed by techs here and on other sites, more data was requested and the final response was that the officials stated that neither of those parts, not the jet engine spindle found on Murry and Church Streets, nor the wheel section found on Church Street just
east of the towers, actually came from either of the claimed aircraft.

Captain Scully flew a commercial jet that was downed by bird strikes, with his engines cut off, he landed safely on the Hudson River. The sound of the plane coming down was enough to provoke numerous frantic calls to 911. Yet... We are told that an aircraft that the techs here say was traveling at close to the speed of sound, apparently with engines open full bore, generated not one single 911 call as it raced down the Hudson. Nor even 175 which circled over the foot of Manhattan, caused not one single 911 call. While the President's Air Force one circled in that same area and generated numerous 911 calls. So how did the 911 planes remain so silent?

So silent in fact, that there should have been nothing at all to alert the Firemen in the so called "Firemen's video". Of course, if you can find a full and unedited copy of that film as it was originally played, you will see the cameraman taking time that the aircraft speeds and conditions would clearly not permit. For by the time the firemen hear the plane and turn to look up at it, something that would have taken a second or two, the plane would have either already hit the north tower or have been only a few small fractions of a second from doing so.

There are still a lot of people who ridicule the NPT (no planes theory) but not one has come forward with an explanation as to how the firemen and cameraman might have heard the aircraft in time to film it. If you look more closely at the story surrounding the supposed hijackers, even more questions arise, since they clearly were not religious fanatics. Atta drank, hired a prostitute, they went to girly bars and spent money like drunken sailors. Google "Amanda Keller" for example, you'll get an eye full. Well that's enough for now.

I'm always interested in hearing others take on my musings and other errata so don't hesitate to reply if you feel the inclination. BTW I am a lay person, I only know what the pros have been saying, plus what I can figure out using the little bits and pieces of science I'm aware of.
Until then, Warmest Regards
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 14 2015, 11:36 PM
Post #5





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (Truthissweet @ Feb 14 2015, 09:20 AM) *
There was no flight 11. Yet, we still discuss what supposed hijackers accomplished on that day. I am more concerned with 'passengers' who never flew on flight 11. The perps did a bad job regarding this part of 911.


Yes, the consensus now by truthers is that there was
no Flt. 11.

And you are right, we shośldn't be talking about
what the 'hijackers' accomplished.

However, when people talk about transponders being
turned off, I think we should give them the benefit
of the doubt.

That is, they know there weren't hijackers, they are just
looking for confirmation by aviation professionals
who will be able to show that it would have been impossible
for the 'hijackers' to have done what the OGS says they did.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 14 2015, 11:50 PM
Post #6





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (Obwon @ Feb 14 2015, 04:44 PM) *
Hear, hear, I'm with you on that. Search as I might, I can find no hard evidence that there
were planes used in these "attacks". On that day, over 400 tons of aircraft completely disappeared without a trace.

The two parts that were found, were analyzed by techs here and on other sites, more data was requested and the final response was that the officials stated that neither of those parts, not the jet engine spindle found on Murry and Church Streets, nor the wheel section found on Church Street just
east of the towers, actually came from either of the claimed aircraft.


The fact that the engine does not match the plane that was supposed to have struck WTC2 does not automatically mean that another plane could not have struck the tower.

A plane that the engine fit very nicely thank you.

QUOTE
There are still a lot of people who ridicule the NPT (no planes theory) but not one has come forward with an explanation as to how the firemen and cameraman might have heard the aircraft in time to film it.


I have heard all kinds of theories as to why no planes were used on 9/11 but this is the first time I
have heard this one.

There is so much lee-way in time before someone can hear a plane and they then pan a camera that your argument is akin to grasping at straws.

Warm regards back at you!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Truthissweet
post Feb 15 2015, 10:04 AM
Post #7





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 245
Joined: 25-August 14
From: Third rock from the sun
Member No.: 7,913



QUOTE
However, when people talk about transponders being
turned off, I think we should give them the benefit
of the doubt.

That is, they know there weren't hijackers, they are just
looking for confirmation by aviation professionals


NP, I agree with you on that. I should have worded my post a little differently.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Feb 15 2015, 10:44 AM
Post #8





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 578
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



Actually it's not "grasping at straws" for very good reasons.

If you look at the fireman's video, you see they are engaged in filming one thing, before they become distracted from that.

Obviously, the film implies that, upon hearing a the noise of the jet screaming overhead, they turn to look up at it. Notice where they are looking, then realize:

To have heard a jet flying a thousand or so feet overhead, the sound takes a second or two, depending upon the height at that point, to reach the ground. However, by the time they hear the sound, the jet has advanced a second or two from where they are looking.

Now they're only some 1750 feet from the north tower, and the data Rob has says the plane was traveling at close to or over the speed of sound. Thus we can speculate that if there is any truth to the matter, and that's what this is all about, testing the truth of the matter, then we must realize that either we are being given false data or, the fireman's video has to be false.

There simply isn't enough time left, after they supposedly hear the plane overhead, until it strikes the tower, for all that panning and refocusing to take place, that was shown in fireman's video.

As far as the jet engine is concerned, the denouement of it is telling, since we were first offered it's existence as proof of the attacks, before it was studied, questioned and finally retracted. Never the less, that didn't stop them from fashioning new videos that show the engine emerging from the south tower and coursing over to Murry Street.

The first film I saw on tv of the south tower strike, which was played over and over and over again ad nauseam, was of the jet hitting the south east corner of the building then coming through and a fireball emerging from the south east side of the east wall. Not ripping north across the east wall as subsequent videos began to show several years after 911. They do, however depict an engine spindle emerging from the north wall and heading over to the Church and Murry street intersection. So, it's no small thing that the only plane part to be found there, is renounced as having come from either plane. Sorry, they can't have it both ways. They can't tell us it's from THE plane, then tell us that it's from another plane.

Besides, this is only an addition artifact that adds to the other artifacts that have been found. Or rather the absence of evidence where there should be more than enough to prove the point.

With my warmest regards, back to you.

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 14 2015, 10:50 PM) *
The fact that the engine does not match the plane that was supposed to have struck WTC2 does not automatically mean that another plane could not have struck the tower.

A plane that the engine fit very nicely thank you.



I have heard all kinds of theories as to why no planes were used on 9/11 but this is the first time I
have heard this one.

There is so much lee-way in time before someone can hear a plane and they then pan a camera that your argument is akin to grasping at straws.

Warm regards back at you!


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Truthissweet
post Feb 15 2015, 11:49 AM
Post #9





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 245
Joined: 25-August 14
From: Third rock from the sun
Member No.: 7,913



The Naudet brothers imbedded themselves with firemen in May. Their purpose was to follow firemen on daily activities.

A false gas alert put them at that location on 911 for sole purpose of capturing whatever hit tower. The camera was trained on north tower to capture strike. They are associated with perps. No doubt about that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Feb 15 2015, 02:23 PM
Post #10





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 578
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



The video I saw had the camera trained on the firemen themselves, as they appeared to look for the gas leak. Suddenly the firemen look up towards the sky, at something that it would appear was directly over their heads, if slightly to the west of them.

I say this because I'm quite familiar with that area, having work that required me to traverse the area several times per week. As with most city streets, they are afforded only a limited view of the sky, since they appear to be quite close to a two or three story building to the west of them, thus what they could see of the sky would be things only slightly to the west of them at a few thousand feet. But that's pretty much located by the tilt of their heads. You can clearly guess they are looking at something that is only slightly to the west of where they are standing.

The camera seems to linger on them for a few seconds before beginning to swing away to the south, then it sort of swirls around before zeroing in and zooming to where the Jet will finally hit.

I looked at that video quite a number of times, but not knowing what the planes speed was supposed to have been, it meant little to nothing that there was so much time for the camera work to complete before the crash. Until I got here and learned that Rob had discovered the plane was supposedly moving at supersonic speed for well over the last 1.5 minutes of it's travel (if I remember his admonishment correctly). With the plane being at some 2,000 feet high, and the firemen being some 1750 feet from the north tower and moving at such speed, one has to expect that the time, between when they could actually hear the plane (likely more than 2 seconds after it had already passed them) the second it took to look up to the west, then refocus their attention to the south, the plane should have either crashed or been a split second away from crashing, well before Naudet could actually pan and zoom in.

Add to that, of course, the fact that the plane could not completely penetrate the building, in fact it should not have been able to do more than open a small hole, with the rest of the plane coming to a complete halt and falling to the ground outside the building.

The physicist who have looked into the matter have calculated that there was enough energy available to vaporize just 2% of the plane. Had that happened, 98% of the aircraft should have remained outside and fallen to the ground. Yet, we are told that the wings, which flight experts have told us have their strength in the vertical plane and not in the required horizontal plane, somehow managed maintain enough integrity to penetrate the buildings aluminum clad steel, load bearing facade.

Of course we know that people lie all the time, and government agencies are no different, they are constantly being caught telling lies. So, there is absolutely no reason to take the gov'ts word for things, when they even appear to be scientifically impossible, as determined by experts who have the figures and knowledge to show why what they say is the truth. We do believe in science, don't we? We wouldn't believe that the Sun circles the earth, no matter how many Senators, NTSB and Popular Science magazine articles told us it does. laughing1.gif
With my warm regards, I thank thee for thy reply.



QUOTE (Truthissweet @ Feb 15 2015, 10:49 AM) *
The Naudet brothers imbedded themselves with firemen in May. Their purpose was to follow firemen on daily activities.

A false gas alert put them at that location on 911 for sole purpose of capturing whatever hit tower. The camera was trained on north tower to capture strike. They are associated with perps. No doubt about that.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FirstUsedBooks
post Feb 15 2015, 02:44 PM
Post #11





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 31
Joined: 30-July 11
Member No.: 6,103



QUOTE (Obwon @ Feb 15 2015, 10:23 AM) *
The video I saw had the camera trained on the firemen themselves, as they appeared to look for the gas leak. Suddenly the firemen look up towards the sky, at something that it would appear was directly over their heads, if slightly to the west of them.

I say this because I'm quite familiar with that area, having work that required me to traverse the area several times per week. As with most city streets, they are afforded only a limited view of the sky, since they appear to be quite close to a two or three story building to the west of them, thus what they could see of the sky would be things only slightly to the west of them at a few thousand feet. But that's pretty much located by the tilt of their heads. You can clearly guess they are looking at something that is only slightly to the west of where they are standing.

The camera seems to linger on them for a few seconds before beginning to swing away to the south, then it sort of swirls around before zeroing in and zooming to where the Jet will finally hit.

I looked at that video quite a number of times, but not knowing what the planes speed was supposed to have been, it meant little to nothing that there was so much time for the camera work to complete before the crash. Until I got here and learned that Rob had discovered the plane was supposedly moving at supersonic speed for well over the last 1.5 minutes of it's travel (if I remember his admonishment correctly). With the plane being at some 2,000 feet high, and the firemen being some 1750 feet from the north tower and moving at such speed, one has to expect that the time, between when they could actually hear the plane (likely more than 2 seconds after it had already passed them) the second it took to look up to the west, then refocus their attention to the south, the plane should have either crashed or been a split second away from crashing, well before Naudet could actually pan and zoom in.

Add to that, of course, the fact that the plane could not completely penetrate the building, in fact it should not have been able to do more than open a small hole, with the rest of the plane coming to a complete halt and falling to the ground outside the building.

The physicist who have looked into the matter have calculated that there was enough energy available to vaporize just 2% of the plane. Had that happened, 98% of the aircraft should have remained outside and fallen to the ground. Yet, we are told that the wings, which flight experts have told us have their strength in the vertical plane and not in the required horizontal plane, somehow managed maintain enough integrity to penetrate the buildings aluminum clad steel, load bearing facade.

Of course we know that people lie all the time, and government agencies are no different, they are constantly being caught telling lies. So, there is absolutely no reason to take the gov'ts word for things, when they even appear to be scientifically impossible, as determined by experts who have the figures and knowledge to show why what they say is the truth. We do believe in science, don't we? We wouldn't believe that the Sun circles the earth, no matter how many Senators, NTSB and Popular Science magazine articles told us it does. laughing1.gif
With my warm regards, I thank thee for thy reply.


I don't have a problem accounting for the planes penetrating the buildings. The outer columns were in modular sections 30' high, attached to neighbouring columns by 4 bolts. I think the planes simply pushed these sections into the buildings ahead of them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Truthissweet
post Feb 15 2015, 02:53 PM
Post #12





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 245
Joined: 25-August 14
From: Third rock from the sun
Member No.: 7,913



QUOTE
The video I saw had the camera trained on the firemen themselves, as they appeared to look for the gas leak. Suddenly the firemen look up towards the sky, at something that it would appear was directly over their heads, if slightly to the west of them.


What I am saying is the brothers knew to look at where object would hit towers. Plus they 'blurred' picture so we dupes would never actually be able to figure out object. They had time to edit and enhance their video before it was shown to public.

Not to speak off topic, but Zapruder did the same thing. Without the blur. Nice planning to capture both events.

QUOTE
I don't have a problem accounting for the planes penetrating the buildings. The outer columns were in modular sections 30' high, attached to neighbouring columns by 4 bolts. I think the planes simply pushed these sections into the buildings ahead of them.


Both those objects in real life should have left a ton of debris as soon as they just entered the towers. And how do we actually know it was planes?

This post has been edited by Truthissweet: Feb 15 2015, 03:01 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnS
post Feb 15 2015, 04:25 PM
Post #13





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 17
Joined: 19-November 08
Member No.: 3,993



Cripes, is there not a single aviation authority here who can answer a simple question? The question was a good one, and it was simple: If a plane turns its transponder off, does it stick out like a sore thumb to the air traffic controller, or does it get lost?

The question was NOT: were there planes used on 9/11, were there really hijackers, what happened to the passengers, etc. Sheesh!

Those all may be fine OTHER questions, but you could do a person the decency of sticking to the point he was trying to focus on. There IS value in the answer to this question, regardless of what you happen to believe happened.

This post has been edited by JohnS: Feb 15 2015, 04:26 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Feb 15 2015, 06:20 PM
Post #14





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 578
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (FirstUsedBooks @ Feb 15 2015, 01:44 PM) *
I don't have a problem accounting for the planes penetrating the buildings. The outer columns were in modular sections 30' high, attached to neighbouring columns by 4 bolts. I think the planes simply pushed these sections into the buildings ahead of them.


If you think that the planes could have simply pushed their way into the buildings, then you clearly have no real idea of how the buildings were constructed or how much resistance the planes really had to deal with. You need to do some research on the buildings construction. For example, each floor had 4" of concrete poured on to steel pans, held up by steel spandrels. While the aluminum aircraft are essentially little more than soft metal "balloons". They aren't designed to stand up to the forces that high speed collisions with them would provide. They can even be broken apart by the force of meeting water in many circumstances. The pilots here can be very helpful with how much stress aircraft can handle.

But, long story short, no, the planes could not simply push their way into the buildings. I have had it on good authority by physicist who have worked on the matter and posted it to the web over the years. The force of collision would have sent waves of substantial magnitude through the aircraft, ripping them to shreds on impact, much like an egg hitting a concrete wall.

Your speculation indicates that you haven't had the benefit of the years of reading on this matter that I and others here have. We've been over things like this, so many times before it's just too exhausting to go over all of it again. Just google for the wtc construction and other errata about which you have questions or speculation. I'm sure that just about anything you can think of has been addressed by someone with specialized skill in the area.

With warm regards.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Feb 15 2015, 06:25 PM
Post #15





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 578
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (Truthissweet @ Feb 15 2015, 01:53 PM) *
What I am saying is the brothers knew to look at where object would hit towers. Plus they 'blurred' picture so we dupes would never actually be able to figure out object. They had time to edit and enhance their video before it was shown to public.

Not to speak off topic, but Zapruder did the same thing. Without the blur. Nice planning to capture both events.



Both those objects in real life should have left a ton of debris as soon as they just entered the towers. And how do we actually know it was planes?


Agreed, they had to be prepared by some methodology to be in position to get that shot, so that's just part of the myth the planners created. Of course, the video tries it's level best to make it look like mere happenstance. So that was what my narrative was trying to point out.

We, who have been over this ground so many times, already realized long ago that this was a planned operation that no hijackers could have provided.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Feb 15 2015, 06:30 PM
Post #16





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 578
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (JohnS @ Feb 15 2015, 03:25 PM) *
Cripes, is there not a single aviation authority here who can answer a simple question? The question was a good one, and it was simple: If a plane turns its transponder off, does it stick out like a sore thumb to the air traffic controller, or does it get lost?

The question was NOT: were there planes used on 9/11, were there really hijackers, what happened to the passengers, etc. Sheesh!

Those all may be fine OTHER questions, but you could do a person the decency of sticking to the point he was trying to focus on. There IS value in the answer to this question, regardless of what you happen to believe happened.


Gee, I thought someone here already answered that: "The plane(s) without their transponders turned on, would stick out like a sore thumb, because all the other aircraft would have their transponders turned on.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FirstUsedBooks
post Feb 15 2015, 07:31 PM
Post #17





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 31
Joined: 30-July 11
Member No.: 6,103



QUOTE (Obwon @ Feb 15 2015, 02:30 PM) *
Gee, I thought someone here already answered that: "The plane(s) without their transponders turned on, would stick out like a sore thumb, because all the other aircraft would have their transponders turned on.


But weren't there blips from imaginary planes that day that were part of training exercises?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Feb 15 2015, 08:57 PM
Post #18





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 578
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (FirstUsedBooks @ Feb 15 2015, 06:31 PM) *
But weren't there blips from imaginary planes that day that were part of training exercises?


I humbly state you are right, I'm not the one to be asked about this, but if I remember the answer that was given is that, those false blips were under the agencies controls and could be toggled on and off the screen as required or needed. Which does make very good sense to me, otherwise some savvy foreign entity could schedule a real attack to take advantage of widespread exercises, as their intelligence agents would learn of them.

But yes, if I recall there were some 15 exercises underway that day. it really boggles the mind.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 16 2015, 11:21 AM
Post #19





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,018
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



QUOTE (JohnS @ Feb 15 2015, 04:25 PM) *
Cripes, is there not a single aviation authority here who can answer a simple question? The question was a good one, and it was simple: If a plane turns its transponder off, does it stick out like a sore thumb to the air traffic controller, or does it get lost?

The question was NOT: were there planes used on 9/11, were there really hijackers, what happened to the passengers, etc. Sheesh!

Those all may be fine OTHER questions, but you could do a person the decency of sticking to the point he was trying to focus on. There IS value in the answer to this question, regardless of what you happen to believe happened.


Right you are!

Without a transponder, any aircraft is much more difficult to see, as only "primary" radar can be used.

With the transponder, each aircraft can be assigned a unique code, 4 digit, and it is much easier to see.

The transponder can be turned off easily, just a switch. I've read that some newer aircraft may have a system that makes it more difficult to turn it off, but I personally have not seen one.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Munkle
post Feb 16 2015, 02:23 PM
Post #20





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 15-January 11
Member No.: 5,591



QUOTE (Obwon @ Feb 15 2015, 05:30 PM) *
Gee, I thought someone here already answered that: "The plane(s) without their transponders turned on, would stick out like a sore thumb, because all the other aircraft would have their transponders turned on.


Major Naspany says:

QUOTE
"You would see thousands of green blips on your scope," Nasypany told me, "and now you have to pick and choose. Which is the bad guy out there? Which is the hijacked aircraft? And without that information from F.A.A., it's a needle in a haystack.""


So it seems to me that if a plane without a transponder sticks out like a sore thumb, and is easy to spot and track because all the others have theirs on, that Naspany is engaged in the cover up. Why would he say it would be like finding a "needle in a haystack" when all you have to do is pick out the plane with no transponder? I can scan a wall of numbers and quickly tell you which ones are in bold, or italics, or whatever, if the rest are not.

Are we dealing with Naspany as part of the cover-up? Or am I missing something, do not want to oversimplify anything.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd September 2018 - 09:35 AM