QUOTE (SanderO @ Mar 15 2010, 09:37 AM)
Correct me if I am wrong please.
All the data received by the ATC control system aside from radar returns is broadcast via radio.
Radar returns can likewise be broadcast such as RACONS which in marine navigation send a blip out supposedly when they received in a radar signal, so radar also is a radio signal.
Further, at some point in a radar receiver the radio signals are converted into line voltage which appears as data on dispay screens and is recorded on drives or tapes or some medium.
If the above is basically true (I am not a EE)... then is it not possible to insert data into the system at various points?
Would it not be possible to simulate an actual plane by simply transmitting data from a "radio transceiver" which was pre programmed from a flight simulator?
And or couldn't this data be inserted via some back door into the ATC system. I can't imagine there are not "ports" to insert data for "alignment" and turning of the equipment.
Therefore if any of the above (or all) is basically factual, then it would be possible to create any "environment" of ATC "screens".
Further, even conversations with the cockpit could be likewise staged and there would be no way of know where the transmissions were coming from. The ATC might think he (or she) was speaking with a cockpit and they were conversing with a radio shack down the street in some undisclosed location.
Further, any black box which may be recovered may likewise be a substitute place in whatever aircraft crashed... with data created in a simulator. If each Box has a unique serial number it could even be removed from the plane which we were told was hijacked... programmed and placed into the one which was used to crash into the buildings on 9/11... or perhaps connected so SOME flight transducers and not others to use the actual data of the crashing plane...
Some might say this is overly complex. It doesn't seem so if one has a year to create these fakes.
There appears to be a lot of "illusion" associated with 9/11. We see something... but it happens rather quickly... we are told what we saw which seems to make sense. But we are denied the careful examination after the fact to actually determine what we saw... or heard.
Those phone calls made from the aircraft have this similar aspect. On the face they seemed compelling. But on further thought we learn that it was impossible that these calls took place.
The same goes for the Pentagon and Shanksville plane crashes. What were told and saw does not seem to make sense.... the evidence to support the official account stretches credulity.
The more we look closely at 9/11 the more it looks like a magic show - an illusion. Not the entire event for sure... stuff definably happened. But we don't know EXACTLY what it was or how it happened.
And the government has denied the people the ability to look at the evidence. Trust us they say and if you don't... you're a nut case.
"If the above is basically true (I am not a EE)... then is it not possible to insert data into the system at various points?
I'm not an EE either, but I 'used' to calculate the flight plans for one of the airlines involved. Specifically, overwater flight plans that do not operate in a radar environment. So you're right about the insertion of data. The contacts that an over-water flight makes with the various centers as they cross say, the Atlantic, are built into the flight plan that is uploaded to the Flight Deck Computer, prior to departure. That upload of course takes place from a central location, regardless of the physical location of the aircraft. In effect, the airplane itself is programmed to send intermittent information to the Centers that track over water flights. These SAME aircraft generally have a domestic portion to them as well, (ie AA flight 11 was at the time an Intercontinental/Domestic flight that continued on to Europe or the reverse) and I'm only adding that for the persons who may believe this to be irrelevant since these flights were not operating in a NON-radar environment at the time of the incidents.
Having said that, I suspect that all of the aircraft involved were probably equipped for over-water flights, and so this is of course a possibility, IF we believe that those were the aircraft that actually hit the WTC as well as the Pentagon and Shanksville. I personally cannot believe that, just because we know that the Northeast Corridor didn't all of a sudden turn into the Bermuda Triangle on Sept, 11, 2001, and manage to DISAPPEAR 4 commercial transport airliners. It just didn't happen. 767's do not simply VANISH without leaving a trace of debris, even if it's at the bottom of the Ocean.
Yet we are expected to believe that they DID. I have never seen any signs of an aircraft, (not even a wing light), at any of the sites. At the Pentagon, all we see is a hole. There are NO signs of any emergency response such as would be seen IMMEDIATELY after any incident, as we saw with AA flt 191 in Chicago back in 1978, or DL flt 191 (no error - same flight number, different carrier) back in the early 80's at DFW. Airplanes just don't do that, not even if they break up due to structural damage as the Egypt Air flight did. Even THEN, investigators could immediately find a debris pool.
The only people I saw in the images from the Pentagon attack were the ones being carried out by the likes of Rumsfeld and others, (have you ever seen that photo of him carrying someone on a stretcher?) and those were ONLY of the people actually in the Pentagon at the time of the attack. No passengers, no baggage, no anything from the aircraft itself. How can that be? Same thing at Shanksville...a little tiny depression in the ground nothing else.