9/11 conspiracy theories

[ann_a]

Andrews was the base I was thinking of.Much closer.

[ann_a]

Still no answer on Building 7...

[nick2]

Still no answer on Building 7...

 

you mean the headquarters of the "Reptile People of Sigma VII" ?

[KenH]

You stated that losing radio-contact,veering off-course and turning off the transponder was of little concern

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essayairdefense

 

This is a long document which you seem to be saying in some say contradicts my statements about transponders. (Please note that I produced substantial specific evidence about loss of communications and interecption in my previous posts). Because this document is the usual long rambing vague nonesense, I searched for the word "transponder and so found these quotes which I assume you are suggesting in some way negate what I have said:

 

Additionally, several months before, the FAA had tried to dispense with “primary” radars altogether and only use radars that detect transponder signals. Had that happened, when the hijackers turned off the planes’ transponder signals, no radar would have been able to find them

 

This isn't actually true, but rather a misunderstanding of the technology. However, if we assume that it is true for a minute then we will see that the quote says "had that happened", because it didn't happen. Such a move, if it ever happens would mean that new rules will have to be intriduced regarding transponders, but we are talking about the old rules and the old transponders. There is a new generation of transponder being widely delivered to airlines now that produces more data and which is far more reliable, but we are talking about 2001 and a system which DIDN't HAPPEN.

 

 

Furthermore, “just moments” after the radio contact was lost, the transponder was turned off as well. [MSNBC, 9/15/01] The transponder is the electronic device that identifies the jet on the controller’s screen, gives its exact location and altitude, and also allows a four-digit emergency hijack code to be sent.

 

This is almost entirely correct, with one minor technical discrepancy that isn't worth mentioning. I don't see why it is relevant? The transponder, is a device which transmits a four digit code. If you look at my pictures that I provided in an earlier post you will see this and will see the various knobs or buttons that are used to enter that code. Every pilot in the world knows the codes for hijack/radio failure/mayday but this includes the hijackers who would have made sure that no such codes were entered by the crew. You may think that a hijack code is pointless in that case, but actually the code is for "illegal interference with the flight crew" so it can be used in other circumstances.

 

 

Although searching for Transponder, I noticed just above it, a quote about an ELT. The writer suggests that when hijacked the pilot presses a button for the ELT. This is nonsense, these are beacons which activate when you crash due to the G force and are used to locate survivors. They sometimes have a switch which allows you to activate them if you know you will crash. They are not only useless for a hijack situation but actually exactly the wrong thing to do. They use the guard channel 121.5 to transmit and this would make the channel that you use in such an emergency (for example to talk to interceptors) unusable. They can't find you using these devices unless you are still for a long time. Anyway back to transponders:-

 

 

But apparently, the transponder didn’t stay off for long. It was turned off for about 30 seconds, and then changed to a signal that was not designated for any plane on that day. [Newsday, 9/10/02] Ironically, this “allowed controllers to track the intruder easily...

 

They could track the aircraft easily anyway. You can either see an aircraft on RADAR or not. If you can see it then the transponder simply adds extra information, most importantly the altitude. It is irrelevant whether they had it turned on or not as to whether they could tarck it or not. Not only that, but you can turn the transponder on in different modes so you can have it turned on but without an altitude being sent. You can also use any code you like which might confuse ATC.

 

 

Much of that document is all kinds of notes about times that transponders did or didn't get turned off. In my view much of it is simply playing up differences in press reports in a way that tries, but fails, to make it look suspicious. It is largely irrelevent whether transponders were turned off, on or not. The only thing that would be relevent is if any of the transponders had been set to the "hijack" code. If they had then this would light up the ATC displays like a christmas trre and they would know something was wrong. HOWEVER, you may be surpised to know that I have set a transponder to the hijack and mayday codes on a few occasions and I have witnessed it happen several times. This is easy to do in Europe but much harder in the US. If you fly around the UK without being given a code then you show a generic code which is only one click away from the mayday code. This leads to plenty of errors which are usually, but not always, sorted by a radio call. In the US they use a different generic code so this will happen less often.

[ann_a]

No,my point was that you stated that veering off-course,losing radio-contact,and the transponder being turned off was of little concern,when even just one of these occurences is.

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad

[ann_a]

Is anyone still finding the reptile jokes funny?

[KenH]

No,my point was that you stated that veering off-course,losing radio-contact,and the transponder being turned off was of little concern,when even just one of these occurences is.

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad

 

If you look back through the quotes I posted in my response to Archbishop Bowman you will see that I have quoted documents which explain this. I can also explain from experience rather than it being third hand. The trouble is that everyone is really saying "surely if 4 aircraft all go off line at the same time with the intention of becoming flying bombs then lots of fighters would be scrambed and everyone would immediately do something". Well clearly this is only with hindsight and we all know what happened then but would we have know had we been in ATC. It also wasn't one ATC with one controller seeing all the events and making assumptions, it was spread over a large area. Even in the unlikely event that someone realized that they had been hijacked immediately and jet fighters had been available and armed, then what would they have done, used their crystal balls?

[KenH]

No,my point was that you stated that veering off-course,losing radio-contact,and the transponder being turned off was of little concern,when even just one of these occurences is.

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad

 

I have had a quick scan of this document and that is enough to label it "complete rubbish". Once I point out the obvious errors to you then I have no doubt you will join me in that condemnation. Because of the schoolboy errors (infant school) the rest of it isn't worth a glance.

 

There are endless errors similar to the one below:-

 

The F-16s from Langley reached the Pentagon at 9:49. It took them 19 minutes to reach Washington D.C. from Langley AFB, which is about 130 miles to the south. That means the F-16s were flying at: 130 miles/(9:49 - 9:30) = 410.5 mph

That is around 27.4% of their top speed of 1500 mph.

 

I think anyone can see that this assumes that the aircraft started at 410mph and continued in a straight line at that speed all the way there. In fact they started at 0mph, taxied out,then accelerated along the runway, quite possibly in the wrong direction, then had to climb, then flew towards the problem, which was itself moving. There quoted top speed is, like all jets, at a high altitude which they have to reach. When they climb they travel far more slowly so they have to get the balance right between time to climb (and descend when they get there) against the speeds they get at altitude. This means they will have travelled at an altitude which gives a lower top speed. Although it won't have been the case in this event, they also have to be careful of speeds because they can't go very far at top speeds.

 

Even Archbishop Bowman rubishes these figures and instead claims they should have been scrambled 30 minutes earlier without explaining how he gets that figure. I happen to think they should have been scrambed the day before and so should men with missile laucnhers on the buildings, but then I now know what happened.

[StarSparkle]

Is anyone still finding the reptile jokes funny?

 

You must remember to make allowances for Nick2 - he's a little slow....

 

StarSparkle

[venger]

Every video that is produced gets knocked back as vague rubbish.

 

The conspiracy theorist have put Bowman on a pedastal and I was able to knock him off it with no effort whatsoever. Why have the conspiracy theorists on this forum not come forward and agreed that he is discredited?

 

lol, thats quite funny, well I for one enjoy wathing you make an example of your own fat head.

 

Try and knock this guy back

 

Here he gives a speach regarding just some of the facts surrounding the events of 9/11

 

 

Is anyone still finding the reptile jokes funny?

 

Did not realise thery were ever funny ?