The_Jazz

Again, which box on which plane? Link to an article?

Just so you know, the contents of Flight 93 were just made public last week so that the government could use it the prosecution of Moussaoui.

As long as we're all clear about what we're talking about, that's fine. Just so you know, the average cell phone tower has an effective range of about 6 miles with coverage extending out to about 9 miles, according to one of the files that I have in my office for a cell tower erector. There's no reason to assume that this range would vary vertical compared to the horizontal range. That means that at 32,000 feet, Flight 93 would have been intermitently been in range of towers as they flew directly over them but still within the effective (albeit at low signal strength) range of coverage below. There would certainly be areas of low coverage, especially over portions of PA, but there's no reason to think that these calls were/are impossible.

By the way, I made a bunch of cell phone calls at 6650 feet in 1999, although my feet were firmly on the ground within the Great Smokey Mountains National Park. There are no cell towers within the park, and I was at Clingmans Dome, which is 10 miles from the nearest border.

The probabilities of a person surviving a large object punched through their skull with no appreciable loss of brain use or a small-caliber bullet striking the skull, traveling between skull and skin and exiting on the other side or piece of jewelry lost in the ocean being recovered years later and returned to its owner are all similarly small yet there is documented proof of all 3 occurring multiple times. Something having a low probablility of happening does not it can't happen. To put it in poker terms, the chances of drawing a royal flush of the deal are tiny but it still happens.

I can give you lots of ways that I would design a conspiracy to acheive the outcomes of 9/11, but faking the physical evidence found at the scene and the eyewitness reports would be very difficult. One thing that you should remember is that a housewife from Poukipsee makes a terrible witness, especially when she's looking at a horrifying event like a plane crash. That's why preferred witnesses are trained observers like pilots or cops.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

shakran

Planes don't generally crash when they're 6 miles up. They need to get down to the ground before they crash. If the passengers were calling just before they crashed, then they weren't at 32,000 feet.

I haven't seen it but I've read the synopsis. There's a lot of crazy paranoid theories being floated in that "documentary." Why would they evacuate a plane to a secret NASA base? Where are the passengers now? How did they keep them quiet? Are we suggesting that the government killed a plane full of people so they could pretend it had crashed?

I do know that that documentary ignored scores of eyewitness accounts who said a large jet hit the pentagon. They didn't even bring up the fact that the witnesses said it. We're not talking about a journalistically sound documentary here.


Logic and reason.

WHY would we want to pretend the plane was destroyed? I'm not arguing that it's impossible to make it look like a plane crashed. I'm asking what possible benefit anyone could get from going to all that trouble?



Well I can start a thread about the loch ness monster mating with a sasquatch, and I'm sure I'll get a lot of opinions, but that won't justify my initial statement.



And this right here is the problem with most conspiracy theorists. They hear something that sounds like a Ray Bradbury novel, they think it would be cool if the public perception of an event were wildly wrong and only they and a few others knew the real truth, and then they believe it without bothering to check any facts or logic. If you have no interest in learning that which is necessary in order to have an informed opinion on the crash site (basic knowledge of physics, airplane/building construction, and logic would be helpful here) then why form wild theories that not only don't have facts to support, but no inclination to discover those facts?

ASU2003

This is what happens when the government isn't totally open and have independent media have access to all of the facts. Yes, it might be hard for the victims families, but the people will try to figure out what happened if we aren't given proof of how it really happened.

But, can we really trust the government? There is so much money and shady deals now, that we don't believe what they say.

Yes, it could be that islamic extremists took over a few planes and crashed them into buildings, but Hollywood could make exactly the same thing happen. Including faked audio and video, demolition, plane crashes, and everything else.

shakran

Not without secretly killing everyone in New York and replacing them with evil actors. How exactly do you think Hollywood could fake 9/11 without the cooperation of the people in New York who watched the planes hit? How did hollywood fool the news cameras, which were focused on the building when the second plane hit, and saw the plane going into the building? You might be able to convince a group of 20 guys to do it, but you're not gonna get 8 million people to play ball.

Willravel

From a Previous post of mine.

Let's break this down:
The max cruising speed of a Boeing 757 is about 570 mph (914km/h). According to the FAA report, American Airlines flight 77 was last reported doing 459 kts - or 527 mph - at 8:56 AM. Just prior to the strike, the jet passed over the White House then completed a hair-pin 270 degree turn before slamming into the Pentagon. This hair-pin turn would have bled-off a lot of their air-speed, however the dive into the Pentagon with engines at full thrust might have brought the final approach speed back up to around 527 mph (459 kts).

Inbound Velocity: 600 miles/hour = 10 miles/minute = 1 mile or 5280 feet every 6 seconds = 880 feet/sec.

Now NTSA standards which are used in 99% of all North American A/V equipment operates at a rate of 30 interlaced frames per second. That is one complete frame every 30th of a second and one partial or interlaced field scan every 60th of a second, which is essentially slaved to our AC frequency of 60 Hz.

So if you take the plane's velocity of 880 feet/sec. and divide that by the full frame rate of 1/30th of a second, the camera will capture a complete image of the plane every 29.3 feet, given a constant speed of 600 mph. Or if your video equipment can freeze-frame on individual interlace fields it will capture a partial scan (every other scan line) of the plane's travel in 14.6 foot intervals, given a constant rate of speed of 600 mph.

Now according to the surveillance video the plane was crossing the camera's field of view on an inbound trajectory of approximately 35 - 45 degrees, so the apparent velocity of the plane across the camera's field of view will be approximately 1/3 less than that actually travelled by the plane along it's inbound trajectory.


Blue Dot: Camera Position
Red Line: Centerline of Field of View
Yellow Lines: Approx. Field of View Borders
Green Line: Approx. Path of AA77
Red Dot: Tail Position in Photograph
Pink Line: Angle from Camera to Point of Impact

Using the sky view and the surveillance camera views above we determine the approximate angles involved to assist us with determining how far the plane travelled in a single frame or 1/30th of a second. Now assuming the photo was not doctored and assuming this is AA77 (not a small commuter jet) partially hidden behind the traffic post, we will use the length of the 757-300 as our base measurement, which is 155 feet. It can been seen in the video frame that there are approximately 2 plane lengths (310 feet) remaining between the nose and the building face and 3 plane lengths (465 feet) between the tail and the building face.

In the following frame 1/30th of a second later, the tail of the plane has completely disappeared into the building and resulting explosion, so obviously the tail of the plane had to have travelled a minimum of 465 feet in 1/30th of a second. And keep in mind we are not factoring in the extra distance resulting from the tangent the flight path is on perpendicular to the camera angle or the deceleration that would suddenly occur as the plane struck the building. So remember, these figures are very conservative.

Now let's work backwards to see what the minimum approach velocity of AA77 would have to be in order for these two "undoctored", "back-to-back" video frames to be captured exactly as we have been told they were by government officials.

465 feet traveled in 1/30th of a second = 13,950 feet/second = 2.64 miles/second = 158.5 miles per minute = 9511.36 mph = 8263.5 kts. = Mach 12.48

So either 1-2 seconds of the video were removed, it was not a boeing 757, or we have been in holding patterns a lot longer than we know.

http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/math_geometry.html

shakran

Will, you're forgetting that often times security cameras capture at significantly less than 30 frames per second. 15 or less is very common. This is to save videotape, which costs money.

There is also the very real possibility that the camera had a shutter going, in which case we might actually be spacing out the visible frames a bit more.

Unless you have evidence of what the framerate is then this argument may or may not be accurate - we just don't know.

Willravel

I am catering to a very high statistical probability.

Meinwhile, that same video proves that whatever hit the pentagon was NOT boeing 757.

Here is a frozen frame from the video above:


Here is what it SHOULD have looked like:

cyrnel

Will, Shakran's correct. The error isn't one of statistics. They're using the wrong information. We're not talking about camera rates but recording rates. Big difference, and it almost appears as willful ignorance in the quoted information. That they say "NTSA" instead of "NTSC" is telling.

Sure, camera rates are high but surveillance systems rarely capture at those rates for several reasons. To save tape or disk or because the capture system and/or network doesn't have the bandwidth to sustain its channels at full tilt. Systems often don't capture at all until something moves within their frame. In the case of a huge aircraft flashing through and exploding the camera would see everything but the recording system can miss everything but the explosion. We'd have to know the specific systems used to really nail this down.

__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

feelgood

With the Pentagon video in mind, why would the FBI hide the other video that potentially had a view of what was heading for the Pentagon? I read somewhere else that there was a security camera on the top of a hotel not too far from the Pentagon along with a gas station surviellence tape. So, if the officials says that it was a 757 hitting the Pentagon, why don't they show what was on those tape? What's so secretive about the tape that they can't even show it to the public in order to prove that it was a 757 hitting the Pentagon?

__________________
Looking out the window, that's an act of war. Staring at my shoes, that's an act of war. Committing an act of war? Oh you better believe that's an act of war

The_Jazz

Because it may be germaine to a upcoming prosecution of one of the actors much closer to the actual plot than Moussaoui (i.e. someone who actually participated in the plot as compared to being a wannabe). They are doing what any good prosecutor does and holding the evidence close to their vests. It's pretty common, and they did the exact same thing with the voice activated black box on Flight 93. If it can be used to bring those responsible to justice, the information your asking for is much more valuable in that role than being used to satisfy our purile interest.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Willravel

The Jazz, congrats on Max! Being a father is a singular experience that can bring great joy.

I assume you've seen the pictures in post #328. What do you make of the obvious size differences between the object in the video released by the FBI, and what the boeing 757-200 would have actually looked like in the frame? Doesn't it raise questions in your mind that you might want answers for?

My aim in this and the other 9/11 threads is to simply ask questions.

The_Jazz

Thanks Will! Being a dad is great, although I'm not dealing with the sleep deprivation as well as I'd like. I've noticed a big dropoff in the quality of my work and my posts here when he's up more than twice a night. He slept 7 hours last night, so...

I have seen the pictures, and frankly I don't buy the imposition of what the plane should have looked like. First of all, the imposed plane would obviously strike the building much closer to the camera than the actual point of impact. I'm making a guess, but it looks to me like the strike point would be at least 150 feet closer to the camera.

Second, the imposed plane is coming in at a much softer angle than actually happened. I'm going to guess that the plane actually hit at roughly 30 degrees to the structure, and the imposed plane appears to be coming in at a 45+ degree angle. Normally that wouldn't be all that relavant, but the parking ticket machine hides the plane since it presents a much smaller profile at a steeper angle.

So, you've got a plane that farther up in the foreground ariving at a shallower angle to the building. Shenanigans, to paraphrase South Park. I call shenanigans. Not on you, just whoever created the picture. They're ignoring some of the physical evidence.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

shakran

Hey Jazz, did you also notice that the dink that created the "here's what it should look like" picture also zoomed in to hell and gone? I'm surprised the pic creator actually thought people would fall for this crap.

Willravel

Wow. Maybe I should address this before people make further mistakes.


This is the picture I will deconstruct. It was oroginally on the CNN website following it's release to the Associated Press by the Pentagon and the FBI.

Here is something I threw together that shows the first frame.


The Pentagon is about 77' tall. The blue line represents the base of the outer wall, the red dot marks the exact impact point (reliable to about .5 mm depending on the resolution of your screen). The yellow line represents 77' relative to the distance from the camera. If you don't believe that my picture is crap, please measure it out yourself. It only take a small bit of geometry.

A Boeing 757-200 is about 44' tall with it's landing gear down, and 40' tall at the tail with it's landing gear up (I don't know if the plane supposedly had it's landing gear up or down, I'll assume up for the sake of this). Now I think we can all agree that the plane in this picture was not on the ground since not one picture from the crash site shows any damage to the grass, even as close as 30' from the building (which is amazing, considering the fire). Using the yellow line as a measurement of 77' at the entry point, one can start to get perspective on the picture. Allowing for an entry of about 60 degrees from the wall (acording to the info the FBI released), the tail is about 25' above it's supposed entry point. Now we have perspective on the plane's distance from the ground. 25' + 40' is 65', which is only 12' shorter than the roofline. The problem is that the tail is not 12' from the roofline, it is closer to 40' from the ground and 37' from the roofline.

shakran

So your'e saying the "should" and "actual" pictures are exactly the same diminsionally. I didn't even point out the small fact that the contrast was spiked on the doctored photo.



It doesn't matter. The plane was off the ground. If the plane had hit the ground with the gear down, it would have collapsed. Planes that heavy do not do well when they try to land on anything but heavilly reinforced concrete.


You're making several assumptions which do not make sense.

The most glaring is the part about the tail. You're assuming the airplane remained solid and kept its shape throughout the entire crash. Airplanes look solid but they're really not. They're made out of aluminum - their skin is very THIN aluminum, to save weight. They're flying soda cans. The instant that plane's nose hit the reinforced concrete wall of the pentagon the entire plane started to crumple. By the time the tail got to the wall, who knows what position it was in. It could have been horizontal for all we know, and that's assuming it was still in the shape of a tail. The reason the planes did so much better against the WTC is because the WTC was not made of reinforced concrete. It was not designed to withstand an attack. The pentagon was.

Willravel

I was speaking to the mistake of the person who made the first photo, and my mistake for posting it. I didn't mean that it was your mistake. Apologies if it seemed like I was directing that at you. I was trying to take responsibility for a mistake, that's all.

The rest of the post was about rectifying my mistake.
No, I'm not making any assumptions about the tail at all. The pictures of the crash make it obvious where the tail WOULD have been, but my post above is about the size of the plane before it hit the wall. I'll argue about the crash itself after we settle this.

Again, my point from the post above is that the aircraft in the first picture is obviously not the same size as a Boeing 757-200, so there is a pretty substantial discrpency between the official story and the truth. If that isn't a Boeing 757-200, then it couldn't be the now infamous flight 77 that went missing.

The_Jazz

Will - here's one for you:

Do you think that it's possible that the fuselage of the plane is actually in the picture in question? In comparing the first frame versus the second (the one with the tail visible), I noticed the treeline in the background is basically a black lump with little detail. If the plane isn't completely hidden by the ticket machine, could it be far enough out that the silouette of the fuselage does not completely eclipse the treeline and that at least the nose of the plane would be visible if the camera had enough resolution?

As far as your question about the tail and its distance from the ground, I think that is pretty easily answered with the idea that the plane was in a shallow dive. Maybe I've misunderstood your point, but I think that the pilot necessarily had to be decreasing his altitude to avoid the earlier obstacles on the turnpike, etc. He was either lucky or good to put the plane where he did, but I would guess the former.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Willravel

Good eye. When I was making that post I noticed the same thing. I wish the Pentagon had cameras with better resolution...but anyway. Yes, it's entirely possible that is a fuselage. The problem is that even if that'a fuselage, the math with the tail remains the same. There is no way that the tail of a 757-200 could be that low, judging by the point of impact.

Still, what little you can make out of the shape could help to determine what kind of aircraft that really is. I've started looking for similar sized/shaped planes, and will keep everyone aprised.
If the plane was a Boeing 757-200, it would actually had to pull up 25' from the first frame to create the hole in all of the pictures. I think we can agree that the plane was on a decreasing altitude. I'm pretty sure it wasn't pulling up.

cyrnel

Will, you still need to know more about the system. Effective shutter speed would help. Even at that distance a 500MPH object would take a fast shutter to stop without blur (and shear if a digital camera). If the camera managed to grab a frame while the jet was in frame the "What it should look like" image would show a nasty smear instead of a jet. I need more coffee before doing the math but I bet you're up for it.

__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

The_Jazz

Why not? Some of the witnesses said they thought it skipped on the ground before it hit the building. Wouldn't it be consistent to say that at the point of the picture the plane is at or around it's lowest point and the pilot is pulled up to keep from crashing prematurely? I can easily envision the plane approaching the ground several hundred yards out, the pilot noticing it and pulling up slightly (or maybe not so slightly given the amount of rise over the distance) to make sure that he would make impact with the building before the ground. Rather than the slow steady decent that I posited before, what if there's a "hump" in the trajectory where he approached the ground (getting within a few feet to explain the "skipping" statements) and then rose as he got closer? That's entirely consistent with the physical evidence as presented.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Ustwo

Um so if it wasn't a 757 did the government round up and secretly kill the people who were suppose to be on those planes? Did they then make the 'real' 757 disapear? Are the airlines part of a giant plot to do whatever it is they are doing?

Do you see where I am going with this?

There is a passanger list, who were those people and where did they go?

Occam's razor doesn't have to cut too deep here.

And read THIS while we are at it.

Faking a moon landing would be far easier than this

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

Let's break this down. Your first sentence is "...if it wasn't a 757 did the government round up and secretly kill the people who were suppose to be on those planes?" If? So you're not ready to accept the picture proof yet. If you're not ready to accept the picture proof, then why aska question that assumes the proof is true?

In a situation like this, we have to take baby steps. Once you are satisfied that step one is true, then we all move on to step two. I find that this is the best way to keep everyone on the same page. Step one in the Pentagon conspiracy is discovering that the plane might not be a Boeing 757-200. If you haven't accepted this yet, then you are asking a question without basis (i.e. trying to poke holes in part one by attacking part two, which is a fallacy).

I'm trying to keep this thread as civil and logical as possible, barring the "f u, I was there when it crashed!" or "the government has made a pact with satan!" types of posts. This is Paranoia, but it doesn't have to be paranoid.

By the way, Occams razor isn't a dependable argument, because it relies solely on the ability to congecture of the people in the discussion. I won't pretend to have the kind of mental prowece that my conclusion is so very often right that people can simply take it as fact. It's best to simply weight the evidence and make an informed decision.

Edit: Forgot to mention: The argument that you're trying to associate the ideas in this thread with the fake moon landing conspiracy (the moon landing obviously wasn't fake) is called the guilt by association fallacy. This thread isn't about the moon landing or a fake moon landing. If you want to discuss that, we can in another thread.

The_Jazz

I hate, just hate ( ) having to play devil's advocate here, but who says the passenger manifest is real? If I were a perpetrator in the (assumed) conspiracy, I would just create my own manifest and have coconspirators act as the loved ones of the "people" I created for the list. You've got to assume that the conspiracy involves the highest levels of power in this country, so it theoretically could be done.

I don't think it was and there's lots of physical evidence to the contrary, which is much harder to fake. Add that to the fact that I knew 5 guys killed in the WTC, and there's lots of reason to disbelieve a conspiracy.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

ubertuber

Well, no one argues that something exploded into the Pentagon, and that some sort of planes hit the WTC. I knew people from the WTC as well. Were your 5 guys from the PLANES that hit the WTC? That's the real question - but then, all you'd know is that they were gone.... Not that they were dead or how they died.

I'm not saying I buy into a conspiracy theory yet, but it's worth asking questions.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

The_Jazz

Good point, Senior Patata. All the guys I knew were in the building. As disclosed on previous thread started by a now-banned member, it's pretty clear evidence to the contrary for an Israeli/Jewish conspiracy as some of the Muslim world have said, especially since a couple of the guys I knew were Jewish.

I think that we call agree that a 757 was the second plane to hit, and I think that it's also safe to say that the first one was as well (they were both 757's right?).

Personally, I buy into the official explanation. I think it's interesting that the Patriot Act was basically sitting around waiting to be proposed, but think that there are enough folks in Congress thinking far enough in advance to be ahead of the curve on that score. Whether they're right or not is a separate topic completely.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Ustwo

If the government or secret magical agency that did this is SO good they can pull this off, then we might as well surrender because they are FAR better suited to run the world than we are

Now if only they would have planted the WMD's in Iraq.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

The_Jazz

Ah, but you assume that Bush is part of the conspiracy not just some patsy put out there to distract us while the Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the reverse vampires, work to eliminate the meal of dinner (thank you, Milhouse).

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Willravel

Pull what off? Do you know how many people are involved in the 9/11 truth movement? Last guess was about 23-25 million, with more people joining daily. The population of the US right now is about 298,569,743 people. Rounding up to 300 million, that means that about 1 in every 13 people are involved in the 9/11 truth movement. And this is a country in which 56% of the population still thought that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction before the war began. Perhaps you aren't giving us enough credit?

samcol

This will be interesting to say the least. I can't wait to see it.

Grasshopper Green

I only saw one angle of the new video and I didn't see the plane. Has anyone else seen the videos/plane?

__________________
"They say that patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings; steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king"

Formerly Medusa

Poppinjay

It's been running on a loop in my office. Plane nose, big blur, big boom.

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

Willravel

This took 5 years to release? Sheesh. It's like they're not even trying.

cyrnel

Will, if they had three angles of 60fps telephoto of a jet running into the Pentagon, would it change conclusions? Or would it just change the questions? I'm guessing the latter.

__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

fastom

I agree with that Will.

Mr Jazz. since your some sort of science whiz, they found an engine in the Pentagon, it ain't from the type of plane that supposedly crashed into it., Next of all since the plane had an engine on each wing and said engine is apparently strong enough to punch through all those walls... why is there just the one hole in front and where's the other engine?

I guess to the Sheeple that make up the public this is a non-issue.

samcol

Wow, what a total dissapointment. I doubt that 'slideshow' even has enough new information in it to sway anyone from their position on the issue. There has to be a crystal clear video of this somewhere, I mean it's the Pentagon for crying out loud.

Willravel

Someday they'll have to let go all the confiscated tapes. I'll bet at least one of those has something interesting on it.

Jimellow

After watching National Geographic's "Seconds From Disaster" regarding the tragedy, it appears that planes have a transponder that transmits data and communications to flight towers/control. The terrorists apparently turned this transponder off, and my question is why such a vital feature would even have an "off" switch.

The program is very well done. They are examining the lack of enough damage to represent a plane loaded with 1500 gallons of fuel. Their approach is not that of denying a plane existed, but instead the means that caused such an impact to leave such a "small" area of damage.

Anyway, my question is in regards to why a flight transponder would be able to be turned off, and disabled, as it seems like a very vital aspect of flying that one would want to be on at all times, especially during a time of crises.

__________________
Desperation is no excuse for lowering one's standards.

shakran

there's more than one way to turn something off. the Xponder may not have an actual off switch, per se, but it will have a breaker/fuse on its power wire. that's pretty necessary becasue it would suck if something went wrong with the transponder and the airplane burned up because it wasn't fused

Additionally, you don't necessarilly have to turn it off. Just flip it to a different setting. If air traffic control is looking for your transponder at 1600, and you flip it to 0900, they won't know who or where you are.

Jimellow

Ahh ok. I was confused, because in the dramatic recreation, they showed a switch on the plane's control panel being switched to "off", and I was wondering why it would be so easy to do.

Thanks for the clarification.

__________________
Desperation is no excuse for lowering one's standards.

MSD

If you want pictures of debris, take a look here:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/..._evidence.html
It's a well-done presentation of evidence against the Pentagon conspiracy theories, including numerous photos of plane parts, a quick analysis of the three-frame video, and in-depth looks at why the damage could not have been caused by a missile, drone, or bomb.