"Because they disabled the transponders, they were invisible to Radar"...

[Junkdrawer]

THAT was an actual sentence from NPR's summary of the hearings.

I'm speechless. If that were true, we've wasted billions of dollars on on Stealth Technology when all we fucking needed to do was turn off the transponders in our fighters.

I understand that transponders are handy at crowded airports. But do they actually want us to believe the FAA (to say nothing of NORAD) can't track a 747 without a transponder?

[Corgigal]

1. It's a lie

that become a primary target and controller can figure out who they were by the way it was traveling across the radar screen. It was going at a good clip. Trust me on this, they have non radar procedures.

[tom_paine]

2. ANOTHER Lie. Yawn. n/t

[Canuckistanian]

3. You're right, but...

If the transponders are turned off, then air traffic controllers can't identify them. They certainly can SEE them, but they don't know what's up there.

[Corgigal]

6. not true

we had digital radar. We can id the aircraft by using the speed of the aircraft and by vectoring another aircraft (which they did with a cargo plane) for a pilot reported fix. If you guys believe this then why the hell do you fly? If the radar goes down in any facility the whole system would crash then. It doesn't.

[Canuckistanian]

9. Still, that takes time

Meanwhile, red flags should be popping up all over the place with rogue non-identified airplanes flying erratic paths.

[Fescue4u]

27. nope.

Think general aviation.

On a nice clear day, you have hundreds-no thousands of " rogue non-identified airplanes flying erratic paths" all over the country.

[mike1963]

31. There are very few GA planes without xponders these days...

the ones without them would certainly be low and slow (like ultralights).

[Fescue4u]

38. are they required to be turned on now?

When I flew (last 1994), you didnt have to turn it on unless going into controlled space.

[mike1963]

40. It's the same but everyone does turn them on squawking 1200 if VFR

as an obvious safety measure...gives ATC the ability to warn/vector
other traffic that could conflict - I can't imagine why anybody who had a working one wouldn't have it operating...

edit: spelling

[Canuckistanian]

32. I wouldn't have guessed that

Are you a controller?

[Fescue4u]

37. No, just a G/A pilot

Who hasnt flown in a long time.

But when I did, took off and landed from a corn field (literally!). The only time I turned on my transponder was when flying into controlled airspace which I avoided as much as possible.

The last time I piloted was 1994, and I would imagine that alot has changed, however.

[MercutioATC]

73. I'm a controller, and Fescue4u is correct.

LOTS of primary targets, especially on sunny summer weekends.

[Fescue4u]

25. Interesting...

I figured radar had been upgraded by now but...

When I learned to fly about 20 years ago, if you turned off your mode C transponder the "tower" COULD see you but in only a limited way.

I.e. they could see you as an echo vectoring from the radar site (i.e. Due north of tower, or 115 degrees etc)

But they could not see your altitude, your aircraft tail number, nor the distance from the radar antenna to your aircraft.

But I havent piloted in over 10 years, so I would expect many upgrades since then.

But what they are saying was certainly true at one time. Turn off the transponder and the "tower" had only very general info about you..and I didnt feel unsafe then.

[burrowowl]

47. The Microwave system

has never been implemented. MWS would paint a 3-D airspace. ILS and radar is 2-D. Altitiude is given by data to the transponder or pilot.
Transponder turned off on a big fast plane raises red flag.
On military planes they provide IFF (Friend or Foe) info.

[mike1963]

56. GPS made the MLS obsolete...

:-)

[NewYorkerfromMass]

7. Which makes them UFO's and potentially hostile

and so you call NORAD. Geezum this is insane.

[Pepperbelly]

4. I almost choked when I heard that ...

I was a Radarman in the Navy and transponders were nothing more to us than a way to ID civilian aircraft. The only way to turn off the radar video is stealthy technology.

Those people ... :eyes:

[Junkdrawer]

12. LOL. I really shouldn't listen to this stuff when I'm driving home....

My eyes rolled so far into the back of my head I almost had an accident. :evilgrin:

[Cheswick2.0]

22. sometimes I think my eyes are going to get stuck

I think I am going to spend the rest of my life looking at my brain.

[Postman]

100. Pepperbelly, I was an OS in the USN (same as Radarman)

when were you in?

[Pepperbelly]

102. I, too, was an OS ...

I used Radarman so non-Navy folk could understand the gig. At least kinda sorta.

I was in at the tail-end of Vietnam ... 1975-1979.

You?

[Postman]

104. 1981-1986

USS Forrestal CV-59

what ship/s for you?

[RBHam]

5. More lies, knowing the sheeple will buy anything...

"Day of Confusion" "Hindsight is 20/20" "Nobody had any clue that hijackers would use planes as missiles" "Pres Bush's cell phone wasn't working"....

[Generator]

13. So true, and for average "housewives"

like me, it's hard to know what's true. I don't know if cell phones work on planes or not. I don't know if buildings can collapse that way or not. I don't know what they know but I know they are lying.

The hindsight is 20/20 and we had mis-communication covers it all.

Why not just say OOPS and forget about it? No one has lost their job or paid any consequences. We were asleep- I saw a retired general say on CNN today.

Yeah, okay, if I was asleep at my former job, I would have been fired. If I'm asleep at my current one, child protective services comes. No consequences for our government, though.

As one of the Jersey Girls said, $300 billion dollars a year and this is all we have to protect us?

[Junkdrawer]

43. To quote Jon Stewert: "Do they think we're retarded?"...:

He said that and I say that with a straight face.

[Raster]

8. all a transponder does is broadcast a plane's identification...

...it has nothing to do with the ability to "see" a plane in the air with radar.

And let's get something out on the table right now. I don't believe any of this "we didn't know where they were bullshit." The air corridor(s) over DC and New York are the most monitored, heaviest observed, radar-ed to the ta-tas air corridors in the world. At any time of the day or night, the location of any aircraft therein is known to various agencies and authorities.

[Corgigal]

10. not to mention

you can put a transponder code digitally on the airplane. Name it, I don't know who it is 1 and you then move the mouse over the the fast moving primary target and click the mouse. It's called ARTS and your taxpayer dollar paid for it.

http://www.faa.gov/ats/atb/Sectors/Automation/CommonArts/history.htm

[Pepperbelly]

11. same thing the Navy did with the NTDS system back in the 70s. nt

[Corgigal]

14. Yep Yep

I was an USAF controller at MacDill and used Arts 3a with Tampa International. I was there in the early 80's. It was a nice system.
Probably even BETTER technology now.

[Pepperbelly]

17. I will guarantee this ...

the military does not need transponders to nail an air contact. Witness the incident with the USS Vincennes in the Persian Gult when the Iranian plane took off without squawking its transponder.

[MercutioATC]

15. Thanks! I've been saying this in the 9/11 Forum for months!

...and I get accused of trying to spread disinformation.

(By the way, I'm an ATC at Cleveland Center)

[Corgigal]

18. sorry that's been happening to you

because you would think you KNOW how the equipment works since you ah, make your living using it. Oh well, some people just don't want to believe this.

[MercutioATC]

20. Actually, a couple of them are convinced I'm a CIA agent

sent to spread false information...

:eyes:

[Corgigal]

21. then baby

I must work for you. Ha.

[MercutioATC]

26. Peek in there sometime. It'd be funny if it wasn't so scary.

The conspiracy theorists in there are hardcore.

[BeFree]

55. Hardcore

NORAD has stated that AA 77 disappeared from radar. This statement came in sworn testimony to the 9/11 Commission.

That means all radar contact, including the transponder, was LOST.. at least on AA 77 the plane that they say hit the Pentagon. Oh, of course the radar blip to a UFO came back on the radar screen and that blip headed right for DC.

So yes, all radar contact can be lost. Happens every time a plane lands.

[MercutioATC]

75. Actually, it doesn't happen every time a plane lands...it depends on

the location of the plane in relation to the radar site and the terrain between the two.

[leftofthedial]

16. it's either an error or a lie

[Guaranteed]

74. It's just an error.

They're journalists, not engineers. They screwed up on their info.

[MikeG]

19. And if you close your eyes you become INVISIBLE!

[ladjf]

23. Altitude and some other numbers are missing

when the transponder is off but the basic "blip" is still there.

[MercutioATC]

28. Here's what happens when the transponder is turned off:

(in a Center radar mosiac system)

The data block continues along the flight plan route even if the plane turns.

The data block stops showing altitude and speed.

The target changes from a "\" to a "+".

We still see the "+" and can track it manually, but we won't know altitude.

[Junkdrawer]

36. And from what I hear, turning off the transponder requires an immediate...

military response if it is not quickly explained. Is that true?

[bpilgrim]

44. any loss of communication after deviation of flight plan requires it - SOP

going by what i've read though i would like to hear an actual ATC give us the SOP for his area then and now if anything has changed since 911.

:hi:

peace

[Junkdrawer]

45. Yeah, I'd like to hear from MercutioATC too... n/t

[Corgigal]

51. first of all sop is not for an area

it's for the entire system. If a transponder drops off you attempt to contact the aircraft. If no contact you ask the flight to do something to verify that it's the same flight. Example give it a heading and see if it's moves. Then you have established positive control and know they have voice. Meaning they can hear you.
If still no response you then consider the aircraft an "emergency" and contact supervisors. Supervisors have a check list.

You might ask other controlled aircraft to do a visual for you.
You then watch to see if any certain transponder numbers come up on the radar screen that start with 75. There are a few of them and each have a different meaning.

All this is SOP from the 7110.65. (nicknamed when I was in "The Bible") It's huge but all controllers know this information to ensure lives on board.
Now I have done ATC in a few years but I'm pretty positive these rules havent changed.

[Corgigal]

52. Never mind all that here are the actual words

10-2-5. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS

Consider that an aircraft emergency exists and inform the RCC or ARTCC and alert the appropriate DF facility when:

NOTE-
1. USAF facilities are only required to notify the ARTCC.

2. The requirement to alert DF facilities may be deleted if radar contact will be maintained throughout the duration of the emergency.

a. An emergency is declared by either:

1. The pilot.

2. Facility personnel.

3. Officials responsible for the operation of the aircraft.

b. There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any IFR or VFR aircraft.

c. Reports indicate it has made a forced landing, is about to do so, or its operating efficiency is so impaired that a forced landing will be necessary.

d. Reports indicate the crew has abandoned the aircraft or is about to do so.

e. An emergency radar beacon response is received.
----------------------------------------------------------------

If you want to understand the SOP about hijacking click on the link below: The more you understand the SOP the more you know what they are selling us is crap.

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html

[Junkdrawer]

53. Thanks...

:thumbsup:

[bpilgrim]

58. 3b

thanks :toast:

what are all those acronyms :shrug:

peace

[Corgigal]

59. baby I didn't write it

word is a bunch of lawyers did but it is the FAA law, so to speak. I just studied my ass off to be able to get my license. I just wanted people here to read for themselves the training and not listening to the Bushy Administration people.

[bpilgrim]

61. no worries ;-)

thanks again, this info needs to get out there :toast:

peace

[bpilgrim]

60. so if they deviate from your control/flight path AND radio AND transponder

CONTACT we can be certain that we have an emergency that NORAD is normaly alerted to, which also adhears to SOP... ok, so how much time would you estimate for the average ATC BOSS to react to this information before making that call?

thanks again for your input and time :toast:

peace

[Corgigal]

62. Me

I was in a terminal facility at the military base. For my facility probably within 45 seconds, NO lie.
However this all occurred under a center controller airspace. If I know anything about controllers is that they are jumpy people and won't just sit there and wonder whats up with him. This means after they either missed or made an unexpected turn or turned off the transponder.
They also have what's called an assistance for all voice positions. (or did) I would say, until a center controller comes up here to correct it, within 3-4 minutes.

[MercutioATC]

76. Corgigal! I didn't know you were a controller...

Great to know there's more than one here. I thought I was the only one.

:hi:

[MercutioATC]

70. Nope. "Military response" is extremely rare.

In 13 years I've seen exactly zero interceptions, even when planes violated restricted airspace, and I work in the busiest ATC facility on the planet.

I'd be interested to know how many of these intercepts that are so talked about happened when a plane violated an active training area (with jets already in the air) and had to be escorted out.

[bpilgrim]

77. how many commercial airlines do yall usually let slide off course

and how far before someone responds?

1, 2, 3 states :shrug:

often, sometimes, rarely :shrug:

:hi:

peace

[MercutioATC]

78. Well, that's two questions...how many and how far.

...but both have the same answer. ALL of them - as far as they wanna go. We don't fly 'em, so we have no choice whether to "let" them "slide off course" or not.

We do try to contact them. If this is unsuccessful, I've outlined the procedure that's used.

[bpilgrim]

81. huh? yall don't normally react? hmmm...

have the SOP been updated since 911?

i hope so...

peace

[MercutioATC]

82. I didn't say we didn't react. In fact, I explained the entire procedure.

Why would you think we didn't react?

[stickdog]

88. But you weren't working on 9/11. If you had been, do you think that

you might have tried to get a fighter scrambled in the direction of Flight 93 more than 100 minutes after the first known hijack hit the WTC, and more than an hour after the second known hijack also hit the WTC?

I mean, if there were ever a time for a military interception in the history of the ATC universe, wouldn't 9:45 EDT on 9/11/01 be that time?

[MercutioATC]

93. No, I wouldn't. Controllers don't "get fighter[s] scrambled".

That decision takes place at higher levels. I would do what the controller who first noticed problems with UAL93 did...I'd tell my supervisor.

[stickdog]

94. And what would he do? And what would the FAA guy he talked to do?

Or are controllers the only guys in the entire system with functioning brains?

[stickdog]

96. And your supervisor would ...

go read a book about a pet goat perhaps?

[MercutioATC]

98. Do you READ posts at ALL? I've covered this a few times.

I've described the procedure and the multiple steps between controller and NORAD.

[stickdog]

99. Where?

Thanks for the help.

[MercutioATC]

101. Here, among other places:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1808155&mesg_id=1810058

[Junkdrawer]

24. Here's a link to the NPR story...

http://www.npr.org/rundowns/segment.php?wfId=1962941

I'm listening to it again and, so far, they've repeated this "they were invisible to radar" crap twice.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

29. It's a stark staring lie. Period. Read this link...

<http://atcsl.tripod.com/radar_theory.htm>

[tridim]

30. Such BS

The blips were ID'ed before the transponders were shut off. They obviously knew the un-ID'ed blips were the same planes. Don't forget that the ATC bosses destroyed the tapes that would confirm this.

[Junkdrawer]

33. I Double-Dog dare the commission to put this in the final report...

Make that a Triple-Dog dare.

[Dover]

34. And the FAA destroyed the tapes of their people's debriefing....

So who was on duty and in the various positions at the FAA that day?

And IF we had prior knowledge that these kinds of attacks were imminent, how could these various defense channels NOT be prepared?

[Junkdrawer]

35. If this is in the final report, the Warren Commission's Magic Bullet...

will now be the second silliest theory in a major government commission's report.

[Sterling]

39. Thats not how radar works.

radar does not need an amplified signal from it's target, never has.

[Pepperbelly]

64. any amplification that occurs ...

occurs within the Radar Repeater. I worked with some pretty powerful Naval radars (AN-SPS 10, 40, 48) and I think what the confusion is that IFF transponders give them a nice picture with the flight i.d., the course, the altitude, the speed ... all the stuff you need to control the space in 4 dimensions (including time, of course).

I don't know if the misunderstanding was from the commission itself or from NPR.

[Spazito]

41. I know for a fact that not having a transponder doesn't make you...

invisible to radar. My husband and I owned a small plane and were flying through the airspace of a major city where a transponder is required in order to traverse their airspace. Shortly after we entered their airspace, our transponder malfunctioned, immediately we were contacted by air traffic control to squawk. Once it was determined that our transponder was not working, we were told to maintain a certain altitude and heading and we were talked through their airspace. If we were invisible on their radar this would not have happened.

[donhakman]

42. A blatant lie but listen to Veniste's bigger lie

"There was no military preparation for attack from passenger planes."

Sorry Ben but you are a liar or we know more than you.

The Pentagon had trained specifically for an attack on the Pentagon by a passenger plane. I have been to the military website and copied the pictures of the mock ups for a passenger plane attack.

[AntiCoup2K4]

85. Weren't they in fact, supposed to be training for such an attack...

..on that very morning (9-11-01)??

In which case, I could see where intial reports about the World Trade Center might have been interpreted as part of the simulation, but I find it hard to believe nobody in the entire Pentagon (and it's a big building) had a TV, radio, or web browser on by the time the 2nd plane hit.

[TomNickell]

46. Well! That's the smoking gun! Whew! Cleared that one up....

Seriously, guys. C'mon.

If it's a lie it's so obvious as to be ridiculous. Even to us non-Conspiracy Hobbyists.

I haven't seen the context, but more likely the statement has a more simple interpretation. Like: Without the transponders, the FAA computer screens won't display their flt numbers and etc.

The problem for the Flight Controllers and the military was to decide -which- of the 3500 blips on the radar were the (unknown number) of hijacked planes.

Overall the hearings today showed the expected level of confusion and chaos.

[Junkdrawer]

48. Post #24 has the NPR link Listen for yourself. n/t

[bpilgrim]

49. this has been going on for 3 1/2 years sir

and has led to war rape and plunder on a grand scale yet you go on dreaming up coincidences, hmmm...

:hi:

peace

[Junkdrawer]

50. And the stories get stranger and stranger and stranger and....

well, you get the idea...

[TomNickell]

66. Bullshit.

What coincidence?

Where's any 'coincidence' here? We have an isolated quote.

Obviously in error.

What Vast Conspiracy puts out an explanation so obviously false that even Internet Conspiracy Hobbyists can see through it?

Enough said.

[bpilgrim]

67. tell it to the NYT

numb-nutts...

FROM THE EDITORS
The Times and Iraq

Published: May 26, 2004

The problematic articles varied in authorship and subject matter, but many shared a common feature. They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on "regime change" in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks. (The most prominent of the anti-Saddam campaigners, Ahmad Chalabi, has been named as an occasional source in Times articles since at least 1991, and has introduced reporters to other exiles. He became a favorite of hard-liners within the Bush administration and a paid broker of information from Iraqi exiles, until his payments were cut off last week.) Complicating matters for journalists, the accounts of these exiles were often eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq. Administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes fell for misinformation from these exile sources. So did many news organizations — in particular, this one.

Some critics of our coverage during that time have focused blame on individual reporters. Our examination, however, indicates that the problem was more complicated. Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper. Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted. Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all.

more...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html?ex=1087617600&en=f35fdc8fe9dc4e5a&ei=5070&8dpc

:hi:

peace

[stickdog]

90. I love your schtick. If it's obvious enough for us to figure out, that

proves that it's just an "honest mistake."

Therefore, only things we DON'T discuss can ever possibly even be considered as potentially nefarious.

Neat logical slight of hand. Accent on slight.

Enough said.

[mike1963]

54. Except that practically every 'blip' would have xponder info and VERY FEW

if any primary targets (those without xponder enhancement) would be moving at ~500 Kt. I've never been a controller, but I've talked to many thousands of them as a pilot for 40 years, and known many personally. I refuse to believe someone in ARTCC didn't know precisely where all those aircraft were, and which way they were going. And I also don't believe the FAA failed to notify the military. They do that kind of notification on a regular basis (and have been doing so for decades.)

Someone is obviously lying, and while I'm no great fan of FAA, I've known a lot of people who work for them over the years and this whole thing fails my smell test. (One of my greatest friends was an FAA GADO (General aviation district office) boss in Tulsa, a bit of a maverick but a damn fine pilot and a totally decent guy.)

[TahitiNut]

63. It seems to me the 'clutter' excuse is specious, too.

IIRC, the digital ATC sets can filter the clutter, removing all flights showing active and behign transponders and flights below a certain airspeed. I don't much doubt they could isolate the display to only the overt hijackings.

There seems to be a really diligent disinformation program that's still active throwing up FUD chaff.

[mike1963]

65. Sure, it's no problem to hide targets with various properties, and there'd

be no problem differentiating between something travelling at .5 mach from a guy in a crop duster going 75 mph (who would be probably under radar coverage anyway...)

[stickdog]

89. Overall the hearings today showed a complete whitewash, Nickell.

WHO reacted with confusion?

WHO let the situation dissolve into chaos?

WHICH PEOPLE blew it so badly that not a single fighter was scrambled in the direction of Flight 93 more than 100 minutes after the first confirmed hijack hit the WTC?

WHO was responsible for such an egregious failure of air defense?

WHO?

[DemoTex]

57. Transponders are ubiqitous now. Planes, trains, trucks, and rent cars.

Discreet code transponders got their start - where else?- in the military. IFF. We used IFF in the 'Nam. IFF? Identificaction Friend or Foe. That started it all.

[BattyDem]

68. I have made people speechless by using that exact same argument ...

When my RW "friends" would say ...
"We couldn't shoot down the planes - the transponders were turned off! We didn't know where they were!"

I'd hit them with ...
"Since when are commercial airliners equipped with stealth technology?"

This would usually cause them to give me a blank stare and then they'd say ...
"They aren't! What the hell are you talking about?"

That's when I'd say ...
"Well, we spent billions on developing stealth technology so that our military aircraft would be invisible to radar. Why did we spend all that money if all we had to do was turn off the transponder on those planes?"

A puzzled expression would cross their faces and they'd tilt their heads the way a dog does when he's confused. Just as they were about to open their mouths to offer some sort of "logical" response, I'd say ...
"You know ... ever since radar was invented, we've been able to track all sorts of unidentified flying objects. I'm not saying they were alien ships, I'm just saying that whatever they were, they certainly weren't traditional aircraft equipped with transponders, yet our radar systems had no problem tracking them for miles! So how is it that we couldn't track commercial aircraft on 9/11?"

Dead silence ... :evilgrin:

[MercutioATC]

71. Mylar birthday balloons. We can track bunches of mylar balloons.

It doesn't even have to be something big...something small that's radar reflective sends back a nice return, too.

[put out]

80. I am interested in your perspective.

Do your good work please. I know just a little about it. As in every job, it is different than most folks would expect.

I thank you for doing your job.

[MercutioATC]

83. Hey, I'm happy to explain things. I'll answer anything I can.

I think it's good for people to have a better understanding of the things that go on "behind the scenes".

Ask away.

[GumboYaYa]

69. It is hard to believe that no one in the military or civilian

air control could locate that plane on radar. At the very same time that the plane was supposedly lost to the world, the President's staff was planning a flight to DC for the President. AA77 was lost from 8:56 until 9:32 and the President's staff was planning the return trip to DC from 9:15 to 9:30. Without question the Secret Service was all over the planning for this flight. Are we honestly supposed to believe that the secret service did not have access to radar of the activity over the skies surrounding DC in planning the preidents trip? I find it almost completely unfathomable that the military and civilian controllers can completely lose that plane for over 36 minutes given all the activity and planned activity in that airspace that morning. This can not be reconciled with the fact that Bush was diverted from returning to DC b/c they thought other hijacked planes were targeted for Airforce 1.

[Guaranteed]

72. It's just a stupid mistake.

In the 9/11 stories I've heard, they had the planes on radar, but they just didn't know for sure which planes they were (other than tracking them visually). The planes simply weren't identified on the radar panels without the transponders.

But these NPR guys aren't technical. They just mixed up their facts. Maybe they meant "the planes weren't IDENTIFIED on radar" and were just being lazy in their reporting.

[bpilgrim]

79. but they WERE identified...

once they lose contact - IFF - the metadata is attached to the target - plane - and continues with the 'blip' on the radar screen so it is ALSO not true to say that they probably meant "the planes weren't IDENTIFIED on radar" and so it was just an innocent mistake since BOTH are factually WRONG.

:hi:

peace

[Guaranteed]

84. That's not what the ATC's say.

In their stories, the ID's on the planes were gone.

[MercutioATC]

86. If the transpondr is turned off the data block doesn't stay with the plane

...it just floats along the plane's filed route of flight.

[Junkdrawer]

92. Jim Thompson spoke to NPR Wednesday and announced...

that the the confusion arising from turning off the transponders was going to play a key part in explaining the events of 9/11.

Listen here: http://www.npr.org/rundowns/segment.php?wfId=1960395

[stickdog]

87. Don't blame any PEOPLE for letting 9/11 happen!

Every PERSON did his or her 100% best.

The problem was the nouns.

The nouns wouldn't let us scramble fighters for more than 100 minutes after the first hijacked plane hit one of the tallest bulidings in the world.

You know, nouns like "chaos" and "confusion" and "surprise."

It was all the nouns' fault. The nouns take full accountability.

[Jake_DeLeon]

91. Somethings on Radars and Transponders.

I heard somewhere that airtraffic controllers dont rely totally on radar.

Infact most of the time they rely only on the transponders.

Here are some links I turned up while doing a yahoo search on this.

http://www.argospress.com/Resources/radar/airporradar.htm

http://www.ieee-virtual-museum.org/collection/tech.php?id=2345899&lid=1

I didnt see the hearings, nor am I too knowledgable on airtraffic controllers but it didnt appear as if anyone here mentioned anything about this.

[grl2watch]

95. Saw C-Span hearings and believed Kean's statement

Millions of others believed it as well, having
no way to corroborate the statement. Thanks to
eevryone who responded on this thread.

Due to what happened this afternoon to Mr. Paul
Johnson, it is more imperative than ever that
EVERY false statement, EVERY false pretext be
refuted so that more lives are not sacrificed
due to lies and greed.

[immune2irony]

97. There's a difference between military radar and air traffic radar

On is more powerful than the other. Care to guess which one?

Of course, military planes do not fly into combat with transponders on.

[Pepperbelly]

103. We had radars on my ships that ...

were phenominal for searching for aircraft and once we found them, even better for tracking.