Debunk-liners

[apathoid]

Show me where it's claimed they could and did do that. Also if it's true then why did the hijackers bother to turn them off?

Does this guy not know what he's talking about? Compared to you that is.

Commander Ted Muga, BS CE, U.S. Navy (ret) – Retired Pan-Am commercial airline pilot. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707 and 727. Retired Civil Engineer. Retired Naval aviator. Aircraft flown: Grumman E-1 Tracer and E-2 Hawkeye.

"And also in all four planes, if you remember, none of the planes ever switched on their transponder to the hijack code. There's a very, very simple code that you put in if you suspect that your plane is being hijacked. It takes literally just a split-second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it over. And not one of the four planes ever transponded a hijack code, which is most, most unusual. ..."



"Spilt-second" is quite an exaggeration. I also don't know what he means by "flipping it over" - it's not a TV remote. There is no "hijack" channel that can be selected by the push of a button.

There are four knobs, two outer knobs and two inner knobs, and in most cases all four knobs would have to be adjusted to broadcast the hijack code. Let's say the transponder was set at 2454. The left outer knob would have to rotated counter-clockwise for 3 "clicks"; the left inner, clockwise 3 clicks; the right outer clockwise 3 clicks; and the right inner counter-clockwise(or clockwise) 4 clicks....

(767 ATC/Transponder panel photo for reference)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/990246db6e3522d68.jpg


If you think that can be done in a "split second" without any errors or fumbling around, when there are knife wielding maniacs hell bent on slitting your throat, well I don't know what else there is to say. Also, you should understand that setting the ATC panel to 7700 wouldn't exactly be the highest thing on the pilot's priority list in the event of a violent takeover attempt.

[Jonnyclueless]

I'm asking how the four planes that were lost were accounted for with the transponder off on three and code changed on the forth?

They were accounted for by the wreckage and passengers being identified. Also, you get 4 flights missing and 4 crashes. not hard to figure out.

[twinstead]

Zen, Zen, Zen,


This is one of those threads that make you have to decide just how much you want to hold on to your fantasy...

[ZENSMACK89]

Assume for the moment that the transponders had been left on. Since a pilot can set the transponder to identify as any of the 4096 codes, what would that prove? Transponders are not unique identifiers of an aircraft. Many, many aircraft are squawking 1200 even as I type this.
If, on the other hand, you go back through a tape and correlate skin-tracking data with the transponder data recorded, then continue to track that target using only skin-tracking after the transponder is disabled, then it's a unique identifier in the sense that the aircraft that launched as Flight xx was the same aircraft that crashed.

Where's it claimed they went back through a tape and correlated skin-tracking data with the transponder data recorded?

besides...

http://www.911timeline.net/

The controllers still have a skin paint, or passive echo from the airframe, but the blip now shows up on all consoles for that sector, not just the original one that was handling the altitude range of the flight. If that same flight loses communication with the controllers as well, the controller workload takes another giant step upward. Keep in mind that this is in an area that is normally stretched to the breaking point with controller overload. This flight is now a hazard to air navigation, and the controllers primary function of separating the planes is in jeopardy.

[ZENSMACK89]

"Spilt-second" is quite an exaggeration. I also don't know what he means by "flipping it over" - it's not a TV remote. There is no "hijack" channel that can be selected by the push of a button.

There are four knobs, two outer knobs and two inner knobs, and in most cases all four knobs would have to be adjusted to broadcast the hijack code. Let's say the transponder was set at 2454. The left outer knob would have to rotated counter-clockwise for 3 "clicks"; the left inner, clockwise 3 clicks; the right outer clockwise 3 clicks; and the right inner counter-clockwise(or clockwise) 4 clicks....

(767 ATC/Transponder panel photo for reference)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/990246db6e3522d68.jpg

Well that's well thought out and convenient huh? Does he also have to dance an Irish jig and sing the star-spangled banner?

If you think that can be done in a "split second" without any errors or fumbling around, when there are knife wielding maniacs hell bent on slitting your throat, well I don't know what else there is to say. Also, you should understand that setting the ATC panel to 7700 wouldn't exactly be the highest thing on the pilot's priority list in the event of a violent takeover attempt.


Ok so you don't think he knows what he's talking about. This is ridiculous. Let me ask you something how do people usually hijack planes do they just politely ask for the pilot to not make any sudden moves? Again is this just one more thing that no one ever imagined?

'Oh you want to hijack the plane? Sure hold on a second I just need to..."

[Corsair 115]

Did it happen four times in an hour?What relevance does that have? Each hijacking was a separate event in a separate aircraft. In the FedEx case, it was one man attacking a three-man flight crew, and in spite of those odds the crew were still not able to communicate what had happened until minutes afterwards. What do you think the chances are of a flight deck crew getting off a warning on 9/11 when it was two or three attackers against two pilots?

Military folks will tell you that surprise can be a very useful tactic in overcoming your enemies.

[Mobyseven]

Show me where.


Show you where what?

[Mobyseven]

Difference between secondary and primary radar:

Viewing this web page vs Viewing the source code.

[ZENSMACK89]

What relevance does that have? Each hijacking was a separate event in a separate aircraft. In the FedEx case, it was one man attacking a three-man flight crew, and in spite of those odds the crew were still not able to communicate what had happened until minutes afterwards. What do you think the chances are of a flight deck crew getting off a warning on 9/11 when it was two or three attackers against two pilots?

Military folks will tell you that surprise can be a very useful tactic in overcoming your enemies.
What are the chances?

http://www.911timeline.net/

53) 9:00 a.m.: United Airlines systems operations transmitted a system wide message, warning its pilots of a potential "cockpit intrusion". United Airlines Flight 93, flying over Pennsylvania replies "Confirmed".

65) 9:10 a.m. to 9:20 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 93 was hijacked.

[ZENSMACK89]

Difference between secondary and primary radar:

Viewing this web page vs Viewing the source code.
Right and they had trouble on 9-11. In fact when flight 77 made the crazy turn the air-traffic controllers assumed it was a military plane.

http://www.flatplanet.net/truth911/oldsite/2020_011024_atc_feature.html

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

"And it went six, five, four. And I had it in my mouth to say, three, and all of a sudden the plane turned away. In the room, it was almost a sense of relief. This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital, and to protect our president, and we sat back in our chairs and breathed for just a second," says O'Brien.

[Corsair 115]

What are the chances?

http://www.911timeline.net/

53) 9:00 a.m.: United Airlines systems operations transmitted a system wide message, warning its pilots of a potential "cockpit intrusion". United Airlines Flight 93, flying over Pennsylvania replies "Confirmed".

65) 9:10 a.m. to 9:20 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 93 was hijacked.So, by your own post, you've accepted that three of the four jets were successfully hijacked without being able to broadcast a warning. So your only point of contention now is the fourth jet, Flight 93?

Also, "cockpit intrusion" is not exactly a very helpful warning by itself, is it? It's not very precise and does not warn of the exact nature of the threat, does it?

[Corsair 115]

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."This point has been dealt with extensively here already. I suggest you try a search to find the revelant threads.

Besides, what does it have to do with the flight crews not being able to broadcast a warning that they were being hijacked?

[ZENSMACK89]

So, by your own post, you've accepted that three of the four jets were successfully hijacked without being able to broadcast a warning. So your only point of contention now is the fourth jet, Flight 93?

Also, "cockpit intrusion" is not exactly a very helpful warning by itself, is it? It's not very precise and does not warn of the exact nature of the threat, does it?
wow

Never ending excuses.

[Reheat]

I'm certainly glad I missed the hijack code silliness!

Regarding the cockpit intrusion, it's my guess that since some of the hijackers (perhaps all of them) were sitting in first class they probably watched a Flight Attendant to determine the cockpit entry codes in general use pre-9/11. This was, of course, used by those who actually secured the doors (most did).

That's one easy way they could have gained entry into the cockpit area without alarming the pilots. The pilots would have buzzed open the door thinking it was a Flight Attendant and would not have been alert for anything unusual.

Add: The jihadists had flown several times to observe and had determined a quick and unalarming way to enter the cockpit. The Pilots would not have even glanced back after the FA signal. It's also likely the first thing grabbed was the two headsets or Comm cords and then they would have slit both Pilot's throats before they had a chance to do anything at all to include defend themselves.

[Corsair 115]

wow

Never ending excuses.Dodge noted.

I'll repeat: Are you are you not now saying that the only aircraft which gives you trouble for not sending a message about being hijacked is Flight 93?

[Jonnyclueless]

Zen has been doing a great job of proving everyone else's points.

[Mobyseven]

Right and they had trouble on 9-11. In fact when flight 77 made the crazy turn the air-traffic controllers assumed it was a military plane.

http://www.flatplanet.net/truth911/oldsite/2020_011024_atc_feature.html

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

"And it went six, five, four. And I had it in my mouth to say, three, and all of a sudden the plane turned away. In the room, it was almost a sense of relief. This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital, and to protect our president, and we sat back in our chairs and breathed for just a second," says O'Brien.

ZENSMACK - if you're going to argue for me, at least warn me in advance so I don't go through your posts looking for the trick.

[ZENSMACK89]

I'll repeat. It's questionable that no plane hijacked that day was able to get a hijack code off especially 93. It's questionable that flight 77 as a plane could make the maneuvers it did at that speed it did and the pilot able to perform them. In fact it's never been proven any of these guys could really fly a jetliner never mind turn the transponders off like clockwork.

Now back to my original question.

How were the planes that hit their targets identified if the transponders were turned off? That is other then process of elimination which doesn't work if there were other aircraft in the air that were never identified.

[apathoid]

Well that's well thought out and convenient huh? Does he also have to dance an Irish jig and sing the star-spangled banner?


Pardon? Is there anything factually incorrect in my post about changing a transponder code in a 767? How long do you think it would take to do what I descibed under normal circumstances(without people tring to slit your throat)?



Let me ask you something how do people usually hijack planes do they just politely ask for the pilot to not make any sudden moves? Again is this just one more thing that no one ever imagined?

'Oh you want to hijack the plane? Sure hold on a second I just need to..."


Argument from incredulity. I don't know what you're suggesting here, but there has never been a way to declare a hijacking without either - changing the 4 digit squawk code as I described in my last post, or making a transmission to ATC. It cannot be "flipped over" in a "split-second", especially under duress. It takes about as much time to accomplish as tuning a radio.

I also think you need a little perspective. Before 9/11, can you tell me how many airline flights were taken over by hijackers in which the hijackers violently overtook the cockpit and flew the plane themselves?

The answer would be zero. Typical hijackings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking) usually include the pilots landing safely, leaving the hijackers to negotiate their demands. In such hijackings there is more than enough opportunity to enter the hijack code, or make a transmission to ATC.


Ok so you don't think he knows what he's talking about.


It's not that he doesn't know what he's talking about, it's just that Mr. Muga is a "truther", and it's been established that "truthers" can be quite careless with the truth.

[TjW]

I'll repeat. It's questionable that no plane hijacked that day was able to get a hijack code off especially 93. It's questionable that flight 77 as a plane could make the maneuvers it did at that speed it did and the pilot able to perform them. In fact it's never been proven any of these guys could really fly a jetliner never mind turn the transponders off like clockwork.

Now back to my original question.

How were the planes that hit their targets identified if the transponders were turned off? That is other then process of elimination which doesn't work if there were other aircraft in the air that were never identified.

I'll repeat:
What would it prove if the transponders had been turned on?

Would that prove that Arab hijackers were in control of the airplane?

[apathoid]

I'll repeat. It's questionable that no plane hijacked that day was able to get a hijack code off especially 93.


You have not shown why it's questionable. And why "especially flight 93"? In similar circumstances, FedEx 705 failed to squawk 7500 as well? Conspiracy?

It's questionable that flight 77 as a plane could make the maneuvers it did at that speed it did and the pilot able to perform them.


What maneuvers exactly? Making a 330 degree turn in 2.5 minutes? Actually, thats only slightly more than what the autopilot would normally command - 1.5 deg/sec, and if I'm not mistaken - the turn was around 1.1 g's. Hardly an airshow stunt.
Desending 5,000 feet in the same time frame? Well, a 2,000 fpm descent is normal and the VSI goes all the way to 6,000 fpm. Oh and the plane didn't speed up to 450 knots until after the "maneuver" was completed.



In fact it's never been proven any of these guys could really fly a jetliner never mind turn the transponders off like clockwork.


How hard is it to turn off a transponder? Cessna's have them too and you do know that these guys had pilot licenses, right?

I'm baffled here - you believe that in all four cases, the pilots of the ill-fated flights should have been able to set the transponders(something that takes a few seconds unimpeded) while being brutally attacked and murdered with knives - but you simply cannot believe that the hijackers got the transponders turned off(which takes even less time than resetting the code) with no one trying to kill them? How does that work?

[Drudgewire]

In fact it's never been proven any of these guys could really fly a jetliner never mind turn the transponders off like clockwork.
The fatal flaw in this argument is that, even taking in to account none of these guys could have gotten jobs in the airline industry, they weren't really doing the hard part. They weren't piloting during take-off, and landing wasn't exactly something they needed to practice.

They had PLENTY of training to handle the bare basics such as instrument panels and steering. And as for turning off the transponders, considering it would be such a vital part of their plan... yeah, they knew how to do it.

So yeah, it's proven. Beyond proven really. Or is your argument that they took the flight classes just so they could be patsies after the fact?

[Par]

"Spilt-second" is quite an exaggeration. I also don't know what he means by "flipping it over" - it's not a TV remote. There is no "hijack" channel that can be selected by the push of a button.
Well that's well thought out and convenient huh? Does he also have to dance an Irish jig and sing the star-spangled banner?"


So, the reality didn’t happen to tie in with your preconceptions. But there’s simply no need to get so terribly upset about it. Further, it’s a perhaps even less reasonable to get equally upset and angry with the person who corrected you. It’s called “shooting the messenger”. We’re trying to answer your questions for you. Please refrain from becoming incensed with us simply because you don’t care for the answers.

[apathoid]

So, the reality didn’t happen to tie in with your preconceptions. But there’s simply no need to get so terribly upset about it. Further, it’s a perhaps even less reasonable to get equally upset and angry with the person who corrected you. It’s called “shooting the messenger”. We’re trying to answer your questions for you. Please refrain from becoming incensed with us simply because you don’t care the answers.


It's quite a fascinating reaction, isn't it? But something tells me Zen isn't exactly happy with my take and will continue to ignore it, especially since he has an ex-airline pilot who says it takes a split second - so that's what he'll go with.....even though I pointed out, in detail, what it would take to do what he expects and no reasonable person could possibly think it could be done in a second.

[beachnut]

I'll repeat. It's questionable that no plane hijacked that day was able to get a hijack code off especially 93. It's questionable that flight 77 as a plane could make the maneuvers it did at that speed it did and the pilot able to perform them. In fact it's never been proven any of these guys could really fly a jetliner never mind turn the transponders off like clockwork.

Now back to my original question.

How were the planes that hit their targets identified if the transponders were turned off? That is other then process of elimination which doesn't work if there were other aircraft in the air that were never identified.
Wrong, it takes time to set the code. I bet you 10,000 dollars I can get someone to stop you from setting the code! Go. Oops you did not make it to set the code. Sorry.

It does not matter if the hijack code is set, it would not of changed 9/11. Sorry, your question, your ideas are mush.

Your question makes no sense, who are you and why are you unable to make up a rational question?

All the planes were tracked to their targets after 9/11 with tapes of the RADAR. With RADAR information you can track a target the whole day. DONE

Plus DNA was found and the aircraft were found at each target. What you are implying is most disrespectful and a lie.

Flight 77 was flown as if a kid was at the controls, the turn and the altitude loss were so simple. You do not understand flying, and you trust idiots in the 9/11 truth movement as if they had something more than lies. 9/11 truth is a big LIE.

[Jonnyclueless]

I'll repeat. It's questionable that no plane hijacked that day was able to get a hijack code off especially 93. It's questionable that flight 77 as a plane could make the maneuvers it did at that speed it did and the pilot able to perform them. In fact it's never been proven any of these guys could really fly a jetliner never mind turn the transponders off like clockwork.

Now back to my original question.

How were the planes that hit their targets identified if the transponders were turned off? That is other then process of elimination which doesn't work if there were other aircraft in the air that were never identified.

Actually it's not questionable at all. it's only questionable to you because you start with the assumption that there is some kind of conspiracy. Case in point is your completely fasle and absolutely wrong claim that it's a "fact" that it's never been proven any of these guys can fly a plane. It has been proven beyond any doubt what so ever that not only could they fly the planes, but they had more training than many people. So again, it's not so much that it's questionable than it is you simply wanting to ignore the facts because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Flight 11 was identified by process of elimination.
Flight 77 was identified by bringing in people who have worked on flight 77 to come identify the plane.
Flight 175 was identified by UA from watching the footage of the plane impact. As soon as they saw the video footage that morning, they knew it was flight 175.
Flight 93 was identified from all the wreckage and DNA.

[A-Train]

What I've been saying all along is if the transponders were turned off to impede identification maybe they did just that and what was really tracked was a different aircraft. If they have proof that they don't need the transponder then where is it and why have it in the first place and why turn it off?

As soon as the transponder was turned off, the FAA controllers immediately press a button called ALL PRIMARY, that allows them to see the primary target. If this target is in the exact same place as was the transponder code, it can safely be presumed to be the same aircraft. If it wasn't the same plane, there would be another primary target in the exact same spot.

If you are suggesting a plane swap, the only one of the flights where this theoretically could have happened was AAL77. That plane turned off its transponder in an area where the primary radar was down, so the controller did not see any primary targets at all. A primary target was viewed about eight minutes later heading east, which was presumed to be AAL77.

Why did the hijackers turn off the transponders is an interesting question. Perhaps to disguise the altitude of the planes?

[Civilized Worm]

Why did the hijackers turn off the transponders is an interesting question. Perhaps to disguise the altitude of the planes?


Because they knew that that would make them harder to track. Duh.

[Reheat]

As soon as the transponder was turned off, the FAA controllers immediately press a button called ALL PRIMARY, that allows them to see the primary target. If this target is in the exact same place as was the transponder code, it can safely be presumed to be the same aircraft. If it wasn't the same plane, there would be another primary target in the exact same spot.

If you are suggesting a plane swap, the only one of the flights where this theoretically could have happened was AAL77. That plane turned off its transponder in an area where the primary radar was down, so the controller did not see any primary targets at all. A primary target was viewed about eight minutes later heading east, which was presumed to be AAL77.

Well, for the first time since you've been posting here you get something right. Congratulations!

Why did the hijackers turn off the transponders is an interesting question. Perhaps to disguise the altitude of the planes?

And then you spoil it with this ridiculous question. Your problem appears to be that you have ZERO judgment. No analytical skills and no judgment, it's no wonder you're confused.

[AMTMAN]

Well that's well thought out and convenient huh? Does he also have to dance an Irish jig and sing the star-spangled banner?."

It's "convenient" that dialling in an ATC code is not as easy as you think? Especially when your in the process of having your throat cut?

[Mobyseven]

How were the planes that hit their targets identified if the transponders were turned off?

Witness accounts
Recovered FDRs
Recovered wreckage from the planes
DNA confirmation of passengers on the planes

Not sure if that's an exhaustive list, but it should do for illustrative purposes.

[Minadin]

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

No kidding it's unsafe. Do you believe that the hijackers were concerned with safety or passenger comfort? It's not that you can't fly an airliner like that, you just don't. There's a difference.

Check out Gumboot's posted videos on how these Boeing jets can perform when passenger safety / comfort is not an issue:

You can't Fly a 757 Like That (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76327)

[bje]

No kidding it's unsafe. Do you believe that the hijackers were concerned with safety or passenger comfort? It's not that you can't fly an airliner like that, you just don't. There's a difference.

Check out Gumboot's posted videos on how these Boeing jets can perform when passenger safety / comfort is not an issue:

You can't Fly a 757 Like That (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76327)



Note that the video also destroys the Truther notion that witnesses to AA77's crash could not tell it was a twin-engine passenger jet from a distance or that it was moving too fast to tell.

[twinstead]

Note that the video also destroys the Truther notion that witnesses to AA77's crash could not tell it was a twin-engine passenger jet from a distance or that it was moving too fast to tell.

Only an experienced pilot, or a madman, would attempt stuff like that. On those videos, it was the former. On 911 it was the latter.

[leftysergeant]

Only an experienced pilot, or a madman, would attempt stuff like that. On those videos, it was the former. On 911 it was the latter.

I remember seeing Tex Kelly do a barrel roll with the prototype 707. Bloody near ended his career, but it sure sold a lot of 707s.

I think a 757 is supposed to be a little more maneuverable than a 707.