"Disappering" planes!

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

i was reading some research that a group by the name of team8plus did. they talk about the transponders being shut off right beside areas with no primary radar coverage. that would be the best place to put drones in play.

some conclusions from their research:

"Within the area that the hijackings took place, there are two areas with no primary radar coverage that stretch up towards Canada.
Flight 11 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no primary radar coverage.
Flight 77 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no primary radar coverage.
Flight 93 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no primary radar coverage.
United Flight 175 switched off its transponder next to United Flight 93.
We have two incidences where a hijacked plane came very close to a non-hijacked plane. (What are the odds?) Flight 11(hijacked) meets Flight 175 (not hijacked). Flight 175 (hijacked) meets Flight 93 (Not Hijacked)."

http://www.team8plus.org/the-movement/radar/Radar.htm

The problem with this silly little theory is that the twits at team8plus didn't read the PDF they got their map from very closely. As evidence I'll point out that they don't even know what the source is for the PDF. They claim:

Quote:

Surveillance Implications of 9/11 is an FAA analysis of the radar coverage on 9-11 and ways of dealing with future potential threats. The document contains a map of the United States showing internal ATC primary radar coverage (orange) and NORAD radar coverage (maroon)

Yet anyone who even bothers to read the first page of the PDF (i.e. the cover) will see that it's an analysis by Dr. Steven R Bussolari of MIT's Lincoln Laboratory. The FAA merely sponsored the study.

That's not even really the important detail they miss. If you turn to page 6, which has the radar map they use, you'll notice that it's a depiction of radar coverage at 5,000ft above ground level.

Due to curvature of the earth, and obstructing features such as mountains, coverage at lower altitudes is greatly reduced. Of course the flights on 9/11 weren't hijacked at 5,000ft AGL. They were hijacked at cruising altitude ~30,000ft.

The maximum range of the FAA's LRRs is about 200 miles, and if you bother to map out their coverage (which I have) you'll find there's virtually no gaps whatsoever.

[Obviousman]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

The errors in this proposal are ridiculous. First of all, FL175 did not turn off it's transponder; the hijackers changed the code to something else (a nonsense code, if I recall correctly; someone please correct me if I'm wrong). It was tracked the entire way. Only FL77 was in an area where primary radar was not available to the concerned ATC center. And that is not the same not being under primary radar coverage at all; it merely means that the Indianapolis Center controllers could not see the craft on their screens. John Farmer's data reconstruction establishes that it was indeed within radar coverage the entire time.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter whether jets were "next to" areas with no primary coverage. They remained in areas with coverage, and were painted the entire time; the difficulties the controllers had with finding the aircraft had to do with the difficulty in identifying unlabeled blips on a highly cluttered screen in real time while not knowing what was going on. Post event reconstruction built from radar records definitively shows all aircraft from origin to impact. So unless conspiracy peddlers want to assert that the aircraft that left the runways were drones, they have no argument.

On top of all of that, to argue drones, you have to argue remote control. And that ridiculous idea was firmly squashed some time ago.

Even without the radar data, you have recovered debris as well as eyewitnesses and video recordings of the New York Impacts. You have eyewitnesses, recovered debris, recovered DNA evidence, and FDR data for FL77. And I need to renew my knowledge on FL93, but there is a multitude of data definitively identifying it. The notion that drones were substituted for the flights makes zero sense and is entirely and definitively contradicted by the entirety of the evidence that exists.

This proposal is DOA.


Further reading:

• NTSB Flight path studies: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/
• Separate link to United 93's flight path study (I don't know why it's not listed on the GWU.edu page; the UA93 report there is the FDR one): http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight%20_P...Study_UA93.pdf
• Gumboot's 9/11 timeline: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61752
• 911 Myths hosting of the radar based timeline for FL 77: http://www.911myths.com/images/4/4c/...d-Timeline.pdf
• 911 Myths hosting of the radar based timeline for Flights 11 and 175: http://www.911myths.com/images/4/4c/...d-Timeline.pdf
• Gravy's page linking FAA and NTSB information: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/nora...abilities,pilo

[Claps loudly]

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

i was reading some research that a group by the name of team8plus did. they talk about the transponders being shut off right beside areas with no primary radar coverage. that would be the best place to put drones in play.

How does this silly theory explain the fact that Flight 77 and the entire airplane and all the passengers was found inside the Pentagon and this fact is reported by 250 people who's names we know and countless others?

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by gumboot

The problem with this silly little theory is that the twits at team8plus didn't read the PDF they got their map from very closely. As evidence I'll point out that they don't even know what the source is for the PDF. They claim:



Yet anyone who even bothers to read the first page of the PDF (i.e. the cover) will see that it's an analysis by Dr. Steven R Bussolari of MIT's Lincoln Laboratory. The FAA merely sponsored the study.

That's not even really the important detail they miss. If you turn to page 6, which has the radar map they use, you'll notice that it's a depiction of radar coverage at 5,000ft above ground level.

Due to curvature of the earth, and obstructing features such as mountains, coverage at lower altitudes is greatly reduced. Of course the flights on 9/11 weren't hijacked at 5,000ft AGL. They were hijacked at cruising altitude ~30,000ft.

The maximum range of the FAA's LRRs is about 200 miles, and if you bother to map out their coverage (which I have) you'll find there's virtually no gaps whatsoever.

So to state the obvious (since the obvious always has to be explained to conspiracy fantasists), they cannot even claim that the hijacks occured "next to" areas with no primary radar coverage. The jets were covered the entire time, and there were simply no opportunities to swap for drones (an abysmally stupid theory if there ever was one). No opportunities whatsoever.

This lunacy is forcefully put to rest. Next, please.

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

The errors in this proposal are ridiculous. First of all, FL175 did not turn off it's transponder; the hijackers changed the code to something else (a nonsense code, if I recall correctly; someone please correct me if I'm wrong). It was tracked the entire way. Only FL77 was in an area where primary radar was not available to the concerned ATC center. And that is not the same not being under primary radar coverage at all; it merely means that the Indianapolis Center controllers could not see the craft on their screens. John Farmer's data reconstruction establishes that it was indeed within radar coverage the entire time.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter whether jets were "next to" areas with no primary coverage. They remained in areas with coverage, and were painted the entire time; the difficulties the controllers had with finding the aircraft had to do with the difficulty in identifying unlabeled blips on a highly cluttered screen in real time while not knowing what was going on. Post event reconstruction built from radar records definitively shows all aircraft from origin to impact. So unless conspiracy peddlers want to assert that the aircraft that left the runways were drones, they have no argument.

On top of all of that, to argue drones, you have to argue remote control. And that ridiculous idea was firmly squashed some time ago.

Even without the radar data, you have recovered debris as well as eyewitnesses and video recordings of the New York Impacts. You have eyewitnesses, recovered debris, recovered DNA evidence, and FDR data for FL77. And I need to renew my knowledge on FL93, but there is a multitude of data definitively identifying it. The notion that drones were substituted for the flights makes zero sense and is entirely and definitively contradicted by the entirety of the evidence that exists.

This proposal is DOA.


Further reading:

• NTSB Flight path studies: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/
• Separate link to United 93's flight path study (I don't know why it's not listed on the GWU.edu page; the UA93 report there is the FDR one): http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight%20_P...Study_UA93.pdf
• Gumboot's 9/11 timeline: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61752
• 911 Myths hosting of the radar based timeline for FL 77: http://www.911myths.com/images/4/4c/...d-Timeline.pdf
• 911 Myths hosting of the radar based timeline for Flights 11 and 175: http://www.911myths.com/images/4/4c/...d-Timeline.pdf
• Gravy's page linking FAA and NTSB information: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/nora...abilities,pilo

looks like 175 did switch transponder codes but look what happened when they did that:

"But within seconds, Bottiglia has another unexpected problem. As he and other controllers search the radar, looking for American 11, he suddenly notices that United Flight 175, which moments ago helped him locate the hijacked plane, also has disappeared. Instinctively, Bottiglia knows the two are somehow related. He asks another controller to take over all of his other planes. Bottiglia: I think my voice was shaking, “Please just take everything and don’t ask any questions.”


http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Un...t_175_Timeline


are all of these just coincidences?? the terrorist could have just hijacked the planes and slamed them into their intended targets a whole lot faster than traveling many extra miles and turning on and off and switching transponder codes!!

[Cheap Shot]

First looking at the map from Team 8 whoever they are, it is wrong, they don't show St. Albans, VT which is an ARSR 4, it has primary radar. AAL 11 was in radar coverage until about 1500 Ft. AGL over NYC.

Also even though we did not have altitude on AAL 11 we knew it had descended dur to the ground speed which we were getting on the primary track. At one time south of ALB he tracked 620 knots. As "Beachnut" can tell you that is cooking for an air carrier, considering the winds were out of the soutwest and mild and this aircraft was heading south. 8 minutes later the aircraft is at 330 knots. He probably never throttled back, but the difference in altitude makes a huge difference in ground speed. We still didn't know what altitude but made a pretty good guess that it was in the "Teens".

The altitude triangulation that NEADS received on that day, did pass through the centers en route to NEADS, some of the information we could receive suc as "Mode 2's" on a PC away from the Radar consoles, with a little pragram change we probably could have had the height finding as well.

Cheapshot

[ElMondoHummus]

Thanks for the info, Cheap Shot. As I see it, the presence of that radar is yet another nail in the coffin. Not that it needs any more nails; the radar data behind the flight path studies alone is enough to put this particular proposal to rest.

The peddlers have been grasping at straws for quite a while now. It's sad to think about the fact that this is actually good work for them. They worked from primary sources - incorrectly, but still, that's better than three-quarters of the "movement" - and they tried to build a case on that misunderstood information. For them, that's achievement.

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by Cheap Shot

First looking at the map from Team 8 whoever they are, it is wrong, they don't show St. Albans, VT which is an ARSR 4, it has primary radar. AAL 11 was in radar coverage until about 1500 Ft. AGL over NYC.

Also even though we did not have altitude on AAL 11 we knew it had descended dur to the ground speed which we were getting on the primary track. At one time south of ALB he tracked 620 knots. As "Beachnut" can tell you that is cooking for an air carrier, considering the winds were out of the soutwest and mild and this aircraft was heading south. 8 minutes later the aircraft is at 330 knots. He probably never throttled back, but the difference in altitude makes a huge difference in ground speed. We still didn't know what altitude but made a pretty good guess that it was in the "Teens".

The altitude triangulation that NEADS received on that day, did pass through the centers en route to NEADS, some of the information we could receive suc as "Mode 2's" on a PC away from the Radar consoles, with a little pragram change we probably could have had the height finding as well.

Cheapshot

do you have a link for st albans? i could only find that they had fps67b/bi-5/cd-2. this report was from 1999 though.

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:...&ct=clnk&gl=us

[Senenmut]

seems nobody has answered my original question yet?

is there anyway that a plane (plane A) could turn of its transponder and another (say a drone plane) put the code of plane A (or another code) into its transponder and basically turn into plane A?

and i cant find anywhere that states st albans had an arsr 4.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

seems nobody has answered my original question yet?

is there anyway that a plane (plane A) could turn of its transponder and another (say a drone plane) put the code of plane A (or another code) into its transponder and basically turn into plane A?

and i cant find anywhere that states st albans had an arsr 4.

Only in cheap fiction made up for gullible people. There is a problem of making plane A physically disappear so it would not return radar energy picked up by RADAR stations. The transponder is a “transponder”, not the primary RADAR return; it is the plane and RADAR site talking!

8 years of failure, 911 truth spewing lies non-stop for 8 years.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by beachnut

8 years of failure, 911 truth spewing lies non-stop for 8 years.

clearly, 9-11 truthers are hoping that if they keep repeating the same lies for 15 years, the people will start believing it.

but the problem is, regardless of their level of gullibility, most Americans just don't give a .

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by beachnut

Only in cheap fiction made up for gullible people. There is a problem of making plane A physically disappear so it would not return radar energy picked up by RADAR stations. The transponder is a “transponder”, not the primary RADAR return; it is the plane and RADAR site talking!

8 years of failure, 911 truth spewing lies non-stop for 8 years.

since your a skeptic, are you going to debunk the arsr 4 at st albans?

lets let cheapshot answer the question.
is there anyway that a plane (plane A) could turn of its transponder and another (say a drone plane) put the code of plane A (or another code) into its transponder and basically turn into plane A or at least look like plane A on radar?

pay attention to the map and the animation and the fact that:

Within the area that the hijackings took place, there are two areas with no primary radar coverage that stretch up towards Canada.
Flight 11 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no primary radar coverage.
Flight 77 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no primary radar coverage.
Flight 93 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no primary radar coverage.
United Flight 175 switched off its transponder next to United Flight 93.
We have two incidences where a hijacked plane came very close to a non-hijacked plane. (What are the odds?) Flight 11(hijacked) meets Flight 175 (not hijacked). Flight 175 (hijacked) meets Flight 93 (Not Hijacked).

coincidence?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

Flight 11 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no primary radar coverage.
Flight 77 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no primary radar coverage.
Flight 93 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no primary radar coverage.

Ummm "no primary radar coverage"?

You've got New Jersey & New York airports & the Philadelphia airport for Flights 11 & 175.

For Flight 93, there's the Johnstown Airport that's 20 miles North of Shanksville.

No radar coverage, my achin' a$$!

[Senenmut]

one of the reasons i was wondering about this scenario where planes come in from canada is a man named michael riconosciuto stated pre 911 that there were plans for a 40 minute war scenario directed from canada. this is the same guy that was involved in the PROMIS software scandal. the same software that OBL had as well and the MOSSAD. im sure the CIA had it as well. i just wonder who the hell trained OBL on PROMIS!!!!
from link-
"16. Riconosciuto further told SA Cutri that the 37 Soviet-made missiles were being handled through Thabet Aviation in Quebec City, Canada, which also brokered old but serviceable aircraft (Swearingtons, DC-9s, 747s, and high-performance military) to be used in drug-running and future terrorist attacks in a so-called "40 minute" war scenario by using aircraft as flying "missiles".
http://educate-yourself.org/tg/TCUri...osummary.shtml

drug running??? didnt sibel edmonds run into drugs with the turkish/isi/israeli spy mess?? didnt Indira Singh run into drugs when she started digging deep into PTECH? just more interesting coincidences?? i doubt it.

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by 9/11 Chewy Defense

Ummm "no primary radar coverage"?

You've got New Jersey & New York airports & the Philadelphia airport for Flights 11 & 175.

For Flight 93, there's the Johnstown Airport that's 20 miles North of Shanksville.

No radar coverage, my achin' a$$!

maybe you forgot to look at the map (the holes in the primary radar) and where the planes either turned of or changed their code.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

maybe you forgot to look at the map (the holes in the primary radar) and where the planes either turned of or changed their code.

"Holes"? Just like the CTs right??

You have no idea WTH you're talking about.

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by 9/11 Chewy Defense

"Holes"? Just like the CTs right??

You have no idea WTH you're talking about.

do you think cheapshot has any idea what he is talking about when he states that there is an arsr 4 at st albans?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

maybe you forgot to look at the map (the holes in the primary radar) and where the planes either turned of or changed their code.

Where do you get this nonsense from? After 8 years when do you think 911 truth will stop spreading lies and false information to mislead those who lack knowledge?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

do you think cheapshot has any idea what he is talking about when he states that there is an arsr 4 at st albans?

Look at my post again Sen!

[Algebra34]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

since your a skeptic, are you going to debunk the arsr 4 at st albans?

lets let cheapshot answer the question.
is there anyway that a plane (plane A) could turn of its transponder and another (say a drone plane) put the code of plane A (or another code) into its transponder and basically turn into plane A or at least look like plane A on radar?

pay attention to the map and the animation and the fact that:

Within the area that the hijackings took place, there are two areas with no primary radar coverage that stretch up towards Canada.
Flight 11 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no primary radar coverage.
Flight 77 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no primary radar coverage.
Flight 93 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no primary radar coverage.
United Flight 175 switched off its transponder next to United Flight 93.
We have two incidences where a hijacked plane came very close to a non-hijacked plane. (What are the odds?) Flight 11(hijacked) meets Flight 175 (not hijacked). Flight 175 (hijacked) meets Flight 93 (Not Hijacked).

coincidence?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...7e2ae47f07.gif

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...8aabf82e95.jpg

They can't debunk this Senenmut. That's why they get so angry. No one could possibly know everything that went on that day or after the fact. If they could debunk this they would. There's your proof. Not that it happened but that it is possible. No continuous transponder on 9/11 means no positive identification period.

[Thunder]

id love if someone from the FAA could confirm or deny that they have a button that can easily isolate flights that have switched-off transponders.

and id love if someone from the FAA could confirm or deny if they have ever had practice and training sessions with the DOD of how they would assist in the tracking and interception of a hijacked airliner.

i seriously doubt they had.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Originally Posted by Algebra34

They can't debunk this Senenmut. That's why they get so angry. No one could possibly know everything that went on that day or after the fact. If they could debunk this they would. There's your proof. Not that it happened but that it is possible. No continuous transponder on 9/11 means no positive identification period.

How do you know there was "no continuous transponder on 9/11?"

Didn't you openly say you don't know what happened on 9/11?

So what do you got?

Other then your faith?

[T.A.M.]

Does Senemut realize who Cheapshot really is? I think he could talk just about anyone on this forum under the table when it comes to ATC, FAA, NORAD, RADAR, etc...

TAM

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by beachnut

Where do you get this nonsense from? After 8 years when do you think 911 truth will stop spreading lies and false information to mislead those who lack knowledge and join reality?

was cheapshot spreading lies and false information when he stated st albans had an arsr4?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

was cheapshot spreading lies and false information when he stated st albans had an arsr4?

This isn't about Cheapshot. Take it up in a PM with him, not on the forums!

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Does Senemut realize who Cheapshot really is? I think he could talk just about anyone on this forum under the table when it comes to ATC, FAA, NORAD, RADAR, etc...

TAM

im not going to trust anyone until i do my own research when it comes to 911. see my sig!! hahaha.....

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by 9/11 Chewy Defense

This isn't about Cheapshot. Take it up in a PM with him, not on the forums!

he spread disinfo on this thread. if he wants to correct himself, so be it. humans er. he has been out of the game for awhile now.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Editted my other post & brought it down here.

Flight 11 & 175 was covered by these airports:

Quote:

Trenton-Robbinsville Airport
www.robbinsvilleairport.com - (609) 259-1059

Airport: Newark Liberty Intl
www.panynj.gov - (212) 435-3703

Lakewood Airport Authority
www.twp.lakewood.nj.us - (732) 370-7781

Trenton Mercer Airport-Ttn
www.state.nj.us - (609) 882-1600

Sky Manor Airport
www.skymanorairport.com - (908) 996-4200

Atlantic City International Airport
www.acairport.com - (609) 645-7895

Airport: Somerset
www.somersetairport.com - (908) 722-2444

Port Authority of New York & New Jersey: JFK International Airport
maps.google.com - (718) 244-4335

Flight 77 was covered by:

Quote:

Washington Dulles International Airport - maps.google.com
Aviation Cir, Arlington, VA - (703) 572-4500

Flight 93 was covered by:

Quote:

Pittsburgh Airport - www.pitairport.com
Pittsburgh, Pa - (412) 472-3525

John Murtha - Johnstown/Cambria Airport - www.flyjohnstownairport.com -
(814) 536-0002

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

im not going to trust anyone until i do my own research when it comes to 911. see my sig!! hahaha.....

ahh, like what? what REAL research are you gonna do on the interwebz? what a *********** joke...just like all the other googlejockeys.

TAM

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

he spread disinfo on this thread. if he wants to correct himself, so be it. humans er. he has been out of the game for awhile now.

Point is Sen, take it to the PM, not on this thread. Be a good person & do it that way. I don't want you clogging up this thread over stupid stuff!

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

ahh, like what? what REAL research are you gonna do on the interwebz? what a *********** joke...just like all the other googlejockeys.

TAM

here is some research for ya, is there or is there NOT an arsr 4 at st albans....

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

since your a skeptic, are you going to debunk the arsr 4 at st albans?

lets let cheapshot answer the question.
is there anyway that a plane (plane A) could turn of its transponder and another (say a drone plane) put the code of plane A (or another code) into its transponder and basically turn into plane A or at least look like plane A on radar?

pay attention to the map and the animation and the fact that:

Within the area that the hijackings took place, there are two areas with no primary radar coverage that stretch up towards Canada.
Flight 11 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no primary radar coverage.
Flight 77 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no primary radar coverage.
Flight 93 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no primary radar coverage.
United Flight 175 switched off its transponder next to United Flight 93.
We have two incidences where a hijacked plane came very close to a non-hijacked plane. (What are the odds?) Flight 11(hijacked) meets Flight 175 (not hijacked). Flight 175 (hijacked) meets Flight 93 (Not Hijacked).

coincidence?

Why do you fall for these ridiculous ideas?

OMG, I have flown past areas of no radar coverage (albeit on the GROUND) but had RADAR coverage at altitude. You are not a pilot and are easily mislead by idiots make up failed conclusions based on ignorance. Is that the bottom line?

What is your conclusion? Please tell a pilot who has flown all over the world what your final super nano conclusion is based on the junk you are posting?

Where is st albans, lat and long?

What are the odds flight paths of hijacked planes going west pass close to each other? lol, are you serious asking this dumb question?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

http://www.pbworld.com/projects/dire...lter_title=ALL

Federal Aviation Administration Air Route Surveillance Radar (ARSR) Facility - St. Albans, Vermont

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by 9/11 Chewy Defense

http://www.pbworld.com/projects/dire...lter_title=ALL

Federal Aviation Administration Air Route Surveillance Radar (ARSR) Facility - St. Albans, Vermont

and the description-
"Asbestos and environmental facility assessment in conjunction with the proposed demolition of an ARSR building."

try again.

heres a link for ya.
arsr4 site locations:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/arsr-4.htm

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

and the description-
"Asbestos and environmental facility assessment in conjunction with the proposed demolition of an ARSR building."

try again.

heres a link for ya.
arsr4 site locations:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/arsr-4.htm

Try again?

Dude, it's there isn't it?!

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by 9/11 Chewy Defense

Try again?

Dude, it's there isn't it?!

heres another. ive showed you pre 911 and post 911.

September 11 attacks generated renewed interest in ATC/defense radars .

then the list....no st albans. and guess what. your link dosent tell what type of arsr type of radar it even was. the new ones are the arsr 4's. they would not be destroying one, they would be building these types.

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:...&ct=clnk&gl=us

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

heres another. ive showed you pre 911 and post 911.

September 11 attacks generated renewed interest in ATC/defense radars .

then the list....no st albans. and guess what. your link dosent tell what type of arsr type of radar it even was. the new ones are the arsr 4's. they would not be destroying one, they would be building these types.

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:...&ct=clnk&gl=us

The main thing is that you're ignoring that it's an ARSR. So whatever type it is, you would still ignore it.

Besides, WTH does that have to do with "disapearing planes"?

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

heres another. ive showed you pre 911 and post 911.

September 11 attacks generated renewed interest in ATC/defense radars .

then the list....no st albans. and guess what. your link dosent tell what type of arsr type of radar it even was. the new ones are the arsr 4's. they would not be destroying one, they would be building these types.

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:...&ct=clnk&gl=us

Utica, New York (NY)

[Obviousman]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

seems nobody has answered my original question yet?

is there anyway that a plane (plane A) could turn of its transponder and another (say a drone plane) put the code of plane A (or another code) into its transponder and basically turn into plane A?

I answered that in post 39.

[gumboot]

Hi Guys,

Just to clear up a pointless little argument, St Albans, VT (QHB) is a FPS-20 series PSR (Primary Surveillance Radar) with a Mode-S SSR (Secondary Surveillance Radar). The PSR became operational on 1 Jan, 1990, and the SSR became operational on 30 Jan, 1996.

I would eyeball the nearest ARSR-4 site from St Albans as North Truro, MA (QEA).

Data is from the FAA's NAS Architecture.