TheGreatGodPan on 17/3/2006 at 18:42
There's too much stupid here to deal with, so I figured I'd point out that only Catholics are supposed to believe in transubstantiation and I doubt the majority actually do believe in it.
SubJeff on 17/3/2006 at 19:11
Quote Posted by Defcon
Very well then.
Four civilian aircraft suddenly turn off their transponders. Now, once they know what they're looking for, they have to search through countless blips trying to find the four specific aircraft.
Oh, and fighter aircraft are also required to ID since radar isn't a magical tool that allows the operators to instantly tell what the blip they're looking at is.
Wait. So now they
could be seen?
The whole point of this line of arguement I am going down is that I do not believe that they could just become radar invisible. Being hard to track amongst other aircraft is not the issue - this is plainly and simply me saying that "But they turned the transponders off" is a ridiculous thing to cling onto.
Of course there would be issues tracking aircraft when the air is full of them.
Sap'em on 17/3/2006 at 19:35
Quote:
Catholics are supposed to believe in transubstantiation and I doubt the majority actually do believe in it.
That's just insulting to Catholics:mad: . Please don't project your own lack of faith unto other people. It doesn't help anyone.
As for the government being behind 911 in some way. We have all seen our government in action - responding to crisis, Iraq, etc. Its no secret its a huge beaucratic mess that operates with all the speed and efficiency of the 12 blind men describing the elephant. I think some people give our government way too much credit. Not to mention, what's being proposed here - mass murder for political capital, is so throughly evil as to be diabolic. I suppose someon with reply with a "Bush is the antichrist" next. Never ascribe to conspiracy what could be explained by incompetence. (some facsimilie thereof):rolleyes:
Defcon on 17/3/2006 at 20:10
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Wait. So now they
could be seen?
The whole point of this line of arguement I am going down is that I do not believe that they could just become radar invisible. Being hard to track amongst other aircraft is not the issue - this is plainly and simply me saying that "But they turned the transponders off" is a ridiculous thing to cling onto.
Of course there would be issues tracking aircraft when the air is full of them.
Hmm. I seem to be arguing very poorly.
Allow me to start over.
Radar is a tool that uses radio waves to locate objects and their distance from the radar site. A transponder is a piece of equipment that broadcasts information such as flight number, status, etc. IIRC, without a transponder all radar can do (if it detects something) is show an object's relative size, speed, and heading.
Most ATC "radar" is, to my knowledge, designed only to pick up transponders. It would probably be very chaotic otherwise.
Now when the hijackers took control of the airplanes, they turned the transponders off, making them invisible to ATC. ATC probably assumed something had happened and tried to establish contact with the planes.
Now, my knowledge is very lacking, so please correct me if I'm wrong. ATC eventually ended up calling NORAD and informing them of what happened. However, I must profess ignorance as to how long this took. NORAD then ordered fighters scrambled.
How long this took and also to vector the fighters to find the missing airplanes I am unaware. I am slightly confident in saying that at least one airplane had crashed into the WTC so it was known that the aircraft were hijacked.
AFAIK, the military really didn't train for situations like that.
SubJeff on 17/3/2006 at 20:31
Fine. We're not disagreeing then. So what was the problem again?
Quote Posted by Defcon
AFAIK, the military really didn't train for situations like that.
Well AFAIK they do and they did and it's documented.
Defcon on 17/3/2006 at 20:33
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Well AFAIK they do and they did and it's documented.
Ah, okay.
Nicker on 17/3/2006 at 20:58
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
There's too much stupid here to deal with, so I figured I'd point out that only Catholics are supposed to believe in transubstantiation and I doubt the majority actually do believe in it.
Wow. Congratulations on a whole new level of shrillness.
Correct me if I am wrong, TGGP but didn't you say you were a Christian in another thread? If so, are you poo-pooing transubstantiation but giving a thumbs up to the resurrection? That seems a tad hypocritical.
Your attitude is rather like the critics of Galileo who refused to look through his telescope at the moons of Jupiter because they knew they weren’t there.
Again, I don’t know what to conclude in terms of a total picture but (
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm) this video (and others depicting sequenced flashes and detonations in all three of the collapsed buildings) says there is more happening than the official explanation can comfortably contain. That three buildings, constructed with two different methods, subjected to three different fires, could all collapse so neatly in such a short period of time. It defies the odds.
paloalto on 17/3/2006 at 21:02
Summary of inconsistancies with Pentagon attack.
(
http://0911.site.voila.fr/BionicAntboy.htm)
A good summation od interesting questions.
Atheory that it was a private plane with a bomb on board.
Rug Burn Junky on 17/3/2006 at 21:05
Please STFU with the "WAAAAH YOU'RE BEING SHRILL!" crap.
Whining about being called a tard doesn't make you seem like any less of a tard.
Agent Monkeysee on 17/3/2006 at 21:21
Quote Posted by Nicker
Correct me if I am wrong, TGGP but didn't you say you were a Christian in another thread? If so, are you poo-pooing transubstantiation but giving a thumbs up to the resurrection? That seems a tad hypocritical.
Do you know what a Christian is?
