A documentary more powerful than Loose Change ... blows the lid off the Inside Job!

[Zook]

Hello Ty,

Posted by Ty (here)
Good morning Zook,
Sorry for the delay in replying but I had to get some work done. Oh to be independently wealthy.

Well ... an argument can be made that with fiat money backing your wallet, and a banking holiday possibly lurking around the corner; that you are, in fact, dependently wealthy. LOL! With the obligatory jokes outta the way, I think we can redirect our aqueous and vitreous humors to the task at hand.


Been very busy myself the last two days. Also, I wanted to watch the CIT video again before I dug into this thread, e.g. to see if I had been errant with my original judgment. No errors, friend. Mind you, I believe in exchanging points of view; but not factual points for faulty ones. The mathematics leaves no room for opinion on this matter. That being said, those who find their arguments or witness testimony in opposition to the Northside Citgo jetliner approach ... must discard their arguments and impeach their witnesses. Period. The mathematics doesn't permit otherwise.

The Northside Citgo witnesses - and in particular three who believed they were confirming the government's larger story of 9/11/2001 (Officers Lagasse and Brooks; and Terry Morin in the Navy Annex) - all support the plane-hit-Pentagon theory. Alas, this is the Achilles Heel of the plane-impact believers. For the plane-impact theory, which the Northsiders support, places the jetliner Southside of Citgo.

Fact: a jetliner approaching the Pentagon from the North side could have impacted the Pentagon in quite a few ways ... but one way that is not available to a Northside Citgo jetliner, e.g. because the mathematics prohibits it, is the attack path and profile of whatever was captured in the CCTV frames that were released to the public. The impacting object - and there definitely appears to be one - could've only come from the Southside of Citgo and at near ground level (as evidenced by the impact hole and angle made through the Pentagon's outer rings). So we have ourselves a dilemma. That's two lemmas, in case you were wondering, one for you and one for me. My lemma conclusively establishes a jetliner approach North of Citgo using credible witness testimony, with virtually all of the witnesses confirming a banking and lifting up of the jetliner just before the fireball. What does this mean? Well, it means that even if the Do Not Enter sign had not been there, the observed lifting up of the jetliner is fatal to the plane-impact theory; and precisely for the reason that the impact area - if created by this Northside jetliner - would be much higher up on the Pentagon wall and at a different angle than the incidence angle of the observed impact-hole. Of course, more likely, it misses the Pentagon altogether because there's just not enough time to adjust the wingflaps for a downforce after lifting up at 350 knots and only 391 feet away from the Pentagon wall.

I already did some preliminary calculations and showed you that we're staring at a time interval of about a half-second (from the DNE-sign to the Pentagon wall). At best, high up on the wall for impact; otherwise, no impact. But because the actual impact has a specific profile (low to the ground; incidence angle; small hole), we can conclude that something else caused that damage. And this necessarily implies a flyover of the Northside jetliner (I mean, it only has two choices here: impact high up on the wall at a different incidence angle; or perform a flyover). There is no evidence for different incidence angle or a high impact zone. Ergo, flyover.

My lemma is solved. But I said dilemma. So ...your lemma is still left unsolved. We don't know what caused the damage to the Pentagon. If you want to invent a second jetliner; go ahead. A missile? That's fine by me, too. Preplanted explosives? Hey, why are you asking me?? That is your lemma, not mine. I've solved my lemma ... the Northside jetliner is real and it experienced a flyover.

[...]
So for now, I stand by my scenario and find yours inconsistent with the evidence and therefore less reasonable. Cheers Zook. The Earth wishes you a happy weekend.

I believe that you are a reasonable man. But even reasonable men can be unreasonable (in exception to the rule). Let's hope you find your rule again.

[Fred259]

Posted by Teakai (here)
Thanks Nairnia, I wonder then - if maybe there is something legitimate to thetheory that both the planes used in the twin towers were holographic. I've not really given that idea much credence - but now that you mention what you have, perhaps all were holographic.

A holograph wouldn't have to follow the rules.

If the whole world is going to be convinced of a new world religion using holograophics it must mean that their technology is extremely advanced.

But then, if a holograph was used, you'd think they would have it taking the 'official' flight path.

Curioser and curioser.

I need to look into this holographic stuff a bit more.

Good Teakai, wow what a classy person you are if I may say so, someone who keeps an open mind despite what everyone else thinks ! You are spot on and this is very important and this is why.

All this talk of aircraft doing 400-450-500 Kts is utterly utterly impossible at sea level, at altitude or 35,000 feet yes but not at sea level. I can explain in a moment but the most important thing is that we need to understand and get this holographic trickery performed on 9/11 as you rightly suggest out to the public, for that is what it was. I know it’s almost hopeless but we must try.

The reason it’s so important is that Bill was sitting zip lip while Charles told him on video to expect a false flag event involving ETs.

This is confirmed in Bills 50 minute commentary where he wrote;

“ The reality of the plan to set up a false flag event to frame the ETs as hostile”

So all this will be taking place in the heaven’s we assume aimed at a global population , and then Harley Hawkins gives his very considered and structured opinion which caused Charles to write –

“Might be an idea not to be sooooo accurate in public in future”

Meanwhile the server is creaking having served up around 400,000 page views on this subject over the last 2 weeks to Avalonians around the globe who are bewildered and confused as to how this is all possible.

The answer of course was the hologram technology was fully functional on 9/11 ten years ago, and if you go back to the Project Camalot site and listen to the interviews Bill and Kerry did with people like Dr Pete Peterson, Richard Hoagland, John Lear, Bob Dean they all say the same thing that the military industrial complex capability is at least fifty years advanced from us in main street, which is why Charles reports that the “33” sit and laugh at us in the alternative media while puffing on cigars and sipping scotch.

In the interview Bill and Kerry did with John Lear I remember John saying he flew Lockheed L1011 Tri-stars 30 years ago so e-mail him and he will tell you in no uncertain terms that its all complete nonsense Muslims flying into buildings, and that it could never happen, and that being the case it could only be holograms (or perhaps another technology) which is what you quite correctly say we all need to understand.

[Zook]

Posted by Fred259 (here)
[...]
The answer of course was the hologram technology was fully functional on 9/11 ten years ago, and if you go back to the Project Camalot site and listen to the interviews Bill and Kerry did with people like Dr Pete Peterson, Richard Hoagland, John Lear, Bob Dean they all say the same thing that the military industrial complex capability is at least fifty years advanced from us in main street, which is why Charles reports that the “33” sit and laugh at us in the alternative media while puffing on cigars and sipping scotch.

In the interview Bill and Kerry did with John Lear I remember John saying he flew Lockheed L1011 Tri-stars 30 years ago so e-mail him and he will tell you in no uncertain terms that its all complete nonsense Muslims flying into buildings, and that it could never happen, and that being the case it could only be holograms (or perhaps another technology) which is what you quite correctly say we all need to understand.

Great ... we can now argue whether it was a holographic flyover or a holographic plane impact!



ps: Well, I hope we can agree that it was not a cave man in Afghanistan (holographic or otherwise) who orchestrated the 9/11/2001 attacks.

[Fred259]

It could only have been the north side Zook, the south approach with those aerobatic turns would have induced a high speed stall at those speeds, so it must have been the north side. Joy riders and sightseers declined on this occasion and with say 8 tons of fuel maybe around 200kts max she, slipped over the top of the pentagon with bags of energy, cut the power, dropped the landing gear, speed washed off then full flap and dropped it into Regan National Aussie style. Taxiing in he takes a call from Cheney and a million dollars in the bank.

Meanwhile the script is handed to CNN, while secret service rush to Citgo to remove the CCTV tape that shows how it was all done.

[Ty]

Posted by Fred259 (here)
Sorry in England we would call him a Director, in the US he would be the CEO.

The engine manufacturer Rolls Royce Plc Derby England, have a subsidiary company in the US Rolls Royce Inc at Indianapolis where they manufacture engines.

Flight 77 was a B757 powered by Rolls Royce engines.

The CEO of Rolls Royce at Indianapolis said “I am not familiar with that engine” He was referring to engine wreckage from the Pentagon. It’s a polite way of saying in diplomatic circles that the engine did not come from a Rolls Royce powered B757.

Likewise in New York. Both aircraft were fitted with General Electric CF6 engines. The engine shown on the sidewalk is not a General Electric CF6 engine.

At both the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre damaged engine parts were neither Rolls Royce RB-211 nor General Electric CF6.

What they did show at New York was the French engine manufacturer Seneca CFM 56 series engine. This engine is unable to lift a 757 / 767 and as such would never be fitted to these aircraft.

In conclusion what they did was take damaged engine parts from the scrap yard and leave them on sidewalks and within the pentagon compound as part of the deception.

Thanks Fred. If there is consensus on those engines then that is a discrepancy that needs a resolution. But too many people saw a plane hit the Pentagon for that to be the answer. It creates bigger holes than it fills.

[Ty]

Posted by Fred259 (here)
Regarding your question about dead passengers.




Airports & Aircraft


It was a paper exercise only.

No aircraft ever left the ground.

The passengers never existed.

Muslims are alive and well today.



Pentagon Hijacker – Alive & Well - Non Pilot – Works in Petro Chem in Saudi – Never been to the United States.

The other two men accused of being terrorists are Salem Al-Hamzi and Ahmed Al-Nami. Mr Al-Hamzi is 26 and had just returned to work at a petrochemical complex in the industrial eastern city of Yanbou after a holiday in Saudi Arabia when the hijackers struck.

“He was accused of hijacking the American Airlines Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon”.
He said: "I have never been to the United States and have not been out of Saudi Arabia in the past two years." The FBI described him as 21 and said that his possible residences were Fort Lee or Wayne, both in New Jersey.




WTC 1 North Tower Hijacker-Alive & Well – Non Pilot – Works for Saudi Telecom.

Mr Al-Omari, who was accused of hijacking the American Airlines plane that smashed into the the World Trade Centre's north tower, said that he was at his desk at the Saudi telecommunications authority in Riyadh when the attacks took place.

He said: "I couldn't believe it when the FBI put me on their list. They gave my name and my date of birth, but I am not a suicide bomber. “I am here. I am alive”. “I have no idea how to fly a plane”. I had nothing to do with this.




Sharpeville Hijacker – Alive & Well – Non Pilot – Works for Saudi Airlines – Never been to Pennsylnania

Mr Al-Nami, 33, from Riyadh, an administrative supervisor with Saudi Arabian Airlines, said that he was in Riyadh when the terrorists struck.He said: “I'm still alive, as you can see. I was shocked to see my name mentioned by the American Justice Department. I had never even heard of Pennsylvania where the plane I was supposed to have hijacked."

Source - London Daily Telegraph – 23 September 2001 HERE
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...dentities.html

Clearly aircraft were involved. Thousands saw them at WTC and hundreds at the Pentagon.

As for the hijackers who are alive and well, the first paragraph of the article explains that:

THEIR names were flashed around the world as suicide hijackers who carried out the attacks on America. But yesterday four innocent men told how their identities had been stolen by Osama bin Laden's teams to cover their tracks.

[Teakai]

Posted by zookumar (here)
Great ... we can now argue whether it was a holographic flyover or a holographic plane impact!



ps: Well, I hope we can agree that it was not a cave man in Afghanistan (holographic or otherwise) who orchestrated the 9/11/2001 attacks.

Well, let's narrow it down. It's absolutely, definitely NOT a plane hit. So, the only options left are
the flyover - which is what I was going for.
or, if we have a 100% legitimate eye witness who saw a plane impact -a holographic illusion.

I can't see any other alternatives to that.

Definitely agree that it wasn't an Afghanisatn cave man what done it.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Ty (here)
Clearly aircraft were involved. Thousands saw them at WTC and hundreds at the Pentagon.

As for the hijackers who are alive and well, the first paragraph of the article explains that:

THEIR names were flashed around the world as suicide hijackers who carried out the attacks on America. But yesterday four innocent men told how their identities had been stolen by Osama bin Laden's teams to cover their tracks.

Just because thousands saw it doesn't mean it has to be genuine. That's the beauty of holographs.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Posted by Teakai (here)
Well, let's narrow it down. It's absolutely, definitely NOT a plane hit. So, the only options left are
the flyover - which is what I was going for.
or, if we have a 100% legitimate eye witness who saw a plane impact -a holographic illusion.

I can't see any other alternatives to that.

Definitely agree that it wasn't an Afghanisatn cave man what done it.

¤=[Post Update]=¤



Just because thousands saw it doesn't mean it has to be genuine. That's the beauty of holographs.

There is zero proof of hologrammes. The burden of proof is on you and those that support this idea. Their (and your proof) so far amount to nothing at all.
IMO the no plane theiory is a total waste of time, not to mention wrong. Its incredibly detrimental to 9/11 truth.

Re-direct your efforts to answer the questions I posted. It would be much more useful in getting a new investigation going. The further you go down your current path and the more time you invest in this, the harder it will be for you to change course. But thats just my advice. Take or leave.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Posted by Fred259 (here)
Eyes Wide Open, you ask in your post:

8). Why did none of the planes squawk the hijack code?

The airport and aircraft side of 9/11 never happened. It was just a sequence of events on paper and played out for the world’s consumption.

.

I respectfully disagree. IMO those flight did take off but the planes were modifed so squaks could not happen. Just my opinion.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

The apparent discrepancies in the FBI's identification of suspects raises many questions but provides few answers. This issue may appear suspicious, but it may reflect an opinion that the "hijackers alive" story just doesn't pose a threat to the official account.

There are many possible explanations for the inclusion of identities of still-living individuals in the FBI's list of suspects, from coincidence to identity theft. The use of assumed identities is consistent with the official account, but is perhaps more consistent with the view that the Arab men on the flight were patsies.

IMO the planes were real. Clearly the thermite and WTC7 is the way to go and has the most hard evidence. Only these thing will get a case re-opened. Holograme theory will never ever achieve that.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Like I said on another thread, download the NIST torrent. There is footage of plane wreckage falling to the ground right after impact with the towers. Indeed. One person is killed by it and another has a near miss.

[Teakai]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
There is zero proof of hologrammes. The burden of proof is on you and those that support this idea. Their (and your proof) so far amount to nothing at all.
IMO the no plane theiory is a total waste of time, not to mention wrong. Its incredibly detrimental to 9/11 truth.

Re-direct your efforts to answer the questions I posted. It would be much more useful in getting a new investigation going. The further you go down your current path and the more time you invest in this, the harder it will be for you to change course. But thats just my advice. Take or leave.

That's OK, Eye wide open, I have no interest in proving anything to anyone - they can figure it out for themselves using their own brain and reason.

Evidence shows me the official story isn't true - anything after that is reasonably unimportant and largely speculaltive, all round.

'They' are not interested in starting a new investigation. Just like Obama's birth certificate and auditing the Fed - it doesn't matter how much noise people make 'they' are going to carry on with the order of business - because 'they' can.

[Ty]

Good day Zook and Teakai,

Just want to get your take on the following...

Posted by zookumar (here)
Well ... an argument can be made that with fiat money backing your wallet, and a banking holiday possibly lurking around the corner; that you are, in fact, *dependently* wealthy. LOL!

I would be happy with dependently wealthy as well my friend.

Posted by zookumar (here)
The mathematics leaves no room for opinion on this matter. That being said, those who find their arguments or witness testimony *in opposition* to the Northside Citgo jetliner approach ... must discard their arguments and impeach their witnesses. Period. The mathematics doesn't permit otherwise.

Posted by Teakai (here)
And the math that says that if a plane went through it would have knocked down all the pillars in its path, not left some standing in its wake. That's phsyics, I think

Teakai - I'm not familiar with phsyics. Is that the study of icky phsycological stuff?

Well I haven't had a chance to look at the vids Teakai posted yet. Too busy being dependently not wealthy.

When I do I want try and view them from your perspective and keep my remarks as on target and reasonable as possible. Us linear, analytical and procedural types put much faith in science.

So I want to make sure I understand your reasoning here. In short, that the math trumps opposing eyewitness accounts. That because it supports the northern path and rules out the southern path it confirms the testimony of the witnesses in the original documentary. Correct?

And that because those witnesses' testimony is confimrmed by the math, that the hundreds of other eywitness testimonies must be mistaken. Is that correct?

Posted by zookumar (here)
Fact: a jetliner approaching the Pentagon from the North side could have impacted the Pentagon in quite a few ways ... but one way that is not available to a Northside Citgo jetliner, e.g. because the mathematics prohibits it, is the attack path and profile of whatever was captured in the CCTV frames that were released to the public.

And because the plane approached from the north, as confirmed by those witnesses and the math, that the CCTV frames are bogus.

Posted by zookumar (here)
My lemma conclusively establishes a jetliner approach North of Citgo using *credible witness testimony*, with virtually all of the witnesses confirming a banking and lifting up of the jetliner just before the fireball. What does this mean? Well, it means that even if the Do Not Enter sign had not been there, the _observed lifting up of the jetliner_ is fatal to the plane-impact theory; and precisely for the reason that the impact area - if created by this Northside jetliner - would be much higher up on the Pentagon wall and at a different angle than the incidence angle of the observed impact-hole. Of course, more likely, it misses the Pentagon altogether because there's just *not enough time* to adjust the wingflaps for a downforce after lifting up at 350 knots and only 391 feet away from the Pentagon wall.

So, again, it's the math that makes these witnesses credible but not the others. Correct?

Posted by zookumar (here)
I already did some preliminary calculations and showed you that we're staring at a time interval of about a half-second (from the DNE-sign to the Pentagon wall). At best, high up on the wall for impact; otherwise, no impact. But because the actual impact has a specific profile (low to the ground; incidence angle; small hole), we can conclude that something else caused that damage. And this necessarily implies a flyover of the Northside jetliner (I mean, it only has two choices here: impact high up on the wall at a different incidence angle; or perform a flyover). There is no evidence for different incidence angle or a high impact zone. Ergo, flyover.

Unless the plane was descending (as we know it was) and the "lift up" was only a change in the descent path.

Posted by zookumar (here)
My lemma is solved. But I said dilemma. So ...your lemma is still left unsolved. We don't know what caused the damage to the Pentagon. If you want to invent a second jetliner; go ahead. A missile? That's fine by me, too. Preplanted explosives? Hey, why are you asking me?? That is your lemma, not mine. I've solved my lemma ... the Northside jetliner is real and it experienced a flyover.

Based on the eyewitness testimonies and the math. Correct?

Busy day here. I hope to get to the vids this evening and maybe a response tomorrow but who knows?

Have a great day all.

[3optic]

Posted by Fred259 (here)
Joy riders and sightseers declined on this occasion and with say 8 tons of fuel maybe around 200kts max she, slipped over the top of the pentagon with bags of energy, cut the power, dropped the landing gear, speed washed off then full flap and dropped it into Regan National Aussie style.

Huh what???

[3optic]

Originally Posted by Ty :
And because the plane approached from the north, as confirmed by those witnesses and the math, that the CCTV frames are bogus.

I believe Zook said the official "attack path and profile" are what's bogus.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Ty (here)
There are problems with the official story.

That's sufficient. We don't know what happened, but the official story is not it.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
Finally, note that “endorsements” are a good way to pit people against each other, and that’s exactly what has been done. There has never been another issue in the truth movement that has required the pursuit of endorsements but, for some reason, this least important question about the Pentagon is promoted as an important issue requiring us to divide into camps. Divide and conquer is the strategy of the intentional disruptor.

In other words, what hit the Pentagon does not bring us closer to justice but actually brings us farther from that goal because it exacerbates the divisions within the truth movement while we waste time. That’s probably why the intentional disruptors and government supporters always drive the conversations to that one question.

People who are serious about 9/11 truth and justice focus on the facts that help us come not only to truth, but to a useful truth. We should make only minimal reference to any facts that do not help us achieve truth and justice. Instead, we should make note that what hit the Pentagon, for example, is a minor and nearly useless issue that is used by intentional disruptors and official story promoters as they work to keep the truth from being exposed.

Well said. Some questions (given the information and disinformation currently available) are diversions, leading only to divisions within and distractions from truth effort.

[Fred259]

Posted by Ty (here)
Thanks Fred. If there is consensus on those engines then that is a discrepancy that needs a resolution. But too many people saw a plane hit the Pentagon for that to be the answer. It creates bigger holes than it fills.

If flight 77 a Rolls Royce powered 757 went into the pentagon, then please produce two badly damaged Rolls Royce engines.

What they give you is a picture with a back end turbine disc that didn’t come from a Rolls Royce engine. This caused the CEO of RR in Indi to scratch his head and ponder what was going on. We are not talking about the apprentice or mechanic, he was the CEO the boss.

You say in your post that “People saw a plane hit the Pentagon” so we are not talking about the aircraft that went over the Navy Annex we are talking as you say an aircraft that actually penetrated the pentagon. Agreed.

Elsewhere on the forum I will try and find it I saw TY, seriously I saw a video of a Hologram where an Italian engineer in good English was giving a presentation while holding a long stem flower with a large red rose bud. While he was talking and in the middle of his presentation the long stem flower turned into a child’s green wand. That is to say he just continued talking and the hologram turned from a flower to a child’s wand.

In the same presentation the Silver Audi TT sports car became a Pink Audi TT sports car. It was definitely a silver Audi TT officer, I saw a silver Audi, and it was without question silver officer, I saw it.

Around 5 years ago I had a total freak out in a hotel room while reading and listening to Bills masterpiece interview with Ralph Ring and Otis T. Carr. In short and borrowing Bills expression “a bunch of guys” in the 1950s (no typo) designed, built and flew a 50 foot flying saucer using circular electromagnets all designed on a piece of A4 typing paper.

Camelot Library Quote

“In a dramatic experiment, Ring co-piloted a 45 foot disk a distance of ten miles, arriving at their destination instantaneously. Ring, now aged 71, tells his story –the first time it has been reported”. http://www.projectcamelot.org/ralph_ring.html

So let’s just stop and reflect for a moment. Imagine Ty you and me sitting in the shade under a tree drinking soda. Its 1959, 51 years ago and we are discussing what was going on within the aviation industry.

In England the Bristol Britannia a large turboprop was in passenger service with the Comet about to enter service. Elsewhere at St Louis McDonnell Douglas were producing even larger turboprops with the DC7, and the new DC8 a jet. In Seattle Boeing had just test piloted the B707 with the all new Pratt Witney JD3 turbojet engine. The dawn of the jet age, exciting times.

Instantaneously a flying saucer lands right in front of us 20 feet away. Remember its 1959. The hatch opens and out pops Ralph Ring! He wonders over, seriously you would freak out wouldn’t you, a moment ago we were discussing turboprops, what the hell is this and more to the point where did it come from.

During these exciting times in the mid 1950s Ralph Ring and Otis Carr didn’t go knocking on the door at St Louis or Seattle wanting to help design aircraft. Instead they took A4 white paper and used knowledge and skill and crafted a new “air craft”

It’s the same with Holograms and with 9/11. We need to open our minds to these developments.

Teakai has done just that and pushed her brain into neutral just as Ralph Ring and Otis T Carr did 50-60 years ago. So when Teakai comes back shortly with knowledge on holograms are we need to be on the same mental state and frequency to receive her wisdom and understanding.

I thoroughly thoroughly recommend this video and paper.

[Fred259]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
There is zero proof of hologrammes. The burden of proof is on you and those that support this idea. Their (and your proof) so far amount to nothing at all.
IMO the no plane theiory is a total waste of time, not to mention wrong. Its incredibly detrimental to 9/11 truth.

Re-direct your efforts to answer the questions I posted. It would be much more useful in getting a new investigation going. The further you go down your current path and the more time you invest in this, the harder it will be for you to change course. But thats just my advice. Take or leave.

The problem is we don’t as yet understand Hologrammes, but in time we will and truth will prevail.

[Chicodoodoo]

We've been tricked, that much is clear. Yet the guilty are still running around free, still running the show, and still living in luxury. That can only happen if they have all almost the control, and we have almost none. That's about as bad as it can get. 9/11 is probably our best opportunity to turn things around, and after almost ten years, it hasn't happened. The PTB must be absolutely convinced that we are imbeciles. No wonder they can suggest with a straight face that fireworks killed thousands of birds in Beebe, AR.

[Fred259]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
I respectfully disagree. IMO those flight did take off but the planes were modifed so squaks could not happen. Just my opinion.

It’s a transponder, it transmits and responds. It’s just a box with On, Off, Standby and Squawk. Air traffic control call and give a 4 digit number. The pilot selects standby, inserts the number, and then press squawk.

The ground base SSR now interrogates the aircraft, and the aircraft responds with its designated code. The squawk number now paints on the radar controller’s screen permanently or till instructed to change the number. On a short flight London / Paris its not unusual to change the squawk code 4 perhaps even 5 times.

It’s common to go through 10-15 different sets of numbers in a day. Air traffic always issue the numbers. However in an emergency the pilot will select 7500 for Hijack, 7600 for a radio failure and 7700 for Mayday. Now the aircraft is telling ATC the nature of the problem.

The transponder also gives out the aircrafts altitude.