[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[SOMERLED]

Do you really think that these people couldn't find north without GPS ? Geez, man. They had piloting training. I'm sure they could use maps.

These maps that you are sure the hijackers can read. Who took those on board?

 

[SOMERLED]

No, I'm not talking about conspiracy theorists, the very people who originated the claim, malcolm. BTW, please do show where George Nelson, Glen Standish and Nila Sagadevin say that the WTC2 aircraft didn't look like a 767-200. I don't think you'll be able to do it. Anyways, I'm talking about people who have spent their lives around airliners and who haven't been exposed to the outlandish claim that the 767-200 in all the WTC vids isn't a 767-200 at all. You wouldn't even have to mention the conspiracy at all, just show a few of the stills which depicted the plane and ask the regulars to identify it. If it's not a UA 762, they should all be able to confirm that, but I'd be impressed if you find a single one who isn't a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who does.

I tink you are putting the cart before the horse here. In other words you have things the wrong way round. I am not anybody's theorist, I am simply following the evidence. I didn't originally recognise the engine at the crime scene as a CFM 56. Furthermore, I don't solely rely upon the three pilots and the thirty year Boeing veteran quoted above. Here is a website full of pilots. who provide for me, ample evidence that 175 did not hit the south tower.
Should you get them to change their collective mind, then I too will agree.
Until then, I have to conclude that 175 did not hit tower 2.
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
The question that usually follows the assertion that 175 did not hit the south tower, is;
What then, did happen to 175?
Going down that road, leads me to Cleveland and probably the Bering Sea.
However, a much more fruitful line of enquiry, is to ask the question;
As 175 did not hit the south tower, then what did?
Now, the evidence leads to Offutt AFB.

 

[SOMERLED]

the scenarios you were given were much more in depth than this (i know because i wrote one) but yes, before and on 9/11/2001 this was a viable scenario

would you care to explain why is isnt?

why would it be impossible to get a boxcutter/razor knife, pocket knife, and gps on board a plane where there were no regulations preventing this?

why would men who have recieved combat training not be able to wrest control of an aircraft from a flight crew trained to cooperate with hijackers?

why would a liscensed commercial pilot not be able to navigate to within visual range of 2 of the worlds tallest buildings?

why would a 146,000 pound aircraft travelling at 500+ mph not be able to punch a hole in the side of a building?


also, you have not provided any evidence that a military version of a 767 is any stronger than the civil version (the empty weight of an E-767 is the same as the empty weight of a 767-300, so it doesnt seem like its very heavily modified)

I said the plane was modified in the Boeing hangar at Offutt AFB.
Modification would involve strengthening the wings as necessary.

 

[SOMERLED]

Raytheon builds UAVs and UAV flight systems. This is neither nefarious nor all that shocking, especially since Raython puts out press releases on their DoD activities.

Raytheon is on of the top 5 largest DoD contractors (depending on how you measure it) in the USA and deals with far more than "small executive jets". This claim is nonsense and akin to claiming that General Motors deals only with "compact cars".

But there's nothing against automated emergency landing systems. Or automated cargo systems. Or automated military systems. Or automated survey and recon systems. Or a thousand other possible automated flight systems that have nothing to do with civilian passenger flight or flying "armored 767s" into buildings.

So were, in all likelihood, dozens of other DoD contractors. I'll bet Grumman was there too. Ditto BAE and L3. I'll bet Honeywell was skulking around somewhere and General Dynamics was even lurking.

You've yet to reveal what Raytheon and Boeing being at an air base has to do with anything, and sliming Boeing with this claim does nothing to add to your empty claims. Boeing was sued for anticompetitive practices by rival companies, and that claim having merit or no merit does nothing to support your suggestion that they plotted to destroy WTC2.

I prefer strawberry jelly to grape. This proves the HMS Titanic was sunk by the Germans, right? The military also prefers a lack of clouds, rain, a lot of good intelligence, clear dossiers on their enemies and lots of other things that do not apply here.

What. are. you. talking. about?

The first time in US history that a politician was placed in control of our military was when George Washington was elected president. If you want a man with zero military connection you have to go forward to John Adams, our second president.

The civilian side of the airfield is open 24/7. I fail to see why we should care.

16-19 are of no consequence to this discussion.

Source?

I've put you in the driving seat, now what heading is it for New York?
Carry on without turning and we'll soon be in Canada. Anything from 340 to 10
degrees will still put us in Canada. You are now in the pilot's seat. What will be your heading for New York.

How about we follow the Atlantic coastline?

North or south?

 

[CHF]

I can't believe this thread has lasted 34 pages.

 

[SOMERLED]

(repetitive)False statements bolded.



Raytheon never flew any passenger planes by remote control. This is simply a case of Tr00fers not knowing what the hell they're talking about. Imagine that.

The last section of my remote takeover paper, which Pomeroo linked above, goes over the claims, the systems, what actually took place, and what didn't take place....

• August 25, 2001 - Raytheon and the U.S. Air Force successfully auto lands a pilot-less FedEx Boeing 727 six times at Holloman AFB, NM using a military GPS landing system that will enable ground control to take control of a hijacked airplane and force land it.

(TRANSLATED): "A forced landing system developed in the USA will make plane hijackings more difficult: in case of emergency the crew operates a switch - and the machine steers automatically to the next airport.
The times for an airplane kidnapper are becoming harder: in America engineers are working to land kidnapped machines in the future by an improved autopilot without assistance of the cockpit on the nearest airport - an emergency switch, that a ground control operates crew; the levers in the airplane are then blocked and the kidnappers can no longer control the plane from the hand controls.
According to a recent news release, technicians of US aviation and arms company Raytheon already in August landed a passenger aircraft six times successfully on the military airport at Holloman, New Mexico. The plane was equipped with a special forced landing system without any pilots.
The Boeing 727 oriented itself not, as usual, with the radar signals at the end of the runway, but by a combination of GPS satellite and ground signals, which help, to exactly compute the altitude * and thus the necessary angle of approach * with deviation no greater than one meter." - Der Spiegel (10/28/01) [Reprinted and translated at: Cooperative Research]

"A government-industry team accomplished the first precision approach by a civil aircraft using a military Global Positioning System (GPS) landing system Aug. 25 at Holloman AFB, N.M., Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) announced today.
A FedEx Express 727-200 Aircraft equipped with a Rockwell-Collins GNLU-930 Multi-Mode Receiver landed using a Raytheon-developed military ground station. Raytheon designed and developed the differential GPS ground station under an Air Force contract for the Joint Precision Approach and Landings System (JPALS) program. The JPALS system is being developed to meet the Defense Department's need for an anti-jam, secure, all weather Category II/III aircraft landing system that will be fully interoperable with planned civil systems utilizing the same technology. Raytheon and the U.S. Air Force have been conducting extensive flight testing for JPALS at Holloman over the last three months.
The FedEx Express 727-200 aircraft at Holloman successfully conducted a total of sixteen Category I approaches. After completing a number of pilot flown approaches for reference the aircraft conducted six full autolands using the JPALS ground station. "The consistency of the approaches allowed us to proceed to actual autolandings with very little delay," said Steve Kuhar, Senior Technical Advisor Flight Department for FedEx Express. The aircraft was guided by differential GPS corrections, integrity information, and precision approach path points transmitted from the Raytheon developed JPALS ground station. Although the approaches were restricted to Category I, accuracies sufficient to meet Cat II/III requirements were observed.
Raytheon is the world leader in designing and building satellite-based navigation and landing solutions for civil and military applications. In addition to developing JPALS for the Department of Defense, Raytheon is also developing both the Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) and the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) for the Federal Aviation Administration. The JPALS and LAAS will provide an interoperable landing capability for military and civil applications." - PR Newswire/Raytheon (10/01/01) [Also: Space Daily; Microcom's Space Newsfeed]

"The current flight testing was a continuation of Raytheon's LAAS ground station test program which also included flight tests in August 2001 with a FedEx Express Boeing 727-200 aircraft equipped with a Rockwell-Collins GNLU-930 MMR with GLS software. During those tests, civil-military interoperability of LAAS was demonstrated with Raytheon's civil LAAS ground station in Salt Lake City, and its military joint precision approach and landing system (JPALS) ground station at Holloman AFB in Alamagordo, N.M." - Raytheon (02/21/02)

"Rockwell Collins has successfully completed light tests of the industry’s first Microwave Landing System (MLS) receiver fully integrated in a Multi-Mode Receiver (MMR). Technical Standard Order approval for the Rockwell Collins MMR is expected in the first quarter of next year. Initial production deliveries will be made to the United States Air Force to meet their MLS requirements.
The flight tests included more than 100 MLS approaches at twelve airports in the United States and Europe equipped with military and commercial MLS ground stations from four providers. The results demonstrated the Category IIIb capabilities of the MMR’s integrated MLS module. The flights were conducted with U.S. Federal Aviation Authority and European Civil Aviation Authority oversight, and with cooperation of National Aerospace Laboratory of the Netherlands.
In addition to the MLS Cat IIIb demonstration, Rockwell Collins recently demonstrated GPS Landing System (GLS) Cat I capability at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. " - Rockwell Collins (11/01/01)

 

[SOMERLED]

You have done nothing of the sort. You have shown that you do not understand collision physics, and that you don't understand probability and the human psyche. That is not proof that 175 did not hit the tower. That is proof of your ignorance, plain and simple.



That's not how science works. That's not how an investigation works. Please get an education in these matters. Then we can immediately proceed.



People can break wooden planks with their hands. They can also break their hands with a wooden plank. Explain this.



You forgot Japan.



Well, that's easy:

1- Get onboard plane
2- Threaten crew with knives
3- Deactivate transponder
4- Alter course to NYC



I am ASKING you to tell me if you think D-Day happened, seeing that it wasn't certain to succeed.

People cannot break steel with their hands.
Ergo, steel is stronger than both aluminium sheeting and bone.

 

[SOMERLED]

I just realized something about a couple of Malcom's initial points:
Apparently, you think that the plane Raytheon flew by remote control was a large commercial plane. Y'know, a small executive jet is also a "passenger jet," and I had assumed that this was the kind of plane flown, without realizing that you somehow thought that it had to be a big commercial jet.

Unless you can provide evidence that this remote-controlled plane was something other than a small executive jet, I will continue to assume that it was that.

ETA: Nevermind, I found the relevant info here. It was a 727, but it was not "remote control," but simply an automated landing system based off GPS. The planes did not take off with the system, and there were pilots on board. Remote control would imply that the people controlling the system were not on the plane. We've had automated landing systems for a long time, what was new about this one was that it was based on Differential GPS and not traditional approach beacons. Ho-hum.

The info you refer to states a 737, not a 727.

 

[jsfisher]

These maps that you are sure the hijackers can read. Who took those on board?

Oh my God, good point! Any hijacker attempting to bring a pilot's sectional map on board surely would have been stopped at the security checkpoint--maybe even shot. Then again, just maybe the hijackers may have been able to locate the maps the pilots themselves brought on board.

Barring all that, if for no other reason that it is just so improbable such maps could have been smuggled onto the flight, just maybe prominent land features, such as the Hudson River, may have been useful references.

...just a guess...

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

People cannot break steel with their hands.
Ergo, steel is stronger than both aluminium sheeting and bone.

Would you agree that steel is also stronger than lead or copper?

 

[Par]

People cannot break steel with their hands.
Ergo, steel is stronger than both aluminium sheeting and bone.

That is such a classic non sequitur that it could serve as an example in an encyclopaedia.

 

[CurtC]

The info you refer to states a 737, not a 727.

No, it says that the tests conducted in August 2001, the ones you referred to but provided links to only a few minutes ago, were with a 727-200. Say this slowly: reading comprehension.

Further, the Der Speigel article you provided us with seems to have misunderstood what happened. The article implies that the purpose of the system was to thwart hijackings, and it implies that once activated, it could override control inputs from humans in the cockpit.

Neither of those is true. The purpose of the system is to land the plane in poor visibility, just like current automated systems, except this one uses GPS and not the more complex traditional ILS equipment.

Also, no Boeing planes have automated controls that can override pilot inputs. There are some newer Airbuses that are fly-by-wire which will override the pilots, but Boeing's philosophy is that the pilot has to be given the ultimate authority. Further, the 727, 737, 757, and 767 all have mechanical control linkages, so even trying to design a replacement system that could override the pilots would not be practical.

 

[Corsair 115]

These maps that you are sure the hijackers can read. Who took those on board?

You are not familiar with what is on board an aircraft then. In the cockpit, the pilots have available all manner of printed material to assist them. This includes the various checklists (start-up, take-off, descent, landing, and shut down), the aircraft operating manual (which includes the specific procedures to be followed for different types of problems and emergencies), as well as the appropriate maps and charts for that flight.

The times I flew on the jump seat in the cockpit on commerical flights, the pilots had with them fairly large briefcases which held much of this material. Admittedly, this was many years ago, but I highly doubt aircraft operation has gone paperless.

D Day was indeed presented to the Germans as a hoax.

That is incomplete at best. It is far more accurate to say a landing at Pas-de-Calais was the "hoax" as you put it. But the rest of the operation was most certainly real, and much was done to prevent the Germans from discovering that the actual landing area was to be in the Normandy region.

There was no attempt to fool the Germans into thinking there would be no cross-channel invasion; there was much effort put into deceiving the Germans as to the invasion's actual landing zone.

 

[SOMERLED]

No, it says that the tests conducted in August 2001, the ones you referred to but provided links to only a few minutes ago, were with a 727-200. Say this slowly: reading comprehension.

Further, the Der Speigel article you provided us with seems to have misunderstood what happened. The article implies that the purpose of the system was to thwart hijackings, and it implies that once activated, it could override control inputs from humans in the cockpit.

Neither of those is true. The purpose of the system is to land the plane in poor visibility, just like current automated systems, except this one uses GPS and not the more complex traditional ILS equipment.

Also, no Boeing planes have automated controls that can override pilot inputs. There are some newer Airbuses that are fly-by-wire which will override the pilots, but Boeing's philosophy is that the pilot has to be given the ultimate authority. Further, the 727, 737, 757, and 767 all have mechanical control linkages, so even trying to design a replacement system that could override the pilots would not be practical.

The aircraft, a Boeing 737-900, equipped with Rockwell-Collins GLU-920 Multi-Mode receivers (MMR) with GLS software, utilized differential GPS corrections and precision approach path data uplinked from a Raytheon RAYNAV-4100 Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) ground facility at the Salt Lake City Airport. A series of autocoupled (hands-off) approaches, through touchdown and rollout, were conducted using two different runways.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Further, the Der Speigel article you provided us with seems to have misunderstood what happened. The article implies that the purpose of the system was to thwart hijackings, and it implies that once activated, it could override control inputs from humans in the cockpit.

Another point--the article was clearly "translated" using Babelfish or some other rudimentary word-conversion program, so it's difficult to be certain exactly what is being implied.

 

[SOMERLED]

You are not familiar with what is on board an aircraft then. In the cockpit, the pilots have available all manner of printed material to assist them. This includes the various checklists (start-up, take-off, descent, landing, and shut down), the aircraft operating manual (which includes the specific procedures to be followed for different types of problems and emergencies), as well as the appropriate maps and charts for that flight.

The times I flew on the jump seat in the cockpit on commerical flights, the pilots had with them fairly large briefcases which held much of this material. Admittedly, this was many years ago, but I highly doubt aircraft operation has gone paperless.

That is incomplete at best. It is far more accurate to say a landing at Pas-de-Calais was the "hoax" as you put it. But the rest of the operation was most certainly real, and much was done to prevent the Germans from discovering that the actual landing area was to be in the Normandy region.

There was no attempt to fool the Germans into thinking there would be no cross-channel invasion; there was much effort put into deceiving the Germans as to the invasion's actual landing zone.

Is "highly doubt" quite good enough?
How can you be sure that a pilot flying from Logan to the west coast, will take with him maps from the Great Lakes to New York, why should he?

A Spanish double agent convinced the Nazis that the main invasion was going to take place at Calais, and that the Normandy attack was just a diversion.
http://www.johndclare.net/wwii9.htm

 

[SOMERLED]

Would you agree that steel is also stronger than lead or copper?

Indupitably.

 

[apathoid]

The aircraft, a Boeing 737-900, equipped with Rockwell-Collins GLU-920 Multi-Mode receivers (MMR) with GLS software, utilized differential GPS corrections and precision approach path data uplinked from a Raytheon RAYNAV-4100 Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) ground facility at the Salt Lake City Airport. A series of autocoupled (hands-off) approaches, through touchdown and rollout, were conducted using two different runways.

Nice copy/paste. Have you read your membership agreement? Perhaps you should because you've violated forum rules by not using the link and/or quote function in this post.

http://www.osamawasframed.com/dronetesting.html

There I did it for you. Now, do you have any idea what the above means and can you put it in laymans terms for us?

 

[SpitfireIX]

Is "highly doubt" quite good enough?
How can you be sure that a pilot flying from Logan to the west coast, will take with him maps from the Great Lakes to New York, why should he?

I'm sorry, but this is quite frankly an absurd question. What if the plane has to make an emergency landing?? Furthermore, you still haven't explained why the hijackers couldn't simply have brought any necessary maps with them.

 

[apathoid]

One of these is not like the others.....Okay, lets sort fact from fiction.

• August 25, 2001 - Raytheon and the U.S. Air Force successfully auto lands a pilot-less FedEx Boeing 727 six times at Holloman AFB, NM using a military GPS landing system that will enable ground control to take control of a hijacked airplane and force land it.

(TRANSLATED): "A forced landing system developed in the USA will make plane hijackings more difficult: in case of emergency the crew operates a switch - and the machine steers automatically to the next airport.
The times for an airplane kidnapper are becoming harder: in America engineers are working to land kidnapped machines in the future by an improved autopilot without assistance of the cockpit on the nearest airport - an emergency switch, that a ground control operates crew; the levers in the airplane are then blocked and the kidnappers can no longer control the plane from the hand controls.
According to a recent news release, technicians of US aviation and arms company Raytheon already in August landed a passenger aircraft six times successfully on the military airport at Holloman, New Mexico. The plane was equipped with a special forced landing system without any pilots.
The Boeing 727 oriented itself not, as usual, with the radar signals at the end of the runway, but by a combination of GPS satellite and ground signals, which help, to exactly compute the altitude * and thus the necessary angle of approach * with deviation no greater than one meter." - Der Spiegel (10/28/01) [Reprinted and translated at: Cooperative Research]

"A government-industry team accomplished the first precision approach by a civil aircraft using a military Global Positioning System (GPS) landing system Aug. 25 at Holloman AFB, N.M., Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) announced today.
A FedEx Express 727-200 Aircraft equipped with a Rockwell-Collins GNLU-930 Multi-Mode Receiver landed using a Raytheon-developed military ground station. Raytheon designed and developed the differential GPS ground station under an Air Force contract for the Joint Precision Approach and Landings System (JPALS) program. The JPALS system is being developed to meet the Defense Department's need for an anti-jam, secure, all weather Category II/III aircraft landing system that will be fully interoperable with planned civil systems utilizing the same technology. Raytheon and the U.S. Air Force have been conducting extensive flight testing for JPALS at Holloman over the last three months.
The FedEx Express 727-200 aircraft at Holloman successfully conducted a total of sixteen Category I approaches. After completing a number of pilot flown approaches for reference the aircraft conducted six full autolands using the JPALS ground station. "The consistency of the approaches allowed us to proceed to actual autolandings with very little delay," said Steve Kuhar, Senior Technical Advisor Flight Department for FedEx Express. The aircraft was guided by differential GPS corrections, integrity information, and precision approach path points transmitted from the Raytheon developed JPALS ground station. Although the approaches were restricted to Category I, accuracies sufficient to meet Cat II/III requirements were observed.
Raytheon is the world leader in designing and building satellite-based navigation and landing solutions for civil and military applications. In addition to developing JPALS for the Department of Defense, Raytheon is also developing both the Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) and the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) for the Federal Aviation Administration. The JPALS and LAAS will provide an interoperable landing capability for military and civil applications." - PR Newswire/Raytheon (10/01/01) [Also: Space Daily; Microcom's Space Newsfeed]

"The current flight testing was a continuation of Raytheon's LAAS ground station test program which also included flight tests in August 2001 with a FedEx Express Boeing 727-200 aircraft equipped with a Rockwell-Collins GNLU-930 MMR with GLS software. During those tests, civil-military interoperability of LAAS was demonstrated with Raytheon's civil LAAS ground station in Salt Lake City, and its military joint precision approach and landing system (JPALS) ground station at Holloman AFB in Alamagordo, N.M." - Raytheon (02/21/02)

"Rockwell Collins has successfully completed light tests of the industry’s first Microwave Landing System (MLS) receiver fully integrated in a Multi-Mode Receiver (MMR). Technical Standard Order approval for the Rockwell Collins MMR is expected in the first quarter of next year. Initial production deliveries will be made to the United States Air Force to meet their MLS requirements.
The flight tests included more than 100 MLS approaches at twelve airports in the United States and Europe equipped with military and commercial MLS ground stations from four providers. The results demonstrated the Category IIIb capabilities of the MMR’s integrated MLS module. The flights were conducted with U.S. Federal Aviation Authority and European Civil Aviation Authority oversight, and with cooperation of National Aerospace Laboratory of the Netherlands.
In addition to the MLS Cat IIIb demonstration, Rockwell Collins recently demonstrated GPS Landing System (GLS) Cat I capability at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. " - Rockwell Collins (11/01/01)