[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[mortimer]

I refer you to post 2289.

Funny. That's the post I repied to (and quoted).

Now, did that Coke can have a bomb in it, or are you going to retract your claim that explosions indicate explosive devices like bombs?

 

[SOMERLED]

What I'm saying is that the conspirators wouldn't need to install a NASA style 'remote control system' because it's sort of a built-in feature in the 767. By "sort of" I mean - a nearly fully autonomous flight control system - kind of like a cruise missile, rather than an RC airplane. The only thing missing is an automatic takeoff system(the 767 autopilot is already capable of tracking the runway centerline after touchdown during autolands), a means to raise the landing gear electronically after takeoff(the flaps needn't be extended), and a way to communicate with ATC.

To answer your question - it's really kind of moot. Any conspirator who knew anything about modern airliners wouldn't install an RC system to begin with, they'd augment the existing one. To install an RC system on the 767, independent of the autopilot computers and autopilot servos - you'd need to redesign the flight controls, adding servomotors to the cable inputs to the aileron, elevator and rudder actuators(and in the case of the ailerons, servos that can overcome the 3000 psi of hydraulic pressure sitting at the aileron input cables), new cable runs to accommodate the new servos, and possibly control linkage if you wanted to tap the hydraulics and bypass the actuators. After all that work, they'd probably elect not to use the existing autopilot for their drone flying. If they did, well, the control cables would probably snap.

Was it technically viable in August 2001 to manually taxi a large plane to the head of a runway, to then exit the plane with engines running and have someone in say an executive jet take the people empty plane over and get it airborne and headed east?

 

[SOMERLED]

Pardon me for coming in late, what is your theory about what happened to flight 175?

Here is an account from CNN.


http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cach...ight+175+transcript&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us

United Flight 175

United Flight 175 left Boston at 8:14 a.m. The controller watching the plane was the same one tracking Flight 11. At about 8:47 a.m., someone on United 175 changed the transponder code twice. The change went unnoticed for four minutes. After trying for several minutes to reach the cockpit of 175, the controller told a co-worker that there might be another hijacking.

The word of a second hijacking made its way up the chain of command, but top-level managers were in a meeting, presumably discussing Flight 11.

About 9:01 a.m., a manager from the FAA's New York Center called the national Air Traffic Control System Command Center.

New York Center: We have several situations going on here. It's escalating big, big time. We need to get the military involved with us. ...

We're, we're involved with something else; we have other aircraft that may have a similar situation going on here.

At about the same time, the FAA's New York Center contacted the New York terminal approach control about Flight 175.

Terminal: I got somebody who keeps coasting, but it looks like he's going into one of the small airports down there.

New York Center: Hold on a second. I'm trying to bring him up here and get you. ... There he is right there. Hold on.

Terminal: Got him just out of 9,500 ... 9,000 now.

New York Center: Do you know who he is?

Terminal: We're just, we just we don't know who he is. We're just picking him up now.

New York Center (at 9:02 a.m.): All right. Heads up man, it looks like another one coming in.

United 175 crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center at 9:03 a.m.

In Boston, a manager discussed the first hijacker transmission from American 11 on a ongoing conference call.

Boston Center: Hey ... you still there?

New England Region: Yes, I am.

Boston Center: I'm gonna reconfirm with, with downstairs, but the, as far as the tape ... seemed to think the guy said that "we have planes." Now, I don't know if it was because it was the accent, or if there's more than one, but I'm gonna, I'm gonna reconfirm that for you, and I'll get back to you real quick. OK?

New England Region: Appreciate it.

Unidentified female voice: They have what?

Boston Center: Planes, as in plural.

Boston Center: It sounds like, we're talking to New York, that there's another one aimed at the World Trade Center.

New England Region: There's another aircraft?

Boston Center: A second one just hit the trade center.

New England Region: OK. Yeah, we gotta get ... we gotta alert the military real quick on this.

NORAD was notified at 9:03 a.m., and five minutes later decided to change the course of the fighters that had been scrambled from Otis Air Force Base.

I haven't given a lot of thought to what actually happened minute by minute. I knew that the ATC tapes had been collected and destroyed, so rather than go down the road of dismantling the cover story I concentrated on what actually hit the twins.
I know it's a long thread but I have gone over countless times the fact that a tin plane couldn't slide right in, especially at floor level.
It had to be something stronger than a tin plane.
There are any number of accounts of what actually happened to 175.
I fall on the side of two into one at Cleveland and then off to the Bering Sea.

 

[SOMERLED]

Funny. That's the post I repied to (and quoted).

Now, did that Coke can have a bomb in it, or are you going to retract your claim that explosions indicate explosive devices like bombs?

When are you ever going to stop ducking and diving?
Now you're trying on that when someone says they heard an explosion that it doesn't mean a loud bang caused by an explosive device.
The universally accepted meaning when someone says an explosion, is that some explosive device like a bomb has gone off.
You seem to think that unless something can be proven to the level of a scientific law, then it can't stand. Yet at the same time, you have no difficulty in following the doctrine of a pre-emptive strike, where mere suspicion is enough.
You may seem to think that you can somehow have the half penny and the gingerbread.
Not with me.
You cannot show one piece of evidence that the plane that hit tower 2 was 175, it is now time to move on.

 

[SOMERLED]

Where did they admit that?

1. 'Pilotless' = The pilots DID NOT INTERFERE with the instruments, but they were on board. Digg out the Spiegel Article. I am pretty sure it mentions six pilots on boards, since this Raytheon nonsense came up in a German truther book a while ago, where the author quote-mined that very article.
2. The system IS DESIGNED to *land* an airplane. JPALS = JOINT PRECISION APPROACH AND *LANDING* SYSTEM

And that's all there is to it. Again: There was no one on the ground steering these planes with a remote control as you imply.

Can I refer you to post 2302?

 

[calebprime]

...
There are any number of accounts of what actually happened to 175.
I fall on the side of two into one at Cleveland and then off to the Bering Sea.

'Account' is a somewhat loaded term in this context. Maybe 'theory' is better.

Could you explain a little further what "two into one at Cleveland and then off to the Bering Sea" means?

That was what I was curious about.

ac·count (?-kount')
n.
A narrative or record of events.

 

[332nd]

There's none so blind as those who refuse to see and none so deaf as those who refuse to hear.

So you can point to the sound of CD charges in those videos? Well why did you just do that? Where are they?

 

[apathoid]

Was it technically viable in August 2001 to manually taxi a large plane to the head of a runway, to then exit the plane with engines running and have someone in say an executive jet take the people empty plane over and get it airborne and headed east?

Well, I've already expressed my thoughts on the Learjet takeover theory. How is that supposed to work exactly? About the only way I can think of to get a large plane(lets say a 767) in the air without a pilot, or an automatic takeoff system is:

- Have a simple time delay circuit installed between the autopilot CMD switch and the wiring to the Autopilot Computer. This will allow you to have the autopilot come on "automatically" - say 60 seconds after the switch is depressed. You can select an autopilot to CMD on the ground - but once in the air, no modes are selected until the respective switch is depressed. However, if CMD is selected in the air over 400' - several modes are selected by default. I believe these are Heading Hold, Vertical Speed and Thrust Reference(For the sake of argument, a similar mod could be made to the LNAV and VNAV switches to get the airplane "cruise missilized" as fast as possible.)
- Complete normal takeoff checklist, minus the flaps.
- Set the stabilizer trim in a high nose up setting, which would be around 10 units. Boeing aircraft will let you do this while Airbii will not.
- Get lined up on the centerline in a manner that compensates for crosswind during takeoff roll.
- Set aileron, rudder and elevator trim to exactly zero - otherwise you'll end up in the grass really quickly and once in the air, the autopilot won't engage at all.
- Set the autothrottle and flight director to ON, and set one of the autopilot master switches to CMD when you are sure the airplane will be at 400' or greater in 60 seconds.
- Set parking brake.
- Select N1 on the Autopilot Mode Control Panel and hit the Go Around switch on the throttle, this will drive the throttles to take off power
- Descend to the avionics bay and perform antiskid test on all brakes, this will apply full brake pressure and release the parking brake after several seconds.(Luckily the antiskid module is located directly above the avionics bay hatch)
- Jump out of the avionics bay, close the hatch and stay low!!



Who knows, it might even work.

 

[apathoid]

I know it's a long thread but I have gone over countless times the fact that a tin plane couldn't slide right in, especially at floor level.
It had to be something stronger than a tin plane.

Sorry, but that's not a fact. It's your uninformed speculation. How many physics professors are the in the world Malcolm? Are you saying their silence means that they(millions of them?) are "in on it". Think about it. One of your own, Steven Jones, who was a physics professor, has absolutely no problem with the impacts. Doesn't that ring a few alarm bells?

It's kindergarten level physics to suggest that aluminum cannot penetrate, or even damage steel. It's alot more complicated than that. Did you know they can actually cut steel with water? Bet you didn't.

 

[SOMERLED]

Ok Malcolm. According to you it went something like this. Bush Chenney and Rumfeld came up with a great plan, the greatest plan in the history of great plans. That was on the morning of 911 fly a remotely operated plane was to be flown into WTC 2 in front of the entire worlds media who were broadcasting it live at the time and hope nobody noticed it was not Flight 175. The other planes were all remotly controlled including one that took a suicide run towards the Pentagon in broadday only to fly over it and disapear into clear blue sky , again hoping nobody would notice.The towers are then blown up infront of the entire planet and destroyed in a demolish that was so brilliant it fooled the entire planet into beleiving they were brought down by the planes and fires. Just to top it all some six hours later a building called WTC 7 was blown up infront of the entire worlds media whom had been informed that it was was about to collapse so were actually filming it and broadcasting it live to the entire planet.

In the meantime troops were being edged towards Iraq for an invasion that would come two years later. But the in the meantime they decided to pin it on UBL who happened to be in another country. UBL goes along with it and actually confesses over and over again to it, or maybe he did not, maybe Bush Chenney and Rumfeld faked him confessing from another country were the British troops were not being pushed towards.

And they hoped that nobody would notice?

And this makes sense to you ? This is logical ? You would approve such an insane plan ?

Malcolm, it sounds crazy because it is crazy. The truth is the US was attacked by Islamic terrorists, they attacked you because you ignored them for years,you failed to take notice of what they were saying, so in shear frustration they sent you a message. " STOP IGNORING US,start taking notice of us". You Malcolm did not get the message. Maybe , just maybe you should start to ask the hardest question of all. Why would anybody hate my nation so much they would die and kill thousands to sent me that message?

I wish you was correct , I wish all it would take to put this world right was to lock up Bush,Chenney and Rumsfeld, but you are not.The truth is far more horrific than anything your silly truth movement could dream up and it is actually staring you in the face.
Back to the popcorn, for me, please wake up Malcolm, the world was a mess before 911, it is a bigger mess after it.. Please stop living in this make beleive world whereby everything that is wrong has to be blamed on the USG, there really, really are people that really really do want to hurt us and they are prepared to go to great lenghts to do so.

Wise up Malcolm.

My mistake, I said Iraq, when I should have said Afghanistan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1012044.stm

 

[SOMERLED]

Sorry, but that's not a fact. It's your uninformed speculation. How many physics professors are the in the world Malcolm? Are you saying their silence means that they(millions of them?) are "in on it". Think about it. One of your own, Steven Jones, who was a physics professor, has absolutely no problem with the impacts. Doesn't that ring a few alarm bells?

It's kindergarten level physics to suggest that aluminum cannot penetrate, or even damage steel. It's alot more complicated than that. Did you know they can actually cut steel with water? Bet you didn't.

I'll reply to both your posts in this one response, if you don't mind.
You certainly know your way around a plane and I am happy that you agree that a 'remote' take off and delivery was feasible.
Fact, I will concede, if being pedantic, may be too strong a word.
However, uniformed speculation is too unkind.
Consider a floor at any one of the twins.
You have tubular spandrel steel beams 39 inches apart.
You have 12.5 ft between floor and ceiling.
At floor level, you have 209ft of 4in thick concrete in a 22 gauge steel pan.
You're hitting it with a 16ft 9in aluminium cigar tube.
It penetrates two sets of spandrels not one.
That's some cigar tube.
It has to enter the building, if not your story of mortally wounding the tower is in tatters. Not only does the fusilage get right in, but also the wings.
In fact the rounded nose gets right through the building, something not possible with a regular plane.
A picture paints a thousand words, here they are,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l38oEJwAb1Q&mode=related&search=

 

[SOMERLED]

'Account' is a somewhat loaded term in this context. Maybe 'theory' is better.

Could you explain a little further what "two into one at Cleveland and then off to the Bering Sea" means?

That was what I was curious about.

ac·count (?-kount')
n.
A narrative or record of events.

There's more to this site than I have yet studied,
http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2007/02/cleveland-airport-mystery.html
Bearing in mind that the four flights are the cover story, there isn't even certainty that all four planes took off.
By that, I mean one or more could have been an executive jet flying about with the relevant electronics on board, as this site makes possible,
http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/911passengerlist.html

 

[PhantomWolf]

In fact the rounded nose gets right through the building, something not possible with a regular plane.
A picture paints a thousand words, here they are,

You know sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. I guess that Cessna really bounced off the side of the building hmmmm. That it's nose didn't go through it even though it was just going slow. And sure as eggs a cloth and wood B-25 couldn't do that much damage to the Empire State Building. I guess that was hoaxed too

 

[332nd]

I'll reply to both your posts in this one response, if you don't mind.
You certainly know your way around a plane and I am happy that you agree that a 'remote' take off and delivery was feasible.
Fact, I will concede, if being pedantic, may be too strong a word.
However, uniformed speculation is too unkind.
Consider a floor at any one of the twins.
You have tubular spandrel steel beams 39 inches apart.
You have 12.5 ft between floor and ceiling.
At floor level, you have 209ft of 4in thick concrete in a 22 gauge steel pan.
You're hitting it with a 16ft 9in aluminium cigar tube.
It penetrates two sets of spandrels not one.
That's some cigar tube.
It has to enter the building, if not your story of mortally wounding the tower is in tatters. Not only does the fusilage get right in, but also the wings.
In fact the rounded nose gets right through the building, something not possible with a regular plane.
A picture paints a thousand words, here they are,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l38oEJwAb1Q&mode=related&search=

Wasn't the factor of how fast the plane was moving in relation to the building explained to you earlier in the thread?

 

[Arus808]

malcom have you provided evidence of explosives found? im still waiting for an answer to this

 

[stateofgrace]

Close, but let me get you closer.
Bush, Cheney (let's call them all BushCo) are puppets.
I can refer you to posts on here that echo that truth.
When the likes of Rothschilde/Rockefeler (the owners of the Port Authority - the Federal Reserve) whatever makes up this clique of Banksters.
When these Banksters say rabbit, the likes of Bush jump.
That's why I included references to Boystown in my opening page.
A Bankster is not going to promote someone who might renage when power goes to their head. The Bankster is only going to promote someone he has a hold over. Years ago no doubt homosexuality would have sufficed, nowadays paedophilia will be closer to the mark. Hence persuading the military to accept a civilian presence at Offutt and then seeing who can be enticed via Boystown.
You know the truth when you read it.
These Banksters thought they had all the bases covered.
They were wrong, now they are going to pay.
Everyone seems to be assuming that the New World Order (NWO) required a new 'PEARL HARBOUR' in order to progress their agenda and that the twins fitted that profile nicely.
I have no problem with the NWO bit being floated first.
But, what about the 'New Pearl Harbour' bit?
In other words, was the 'New Pearl Harbour' line, concocted to fit in with the necessary demolition of the twins?
The owners of the twins (those who owned the private Port Authority of NY, which in turn leased out the twins), were faced with a pair of white elephants.
Occupaton of the office space was dwindling, communication outlets weren't available (nowhere to plug into the internet etc). Galvanic corosion was a concern as far back as 1989.
The asbestos content was illegal. Demolition had been twice refused, except for beam by beam dismantling, at a cost of around $5billion.
Similarly, refurbishment, stripping out the asbestos, re-doing the fascia, installing up to date wiring, was again priced at around $5billion.
Apart from that being a lotta dosh. In the world that these fly boys live in, somebody seen to be holding that kind of a lemon, would also be seen to be losing it and therefore ripe for being eaten alive.
Two 'condemned' notices had been issued and then extensions granted because of the asbestos.
All in all, a pair of real white elephants.
Maybe a van bomb might do the trick, just blame it on 'arab terrorists'.
When that didn't work, maybe time to do a more comprehensive job.
Building collapses in NY were a daily occurence years ago, why not recruit a NY landlord who knew the ropes, to assist?
Maybe, get someone to make a film, then get someone else to float the idea of a new Pearl Harbour.
I think this possibility/probability needs to be explored. A better conclusion can be reached, when the chronology is established.
Reputations mean a lot and $5billion is a lotta dosh in anybody's book.
The towers proved to be well built. The van job was a joke.
The main thing this time is that there can be no room for errors, the plan has to work. That's why Raytheon proved they could do it prior to the event.
That's why attack planes were chosen. A guaranteed 2 planes for new York, one flyover for the pentagon. The cover story would be four 'hijacks'.
What a mess of a cover story it has turned out to be. If I had paid out money for a staged crash scene and got Shanksville, I would want my money back.
Only misguided people with misguided allegiances are now supporting these mass murderers. The net is closing.

As I say, you know the truth when you read it.

I see, Malcolm you do realise that the material damage alone was close to 90 billion on 911 don't you ? So how does this work when off set against a 5 billion they saved ?

Add that to the 450 billion the War on Terror has cost, I cannot actually see the return, maybe you could fill in the blanks. Maybe you can explain how a saving of 5 billion against a cost of something like nearly 600 billion is a good deal.

Do you actually beleive that there are Islamic terrorists BTW ?

 

[Corsair 115]

And sure as eggs a cloth and wood B-25 couldn't do that much damage to the Empire State Building.

While I agree with your point, I must take exception of your description of the B-25. It most certainly was not a "cloth and wood" aircraft. It was a modern (for its time) aircraft with all-metal fuselage and wings. The twin-engined British Mosquito, on the other hand, was mostly constructed from wood.

The B-25J had an empty weight of about 21,100 lbs. empty and a maximum takeoff weight of about 35,000 lbs. These are considerably lower values than those for either the Boeing 757 or 767. So in spite of the B-25 weighing much less and travelling much more slowly, it still punched a good-sized hole in the Empire State Building.

 

[SOMERLED]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/15579468afbb8e6575.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/15579468afbb90f028.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/15579468afbb8cfa36.jpg[/qimg]

You know sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. I guess that Cessna really bounced off the side of the building hmmmm. That it's nose didn't go through it even though it was just going slow. And sure as eggs a cloth and wood B-25 couldn't do that much damage to the Empire State Building. I guess that was hoaxed too

You misunderstand, I don't mean through the front wall, I mean through the building.
I mean through the front wall, through any interior walls and out through the back wall. A feat that is impossible, as your photos show.
However, on 9/11 the nose of the attack plane does just that, through the front wall, through any intervening walls and then out through the back wall,
here it is again,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l38oEJwAb1Q&mode=related&search=

 

[SOMERLED]

Wasn't the factor of how fast the plane was moving in relation to the building explained to you earlier in the thread?

Factor? explained to me?
We are indeed yet again going over old ground.
Would you like to proceed to Offutt or are you going to insist that an egg travelling at a thousand miles an hour will go through a brick wall?

 

[SOMERLED]

malcom have you provided evidence of explosives found? im still waiting for an answer to this

Kindly work your way back through my posts, you will find evidence a plenty.