How 9/11 was done

[Wildy]

Der Moor hat seine Pflicht getan, der Moor kann gehen.

The muslim has done his duty. The muslim can go.

Firstly, it's a but of an archaic phrase don't you think?

I'm going to assume that you are supposed to be writing in German here and not Dutch.

My German isn't the greatest but I was under the impression that the German word of "Muslim" was "der Moslem".

But if you were using the word "Moor" in the same context then it is in English then you have spelt it wrong. If I remember correctly it's "Mohr" not "Moor".

I was trying to figure out why you were saying basically:

The wasteland has done his duty, the wasteland can go

Kind of falls apart in Dutch though, where apparently the word "Moor" is synonymous with the English term for the people.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

What do you mean 'manufactured'?

We are talking possibly solely about additional lines of computer code to an existing system. I am not sure about retrieving a signal from the transponder, if that can be done pure with code yes or no.

Why my good sir...by manufactured I mean brought into being! Assembled from its component parts!

 

[GStan]

<snip>

2) CIA closes down unit that hunts for bin Laden

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

<snip>

Why is this important? Did you even read the article that you are linking to? Or did you just read the title and stop?

Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and his deputies remained a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had slackened. Instead, the officials said, it reflects a belief that the agency can better deal with high-level threats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specific organizations or individuals.

"The efforts to find Osama bin Laden are as strong as ever," said Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a C.I.A. spokeswoman. "This is an agile agency, and the decision was made to ensure greater reach and focus."

...and I only had to investigate five sentences into the article before reaching that part.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'll look into that. A strong indication is that none of the 4 airplanes send a 'I have been hijacked' signal. This indicates that the loss of control was immediate.

"Immediate" is a relative term here. The loss of control clearly took place over a shorter time than would have been required for the pilot to assess the situation, determine that the appropriate action was to transmit a hijack code, reset four ten-position rotary switches and press a button. Since, in a traditional hijack, there would have been plenty of time to do this - because the hijackers would have issued instructions on where to fly the plane - doing so in a hurry would not necessarily have been a priority, and if for example a hostage was being threatened with immediate death if the pilot didn't give up the seat, it may never have been one.

Dave

 

[Senenmut]

911 investigator-

you might want to look into the software that was running that day. some people think that ptech is like the whole PROMIS software scandal. the CIA, via michael Riconosciuto, created a "backdoor" to spy on anyone that also had the software. and guess what, OBL also had the promis software. WHO the hell trained those boys to use it???? maybe ali mohammed (CIA) since he was around OBL in the early days.
regarding ptech-
fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012705_ptech_pt2.shtml

Jamey Hecht: You said at the 9/11 Citizens' Commission hearings, you mentioned - its on page 139 of transcript - that Ptech was with Mitre Corporation in the basement of the FAA for 2 years prior to 9/11 and their specific job was to look at interoperability issues the FAA had with NORAD and the Air Force, in case of an emergency.

Indira Singh: Yes, I have a good diagram for that…

Jamey Hecht: And that relationship had been going on mediated by Ptech for 2 years prior to 9/11. You elsewhere say that the Secret Service is among the government entities that had a contract with Ptech. Mike Ruppert's thesis in Crossing the Rubicon, as you know, is that the software that was running information between FAA & NORAD was superseded by a parallel subsuming version of itself that was being run by the Secret Service on state of the art parallel equipment in the PEOC with a nucleus of Secret Service personnel around Cheney.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I am not sure, weather I can trust this graphic. were the bush-wars financed over the R&D-budget?

I couldn't find a graph showing R&D specifically (you probably can if you look hard enough) but you can see that the proportion of military spending in general is hardly comparable to the aftermath of Peal Harbor, nor, come to that spending during Vietnam or the Reagan years.

 

[ellindsey]

What do you mean 'manufactured'?

We are talking possibly solely about additional lines of computer code to an existing system. I am not sure about retrieving a signal from the transponder, if that can be done pure with code yes or no.

No. The problem with the remote control concept is that none of the airplanes that crashed on 9-11 had fly-by-wire control systems. All of the planes had mechanical controls, in which the pilot's inputs to the control wheel and rudder were transmitted by a system of cables and levers to hydraulic boosters which moved the control surfaces. There is no place in the system where the control can be interrupted without disabling the entire system. These planes did have autopilots, which would push and pull on the control cables, adding mechanical input in the same way as another pilot would. The forces which the autopilot was capable of were less than those the pilots could exert, so even if the autopilot had been reprogrammed to crash the plane, the pilots would have been able to physically overpower it and keep control over the plane.

Furthermore, in addition to the flight controls, the cockpit crew have access to circuit breakers that control power to pretty much every system in the airplane. If the autopilot is behaving bizarrely, the flight crew are going to just pull the circuit breaker that controls the autopilot and shut if off. This is a hard-wired circuit, not something that can be overridden by radio control or changes in software. In an emergency the pilots can actually completely disable the airplane's electrical system by pulling the main power bus breakers. The aircraft that crashed on 9-11 were of a type that could in an emergency land fly and land with no electrical power at all. You'll have no radio or navigation gear, and rudimentary flight instruments, but the controls are driven by hydraulics which are powered directly from the engines and can work in the total absence of electrical power. And believe me, if the pilots discover that the airplane is behaving oddly and they have no control over the flight, they'll start pulling breakers and reconfiguring systems until they regain control.

On a more modern aircraft - an A380 or 787 or something - with fly-by-wire controls, you might theoretically be able to reprogram the computer to take control remotely. On the older aircraft that crashed on 9-11, taking control of the airplane in a way that can't be defeated by the cockpit crew will take massive physical modifications to the plane's mechanical and electrical systems.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Dog Town refers to WMD, Niger-uranium story, Atta-meeting-in Prague...

Obviously I was referring to the context of Iraq, the justification of which was given by 9/11. Now if we all can agree (as we seem to do) that the US was purposely lied into the Iraq safari, could it not be then that the initiator of this safari, 9/11, was staged as well? That is not a far-fetched idea, is it?

It's not far-fetched a priori, but it is far-fetched in the light of the evidence. It might have happened, except that all the information we have shows that it didn't.

 

[Dr Adequate]

some people think ...

And when these people can lay out a coherent scenario and some evidence for it, their views will become much more interesting.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I do not think that airplane manufacturers will openly advertise with this possibility like: 'This Boeing767 is equiped with a home run system!!'.

So, let's get this straight.

In your version of the Truth every Boeing is fitted with remote control, but all the people who build and maintain airplanes for Boeing are keeping quiet about it. Boeing, who wish to make a profit, have fitted this expensive safety feature without it being mandatory and without advertising it. And, apparently, without patenting the system.

As has been explained to you, the pilots can if necessary literally wrestle control from the autopilot, so this would have to be an entirely separate system.

You also require that this system has never been used legitimately to thwart hijackers, since that would kinda give the game away. Apparently the one time it's ever been employed was on 9/11. Bit of a waste of money, wasn't it?

Note that the system would be completely useless in every normal hijack situation (i.e. every hijack ever with the exception of the 9/11 attacks) because the key to a hijack is that you have the passengers as hostages. Just as they can say to the pilot: "Take this plane to Libya or we start offing the passengers" they could say that to the people on the ground, it would make no difference.

And you have not the slightest shred of evidence that any such device has been designed, let alone built, tested and employed.

But you need it to exist for your version of the Truth, so hey presto, there it is.

And then you can say: "Well, it coulda happened".

Yes. Alternatively, maybe secret Freemason researches into telekenesis allowed them to control the planes using only the power of the mind, amplified by special equipment recovered from the Roswell crash. But without any evidence, it is hard to take this conjecture seriously.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Why is this important? Did you even read the article that you are linking to? Or did you just read the title and stop?



...and I only had to investigate five sentences into the article before reaching that part.

I read it alright.

You like to stress what the PR-woman says.

I attach more importance to what the agency does: closing down the bin Laden unit.

They cannot possibly admit that they do not care about bin Laden.

 

[GStan]

I read it alright.

You like to stress what the PR-woman says.

I attach more importance to what the agency does: closing down the bin Laden unit.

They cannot possibly admit that they do not care about bin Laden.

Of course, you choose to argue semantics over who said what, and avoid the most pertinant question I asked: Why was this article important? And more clearly, how is it in any way supporting your theory?

 

[GStan]

I read it alright.

You like to stress what the PR-woman says.

I like to read the body of the article. That's usually the place where they put most of the important information; like facts and stuff....

I attach more importance to what the agency does: closing down the bin Laden unit.

They cannot possibly admit that they do not care about bin Laden.

You like to read the title and stop, because when you dig further, you find that the article does not support your theory.

 

[9/11-investigator]

911 investigator-

you might want to look into the software that was running that day. some people think that ptech is like the whole PROMIS software scandal. the CIA, via michael Riconosciuto, created a "backdoor" to spy on anyone that also had the software. and guess what, OBL also had the promis software. WHO the hell trained those boys to use it???? maybe ali mohammed (CIA) since he was around OBL in the early days.
regarding ptech-
fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012705_ptech_pt2.shtml

Bollyn is vague about the technical specifications of the software that had been manipulated. He mentions indeed PTech as the key player. He says that NORAD software has been manipulated, what is possible since nobody denies that PTech had NORAD as a client. What I do not understand is how the 'home run' system got activated. There were suggestions 'via the transponder'. That would be via NORAD would it not? Now is there a way to circumvent NORAD and send a signal 'from the field' so to speak? Or must we assume that somebody send the signal from within NORAD?

Any ideas?

 

[Skeptic Guy]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned in any of the eight pages here and it hurts my head to go through it all right now, but it is mentioned by "9/11-investigator" that the power to the WTC (both towers?) was cut off from the 48th floor (I believe) and up in order to install new fiber optics thus increasing the data bandwidth to the complex.

Now, this is something I know. I DOES NOT require a power shut down of any part of the building to put in new fiber. Assuming that they had enough dark fiber run to the building (to the appropriate carrier's demarcation point, which is typically in the basement), all that is required is slotting in a new card in the terminal equipment. Even if they had to run new fiber from the manhole into the building, there is no need to cut off the power.

 

[9/11-investigator]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned in any of the eight pages here and it hurts my head to go through it all right now, but it is mentioned by "9/11-investigator" that the power to the WTC (both towers?) was cut off from the 48th floor (I believe) and up in order to install new fiber optics thus increasing the data bandwidth to the complex.

Now, this is something I know. I DOES NOT require a power shut down of any part of the building to put in new fiber. Assuming that they had enough dark fiber run to the building (to the appropriate carrier's demarcation point, which is typically in the basement), all that is required is slotting in a new card in the terminal equipment. Even if they had to run new fiber from the manhole into the building, there is no need to cut off the power.

So why do you think that they did shut-off power?

 

[Dr Adequate]

So why do you think that they did shut-off power?

No, no, it's your job to supply the evidence for your claims.

Why do you think the power was shut off? Is it because this is necessary for your version of The Truth, or do you have actual evidence and stuff?

 

[phunk]

They didn't.

 

[240-185]

I have a better question:

9/11-I, do you have any evidence that shows a power shortage which lasted enough so a huge army of men could plant 19,200 bombs (*) into TWO towers?

(*) Trusses have been cut every 10m. A Twin Tower is 400m high, that makes 240 explosive charges (one per column) on 40 levels. 240*40*2=19200 bombs.

 

[Pardalis]

I have a better question:

9/11-I, do you have any evidence that shows a power shortage which lasted enough so a huge army of men could plant 19,200 bombs (*) into TWO towers?

Not to mention WTC7, while it was on fire.