How 9/11 was done

[9/11-investigator]

PS - Oh, what about the office fires set on multiple floors. Beside the fact the heat energy of the jet fuel was equal to the energy of 325 TONS of TNT, why do you fail to post the energy of the fires in the WTC. Because the energy exceeds the energy in simple explosives used to bring down buildings. The fires from just the WTC offices was enough to destroy the WTC steel strength. You ignore this and make up fantasy. Why not look up the Joules involved in the fires. And no, you can't burn up all the fuel in the fireball impact event.

The office fires were minute in comparison to the raging Madrid fires. Nothing collapsed in Madrid. The diameter of the fireball was more than 100 meter in diameter, that's some 1,000,000 cubic meter for a fuel load of 60 cubic meter (out of the top of my head). Makes sense to me that this firebal represented all the fuel. I'll therefore leave the Joules calculations gladly as an exercise to you to calculate how much heat was contributed to global warming.

PS2 - Passenger and crewmember communications with people on the ground refute the nerve gas fantasy idea. But all your ideas are only speculation which has to ignore reality and evidence.

Got any new ideas on these topics without ignoring what really happen on 9/11? (as in passengers phone calls proves no one was impaired, etc, etc...)

You should start reading my blog. These phone calls were fake.

 

[9/11-investigator]

For what it's worth, I never personally claimed that you could not send Data, way point or other wise, over ACARS. {they don't really do this though.I don't think.} They do get lot's of info this way. If there's a gate problem, weather, it's even been used improperly to "be funny". Or at least, I've been told stories by pilots after a few drinks. {They don't allow this at all now, I think. Or they've cut way back on the jokes, ya know.." Hey, guys, go out side and make sure you got the right tail number " There's a lot of boring moments.}.. Remember though, if one were to send data for use in the FMC, it would have to be entered by the crew. So, what is the point? They already HAVE a bunch of New York stuff in the data base. These FMC units are updated by a data loader on the ground, every 28 days. There are two set's of data and the pilot is given a message 2 days out {I think} that tell Him or Her, they need to switch to the new data.. They do not use ACARS to load this data. They use floppy based units that plug into the computer and use the Aircrafts' power. Some new Aircraft, like the CRJ-900 is using a laptop now, or so I've been told.. This is at least an option at some airlines.. I believe the goal of the industry is to have wireless internet supply this data. The way it is now, ground crew need to walk on to every aircraft in the fleet every 28 days.. ACARS is not used for flight data, or at least I've never heard that it has been.

Wikipedias ACARS article says that it can be used to upload new flight paths. BTW: what you say about these floppies I saw that yesterday somewhere as well. I believe it is also possible to update software with those floppies not just data. Have the link somewhere, added it to my TODO list. It's an alternative to the ACARS possibility of influencing the course of the planes.

Another thing. You are claiming that data can be uploaded into the flight management system. This is a different item than the flight management computer. So, if you are claiming that the autopilot can be updated, this is wrong.. The auto pilot uses data from the various systems but doesn't hold it's own data that I am aware of.

I do not claim. Wikipedia does.

I have not in any way reviewed the FDR records, but it seems logical that these were "visual approaches" being hand flown. The inertial nav units {Lnav and Vnav } could not have flown them in with enough accuracy.

I cautiously have to agree with that, certainly with the second plane. The question is: was this joystick situated in the disaster planes or in one of these 'mystery planes' or somewhere else?

Unless I've missed something, the only GPS unit on a 767 in 2001 was the ground proximity warning system {enhanced}.. This data is used to alert the crew regarding proximity to the ground. { hence the name}. This is also where AGL altitude call outs come from on approach, and the system will also warn about "NO GEAR" and other items like flap deployment that would normally be in place , close to the ground.. This data can not be used for Navigation..

Don't know. Alerting as in beeping and flashing? Not very consequential in my scenario. Nor in yours.

So, why upload data? You already have gassed the crew {good grief} and you're in the seat. Dial in the JFK VOR ,or LGA, and head east.These are in the data base too, I'm sure. When you see the new york sky line, point the nose at the towers.

'Good grief'... what's the moral difference between Mossad gassing or slamming by Arabs? There is none.

My initial guess was that only regular airfields are part of the database, not the 78-floor of the WTC-1. Uploading data is necessary for changing the course. Are you saying that it is possible to change the course so that it points to the towers? That would solve 'my problem'.

The second plane made a pretty wild right turn into to tower 2. Again, I have not seen the FDR data or a narrative regarding the data, but it sure looks like he was beating on the air frame pretty hard. Certainly, he had exceeded the "never exceed" speed and was WAY over the maneuvering speed.

Is it not strange that the pilot of the second plane had to make such a rigid correction? I mean, one can see the tower from miles and miles; it should be easy to approach the tower from a straight line. That this did not happen is an extra indication that nobody was steering from within the planes. The only way to accomplish this scenario is for the remote controller to fly directly behind the disaster plane, but that would have even made a 'conspiracy theorist' out of you!

 

[9/11-investigator]

Your persistance in ignoring verifiable information that has been shared with you will win you a spot on people's ignore list. Your audience is going to shrink if you keep restating the same claims that have already been "destroyed." Usually, one can end up on someone's ignore list for one of two reasons: being deliberately hostile or being deliberately ignorant. To your credit, you have been cordial as far as I can tell, however, I am sure your willful ignorance in the face of the relevant experts here has already landed you on many people's ignore list; which is a shame, because you can learn a great deal from many of the posters here at JREF.

I am not deliberately ignorant, I am simply lacking the time to go into al the responses that are being fired at me from all angles. I do not mind ending up on some one's ignore list since this decreases the burden. Somebody is going to respond to this hostile intruder into your debunker Walhalla anyway.

It just can't do what you want it to do. To put it into simple equivalent terms, you can hack into my personal computer and perhaps send input signals (flight path info) to my on screen cursor, because I am away from the terminal. However, once I (the pilot) pick up the mouse, the cursor will respond to ME moving the mouse and NOT your hacked signals. You can continue to hack away all you want, but if you really want the plane to take a new flight path, you must have the ability, via your hacked signal, to force my hand to do something I don't want it to do. It can't be done. It is not possible. Period. (I realize that a sophisticated hacker could probably disable my control of the cursor. But that is not what ACARS does, or can do.)

Why do you think that some people grab for the bottle of nerve gas?

Why do you WANT to believe the most ridiculous and fantastical totally unsupported theories about what happened on 9/11 instead of the most logical and plausible explanations? Your bending over backwards and weaving quite an imaginative (and it would be interesting if we hadn't already heard it from hundreds of other truthers so far) tale. Are there any 9/11 conspiracy books available in your native language? You should write one and make some money. Just have the intellectual honesty to bill it as a work of fiction.

Again: I do not do this for fun, I have to do it. I believed the OCT until 2005. By then I morphed into an 'inside jobber', due to being convinced of WTC-controlled demolition. The Israeli angle stems from early 2008.

If one is convinced as I am that the towers were brought down by CD (as millions others are), combined with the 'Dancing Israelis' and the fact the westerners/Jews do not do suicide missions, one has to resort to remote control. So yes, I am looking for a possibility, because it had to be. I think that my motives are crystal clear.

 

[9/11-investigator]

No. This is about the zillionth time that you have pointed to a bit of totally non-secret technology which doesn't do anything like you need it to do, and claimed that it can do it.

No, the interface between the ACARS and the FMS does not allow Evil Jews on the ground to guide airplanes into the Twin Towers.

Let me put in bold one of the passages in your quotation that you did not put in bold: "and allowed the flight crew to evaluate new weather conditions, or alternate flight plans.".

Got that? It gave fresh information to the flight crew[/i] that enabled them to evaluate new information.

This is even further away from remote control than your stuff about the ALS.

This is not going to happen for you. Really.

Really? You ignored this Wiki quote: "This feature gave the airline the capability to update FMSs while in flight".

Let me get this straight: flight control is the MASTER and the pilot is the SLAVE, is it not? We cannot have situations like flight control saying 'please go to 30,000 feet' and the pilot responding: 'I do not feel like it, I am going to eat my sandwich with peanut butter first and maybe, just maybe I will go to 25,000 feet after a visit to the bath room. Duh'. So what's the point of 'evaluating a flight plan'? Is this a sort of 'democracy in action' or what?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Is it not strange that the pilot of the second plane had to make such a rigid correction? I mean, one can see the tower from miles and miles; it should be easy to approach the tower from a straight line.

Have you considered the possibility that he simply wasn't a very good pilot?

Dave

 

[9/11-investigator]

Oh for pity's sake.

Don't you see that you can do that for any hypothesis?

You could claim that pigs have wings. And then when we ask why we can't see them you could explain how magic pixies make pigs' wings invisible by using magic pixie dust. And then you could go on to claim that the fact that we can't see the wings of pigs is evidence of the existence of magic pixies.

And then you could say: "The next step is how to prove it."

Do you see what is wrong with this?

No. Remote control is not just 'any hypothesis', it is the logical consequence of the truthers argument that WTC was brought down by controlled demolition. Is that so difficult to understand? Looking for ways to explain remote control is not a silly intellectual exercise. And before one ventures to prove something it is wise to find out if something is possible in the first place.

And that's exactly what I am doing.

 

[doobiedoright]

You should start reading my blog. These phone calls were fake.

Prove it!

 

[240-185]

you should start reading my blog. These phone calls were fake.

for god's sake, prove it!

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Have you considered the possibility that he simply wasn't a very good pilot?

Dave

He sure beefed the landing part.

 

[GStan]

The office fires were minute in comparison to the raging Madrid fires. Nothing collapsed in Madrid. The diameter of the fireball was more than 100 meter in diameter, that's some 1,000,000 cubic meter for a fuel load of 60 cubic meter (out of the top of my head). Makes sense to me that this firebal represented all the fuel. I'll therefore leave the Joules calculations gladly as an exercise to you to calculate how much heat was contributed to global warming.

You should start reading my blog. These phone calls were fake.

Don't turn into an ignorant liar. You know that the phone calls could not have been faked without a recording of the person's voice speaking the words that needed to be faked. Some of the 9/11 passengers who made these phone calls only decided to fly within a day, even hours, of take-off time. That is not enough time to have surveiled these passengers and made a sufficient sample recording of their voices to make this voice-morphing software work as it is designed. There is no way that your theory about the fake calls is correct.

You need to adjust your hypothesis. I'll help you a little with a few suggested modifications that would fit with the available evidence (evidence for passenger phone calls only! The rest of your theory is still crap)

Acknowledge that there were, in fact, hijackers on the planes. They don't have to be Islamic fundamentalists. They can be Mossad agents or whoever you want them to be. Thus, the phone calls are still genuine and you can maintain your conspiracy theory without ignorantly using the proven falsehood that the phone calls were faked through completely inadequate voice-morphing technology.

- Perhaps your Mossad agents were all diagnosed with terminal cancer and the Mossad paid their families millions of dollars if they would hijack these planes and fly them into the buildings. Start looking for a collection of 19 families of widowed Mossad agents who got really rich during the time period right before 9/11. (No need for fake phone calls that could not have been done, or remote control flying as well.)

- Perhaps your Mossad agents were totally healthy. They hijacked the planes and, unbeknown to the passengers, they pointed the planes at the towers/pentagon/empty field and jumped out of the planes just a few minutes before impact. No one noticed them jumping out and all of the planes still crashed on autopilot. (No need for fake phone calls that could not have been done.)

- Perhaps the Mossad agents hijacked the planes but the planes they hijacked were not the planes that crashed. After takeoff, the Mossad coordinated the hijackings with the takeoffs of 4 empty commercial airliners retro-fitted with remote control capabilities. The passengers make the phone calls. Immediately after the fake flight 11 hits the north tower, the Mossad hijackers gas the cabin in the real flight 11, (the hijackers are wearing gas masks, of course), thus no more phone calls from the now alleged dead passengers from flight 11. The same scenario plays out for the other three flights. (No need for fake phone calls that could not have been done.)

You need to adjust your hypothesis. And this is not because debunkers have ingeniously concocted a counter-explanation to your claim of fake phone calls. We only READ THE INFORMATION in the link you were trying to use to prove it could be done. You debunked yourself on this claim. The link you provided to prove that this could be done specified that a recording of the person's voice was necessary for the technology to work. Such a recording would not be possible for passengers who only decided to take these flights at the last minute. Stop foolishly asserting that the phone calls were faked. Adjust your hypothesis.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Have you considered the possibility that he simply wasn't a very good pilot?

You would not tell that from his last action. That curve was magnificent. Sure made up for his blunders before.

If you assume that there was a pilot.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Prove it!

Prove it was not!

 

[GStan]

<snip >
Is it not strange that the pilot of the second plane had to make such a rigid correction? I mean, one can see the tower from miles and miles; it should be easy to approach the tower from a straight line. That this did not happen is an extra indication that nobody was steering from within the planes. The only way to accomplish this scenario is for the remote controller to fly directly behind the disaster plane, but that would have even made a 'conspiracy theorist' out of you!

It is not strange, but at least you finally got something right. You can see the towers from miles away and you can point the nose of the plane at what you want to hit. However, you cannot judge from miles away whether you are pointing toward the face of the tower or the corner.

ETA: Sorry, I ****** up the image below. The text, from top to bottom reads "You want to hit the tower like this......Not like this.....But from miles away the towers are going to look like this, no matter what angle you are coming in at....and you may have to adjust your course at the last minute.

ETAA: You can't tell from miles away whether your straight line is pointed at the face or the corner.

 

[A W Smith]

Prove it was not!

I already proved it. Elsa's phone call with the last will and safe combination. remember?

 

[9/11-investigator]

I crave the moderators' indulgence, but I should just like to comment a little on that quotation.

First, some time after authoring that line Nietzsche went insane and spent the rest of his life staring at a wall, which neither killed him nor made him stronger. He was wrong.

Since the moderators let you made your remark they will sure let me answer it (or delete both if considered off-topic). Nietzsche never claimed to be immortal. He merely stated that you cannot become a Bobby Fisher by just playing chess with little girls. The same is true for 'my' theory; I came here to put it to the test, not to irritate you folks. My time is too valuable for these kind of exercises. Although it might sound bombastic, I put so much effort in this because I fear for the future of liberty in the West. A second false flag operation could turn the US into a new Sovjet-Union.

Second, Nietzsche really really hated anti-Semites. If I said to you the stuff that he said about people with opinions like yours, I should be banned from these forums and rightly so. So you might want to quote him a bit less.

I quoted him once as far as I can remember. I have read all his books three times over, including the Nachlass. Why don't you start with Genealogie der Moral. What you are basically doing (and I did not expect that from you) is implicitly linking 'my' ICT with the dreaded anti-semitism juggernaut and thereby implicitly stating that your Arab Conspiracy Theory is of a different moral order. I deny that.

Edited by chillzero: 

Further comments on this topic should be taken to a new thread, perhaps in R&P.

.

 

[9/11-investigator]

So now the airlines used their ACARS to crash the planes and also fitted the nerve gas into their own planes? For your scenario (impossible though it is) to be true the airlines must have been in on it.

Why would they be involved in the conspiracy? It caused them great harm financially.

Where to begin. Nobody, not even me, wants to implicate the Airlines into the 9/11 conspiracy.

If you can bring a box cutter on board you can bring a bottle of poisonous gas on board.

And remember the 'security' firm Huntington USA and the role it plays in 'my' ICT?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Don't turn into an ignorant liar.

I thought this was a moderated thread.

You know that the phone calls could not have been faked without a recording of the person's voice speaking the words that needed to be faked.

You obviously have not read my blog AND missed the discussion earlier about this topic. My main contribution to the ICT is the explanation of how the Mossad got hold on exactly the sound samples you are talking about.

Perhaps your Mossad agents were all diagnosed with terminal cancer and the Mossad paid their families millions of dollars if they would hijack these planes and fly them into the buildings. Start looking for a collection of 19 families of widowed Mossad agents who got really rich during the time period right before 9/11. (No need for fake phone calls that could not have been done, or remote control flying as well.)

I'll do that if you prove me that remote control is impossible. Deal?

Perhaps your Mossad agents were totally healthy. They hijacked the planes and, unbeknown to the passengers, they pointed the planes at the towers/pentagon/empty field and jumped out of the planes just a few minutes before impact. No one noticed them jumping out and all of the planes still crashed on autopilot. (No need for fake phone calls that could not have been done.)

It is not easy to parachute yourself onto Manhattan unnoticed. Certainly not after the first impact. You see it is not that easy to come up with a credible theory. We are now in page 17; I doubt if you are gonna make it until the end of this page.

Perhaps the Mossad agents hijacked the planes but the planes they hijacked were not the planes that crashed. After takeoff, the Mossad coordinated the hijackings with the takeoffs of 4 empty commercial airliners retro-fitted with remote control capabilities. The passengers make the phone calls. Immediately after the fake flight 11 hits the north tower, the Mossad hijackers gas the cabin in the real flight 11, (the hijackers are wearing gas masks, of course), thus no more phone calls from the now alleged dead passengers from flight 11. The same scenario plays out for the other three flights. (No need for fake phone calls that could not have been done.)

Not bad. Several truthers advocate some plane swapping theory. Even Bollyn does that. Not me. Not yet. But your problem is: you have your 4 planes on the ground filled with gassed passengers. And now what? Here comes the Mossad agent (must be a trained pilot because he needs to be able to ground the B757-beast). The ground personel docks this tunnel-thing against the aircraft, opens the door and sees 4-5 guys with gas masks saying shalom. Thisis a non-starter. You see, it is not so easy to 'make up' stories

You need to adjust your hypothesis. And this is not because debunkers have ingeniously concocted a counter-explanation to your claim of fake phone calls. We only READ THE INFORMATION in the link you were trying to use to prove it could be done. You debunked yourself on this claim. The link you provided to prove that this could be done specified that a recording of the person's voice was necessary for the technology to work. Such a recording would not be possible for passengers who only decided to take these flights at the last minute. Stop foolishly asserting that the phone calls were faked. Adjust your hypothesis.

No I do not have to adjust. We discussed 2 cases and I 'fantasized' my way out of it (that story with the will and safe code).

 

[Dave Rogers]

And remember the 'security' firm Huntington USA and the role it plays in 'my' ICT?

It was Huntleigh, and in real life it might have done the baggage handling for one, and no more, of the four flights. That makes its role in your CT rather unlikely.

Dave

 

[GStan]

Where to begin. Nobody, not even me, wants to implicate the Airlines into the 9/11 conspiracy.

If you can bring a box cutter on board you can bring a bottle of poisonous gas on board.

And remember the 'security' firm Huntington USA and the role it plays in 'my' ICT?

We remember. Why don't you?

This is all well and good, but your problem here is you're spouting things that quite simply are not true. You clearly haven't made any attempt to independently verify Bollyn's claims otherwise you would know they are false. In contrast, you presumably have known since childhood that 2X2=4, thus when Hitler affirms this fact to you, it is something you are already aware of, and there is no need to verify Hitler's claim.

Let's focus on a simple basic point which you've claimed repeatedly.

Security at the airports. You seem to be claiming that Huntleigh USA held the security contract at Logan International Airport, Washington Dulles International Airport and Newark International Airport in September 11, 2001. However, as you mention going through check in, I'll have to assume you also mean they had the contract for security for United Airlines and American Airlines at these airports. What you seem to have missed is that Airlines provided their own security.

Now, this claim is rather startling, but sadly it isn't true. If you do a bit of digging, as I did, you'll soon discover that Huntleigh only had one contract of interest - baggage handling for United Airlines. They didn't have any relevant security contracts with any of the airports or either of the airlines. In fact, if you had bothered to pay attention to your own conspiracy theorist friends you'd know that a company called Securacom had the security contract for Washington Dulles International Airport that morning.

Of course, if you'd bothered to do any research you'd know this already, so clearly you haven't. That means you took Bollyn's word for it. So I'll ask again. Why are you so eager to believe whatever that man claims?

It seems that you need to find a reason to implicate some additional conspirators.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Back to the ACARS/remote control busines:

So who updated the flight path to one with destination New York rather than Los Angeles? Here is a possible candidate: Pete Zalewski. What is extremely interesting about this fellow is that he as a flight controller 'handled' 3 (three) hijacked airliners in his life that all crashed: AA11, AA175 and Egypt Air 990. Quite a coincidence!

Here a detailed account of Pete Zalewski's actions during 9/11.

Here is an excellent German documentary '9/11 false flag' (72 min., English subtitles). In minute 15:00-17:10 the German historian Andreas Hauß refers to Pete Zalewski and the curious fact that he 'handled' the 3 flights mentioned. Hauß even handed in a complaint of an offense to the German authorities concerning the attacks of 9/11 explicitly mentioning Pete Zalewski.

When one searches a bit deeper into this character Zalewski one will find that he would fit rather well in my ICT.

Could it be that it was Zalewski who sent an updated flight plan to AA11 and UA175 (and Egypt Air 990) changing course from Los Angeles to New York? Three crashing planes for this very young flight controller is too much to be a coincidence.