Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[dafydd]

Brilliant post, I am going to change my whole line of thinking because of it.

A very commendable attitude to adopt. Can you give me your full theory regarding the events of 911? No truther here has ever answered that question. Break the mold and be the first. Full details please.

 

[DGM]

Try going here...and yes I picked this site for an important reason.

http://100777.com/node/1836

That's not a "software" change, it's a rework of the flight systems. Too bad they didn't pick "fly by wire" planes. How many people did you say were "in on it" again?

 

[dafydd]

. Oh I understand flight control systems very very well,.

No you don't. Who's' worried? Amused,but not worried.

 

[tmd2_1]

A very commendable attitude to adopt. Can you give me your full theory regarding the events of 911? No truther here has ever answered that question. Break the mold and be the first. Full details please.

I did see previous posts

 

[tsig]

So this guy was doing it wrong?

Absolutely, he's using a claw hammer when he should be using a machinists hammer.

 

[tmd2_1]

That's not a "software" change, it's a rework of the flight systems. Too bad they didn't pick "fly by wire" planes. How many people did you say were "in on it" again?

I don't know how many people were in on it, I do know if the upper branches of the security at all 3 airports which happened to be run by ICTS, were in on it, it could be done. Yes re-work of the flight systems is not something I think maintenance would notice, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

 

[tmd2_1]

That's not a "software" change, it's a rework of the flight systems. Too bad they didn't pick "fly by wire" planes. How many people did you say were "in on it" again?

Are you trying to impress with me the term "fly by wire" which simply means the computer controls the rudder, the flaps..etc...as opposed to it being mechanically controlled. Fly by wire does make it easier to use remote control...but you can see why the link I gave it was quite possible.

 

[DGM]

I don't know how many people were in on it, I do know if the upper branches of the security at all 3 airports which happened to be run by ICTS, were in on it, it could be done. Yes re-work of the flight systems is not something I think maintenance would notice, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

Why don't you "think so"? You're putting you're eggs in this basket. How much "kit" is required to do what you claim to a 757/767? Have you not thought this through?

Hint: it's not a small box strapped under the seat.

 

[DGM]

Are you trying to impress with me the term "fly by wire" which simply means the computer controls the rudder, the flaps..etc...as opposed to it being mechanically controlled. Fly by wire does make it easier to use remote control...but you can see why the link I gave it was quite possible.

I'm not trying to impress you at all. "Fly by wire" would be required because of the limits of command* of any auto-pilot system. Without major rework, no your linked system is useless

* still not trying to impress.

 

[tsig]

Maybe because hitting those targets was hard. Those planes were maxed out speed wise, and under trained pilots were able to hit those building that square? For the pentagon it's hard to keep it off the ground while still being lower then the roof. Are all three of these possible, yes from I read it would have been very difficult for experienced pilots to do, let alone under trained, and by all reports of the one at the pentagon...a bad pilot.

I read it wouldn't be difficult for untrained pilots to do.

 

[tmd2_1]

Why don't you "think so"? You're putting you're eggs in this basket. How much "kit" is required to do what you claim to a 757/767? Have you not thought this through?

Hint: it's not a small box strapped under the seat.

No...far from it, this is only one of many possibilities. You have all your eggs in one basket, what really happened as to be the official story and that's it. As far as modifying a 767/757 look at the link it all there.

 

[tmd2_1]

I'm not trying to impress you at all. "Fly by wire" would be required because of the limits of command* of any auto-pilot system. Without major rework, no your linked system is useless

* still not trying to impress.

One last time...see the link there are modified Boeing 757/767's however difficult or not difficult you think it is, I mean the proof is simply the fact that they exist.

 

[tsig]

They're just getting confused. We're beginning to outnumbrer them on the jref scale. It was a post of mine they were talking about.

'

Conspirator i: Have they cleared the damn backlog yet ? We need to get 93 off the ground pronto. Those airport cops will be going that way soon. If they see that the olane is under remote control we're utterly screwed. The whole operation is blown.
Conspirator 2: It's starting to roll. But it's too late to complete the mission..could be fighters around by now. Better tell the joystick oilot to get clearance right now and take off. Tell him to fly out over Pennsylvania while we work out what to do with the plane.
Conspirator 1: He says she's very heavy. Must be all that extra fuel I guess.
some time later....
Conspirator 1: Okay...we'll land her in Cleveland. We have a team there who will take her straight to a secure area out of sight.
Conspirator 2: Some seals went in by chopper and found a spot in a place called Shanksville . They blew a big hole in the ground and scatttered some debris around. We'll put out the story that the plane went in nose first at maximum speed and completely buried itself in the ground. Not perfect but it will have to do.
Conspirator 1: It really is amazing that a little fire on the runway could have caused so many problems. Now Seven will have to be demolished in plain view in New York and we have to fake a jet crash in Shanksville in a very dubious way. There will be endless problems with this. People on forums for a hundred years.
Conspirator 2: And if it had all gone smoothly we would have had three Towers, Three planes,and no Shanksville. All as neat as ninepence.'

And if it wasn't for those pesky kids on the internet we'd have got away with it.

 

[DGM]

No...far from it, this is only one of many possibilities. You have all your eggs in one basket, what really happened as to be the official story and that's it. As far as modifying a 767/757 look at the link it all there.

It's far from "all there". Sounds to me like you're throwing ideas hoping one will stick. I'll go with the simple theory that's backed with the most evidence.

Anyway, it's a nice day out, it's been fun talking to you.

 

[tsig]

It would only take a few security agents at the airport. They could have done in the night before, and we are talking about software may have gone un-noticed. Or maybe some maintenance folks were in on it as well. I don't know how it was done, I do know if the security at it's highest levels was in on it, it could have been done. Can I prove the security was in on it no, but security at all 3 air ports was run by the same company ICTS. Coincidence? you be the judge.

All the airplanes had wings. Coincidence? you be the judge.

 

[Oystein]

I just said remote control.

Can you be a little more specific? How do you get a commercial passenger plane to be remotely controlled? Someone must install the hardware, slip the rigged plane past maintenance crews, fool the pilots... Someone must do the actual controlling - how? How does this fit with all the other evidence that exists - the erratic, wobbly flying of UA175 and AA77? How many people does it take, minimum, to have 4 planes at 3 different airports equipped with remote control technology?

And oh - what would be your evidence, other than your incredulity that 5 determined and trained murderers could have taken over the cockpit?

Why would they stay silent...well maybe because they would be asked why they didn't prevent the others especially the pentagon.

They are asked that anyway. Had they shot down one and talked about it, the general accusation of stand-down would be dead, and they'd have to explain only three failures to intercept, not four.

Your speculation makes no sense. You are fishing in muddy waters and pulling out old boots.

Other planes did show up..listen to witness accounts.

No fighters.

Listen read my example I make the "official" plot sound much difficult then you have it, mostly because it really is.

What's missing in my account of
- train 19 guys with enough hatred
- buy box cutters
- buy plane tickets
- walk into cockpit
- kill pilots
- fly into target
?

This is a VERY detailed account of all that is needed to pull off the stunt.
Please list the elements of your theory with as much detail! You will find that your list will be very long and involves many more than about 25 people.

In terms of the pentagon...I doubt the official version. Some jet air-liner could have crashed into it, but I don't know.

That is painfully obvious.

Look at lloyde england's testimony and that doofus in the tv studio with a piece of the plane. While a photo taken by an official military photographer places him else where at the time.

What about his testimony? We have photos of his taxi cab, standing on the highway damaged by a lamp post exactly where the official flight path of AA77 was.

 

[Oystein]

What are you talking about? I said they could ( I don't know) have real hijacking to make that stuff authentic, and then the planes are taken over by remote control.

See? Not only are you speculating about a more complex way to control the planes than Atta's men employed (remote control, if you think this through, will involve dozends of operatives, with a very high risk of getting caught before take-off; alternatively, much larger crews - reaching triple digits now - must have been involved), you must add complicated cover-ups, voice feeds, doubles...

And you find that more believable than that 5 dedicated, trained murderers could overcome over an unarmed cockpit crew??

 

[bill smith]

And if it wasn't for those pesky kids on the internet we'd have got away with it.

Yeah, it landed at Cleveland all right. They couldn't afford to crash a plane without crew or passengers. That would have given the whole game away on the spot. It had to disappear. As it officially did..straight down- all 155 feet of it from nose to tail in that stony, stony Shanksville ground, two six-ton engines and 125 feet of wing span too. Just like it had never hit the ground there at all.

Nope it landed in Cleveland as is well documented.

I even have a transcript of the Mayor announcing on TV that morning that 93 had landed safely in Cleveland
http://www.rense.com/general56/flfight.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W2o87UuTZ8

 

[Oystein]

Maybe because hitting those targets was hard.

Speculating about things you have not the faintest clue about, right?
BUZZZZZZZZZZZZ - WRONG!
Hitting huge buildings is dead easy. Kids can do it.

Those planes were maxed out speed wise,

It is easy to fly a plane at full throttle. It's harder to do at low speeds.

and under trained pilots were able to hit those building that square?

What do you mean by "that square"?? Two of the three barely avoided missing the target - that testifies to their bad skills, but all three buildings were HUGE! Pilots, when the land, routinely hit runways that are much narrower, and do so well aligned, too, at a well defined hight, and rarely miss. There was no requirement at all to come close to that kind of ordinary, every-day routine precision that any mediocre pilot achieves 90& of the time.

For the pentagon it's hard to keep it off the ground while still being lower then the roof.

Yes, and Hanjour did hit things on the ground before crashing. So what? It wasn't even necessary to come in below roofline, crashing down on the roof would also have been fine. The Pentagon is the largest office building in the entire world, if one office building in the world is easy to hit, the Pentagon is the one!

Are all three of these possible, yes from I read it would have been very difficult for experienced pilots to do, let alone under trained, and by all reports of the one at the pentagon...a bad pilot.

You have been lied to. It is easy for any pilot, even bad ones. Kids could do it.

 

[Oystein]

It would only take a few security agents at the airport. They could have done in the night before, and we are talking about software may have gone un-noticed.

Just a software update?
FAIL

No. A 757 or 767 cannot be remote controlled.

Or maybe some maintenance folks were in on it as well. I don't know how it was done, I do know if the security at it's highest levels was in on it, it could have been done.

See? You know nothing, you just pile upon the complexity of the plot.
You don't know.
You don't know how maintenance of commercial planes is done.
You don't know how Boeing builds planes
You don't know what remote control requires
You don't know.

Can I prove the security was in on it no, but security at all 3 air ports was run by the same company ICTS. Coincidence? you be the judge.

You can't prove anything.
You only tell just so stories.
Abd pile up even more on the complexity: The next company that gets involved. Add how many co-conspirators?
You must stat to notice how ridiculous all that speculation is, not? You must get a feel by now that no alternative account exists. All 9/11 CTs have run into the problem of ever increasing complexity, when the entire events have such a simple, brilliant explanation:
- Find 19 hateful men
- Train them
- Buy plane tickets
- Take cockpits
- Crash

Numnber of people involved: 19 plus a handful.,
Cash needed: 6 digits at most
Complexity: Low.