NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

[George 152]

None of the four planes issued the transponder hijack code. (This means, none of the eight pilots (captains and first officers) issued the hijack alert they have been trained to issue in such circumstances.

I'll deal with this bit of nonsense and leave the rest of the crazy claim for the moment.

To change the transponder code while some-one is cutting your throat would be a very difficult thing to do.
You -do- know just what is involved in changing the transponder code ?
And because the hijackers were pilots they knew about the transponders and later turned the switch (probably) to standby...

 

[DGM]

"Set aside" would be a better term than "throw out." Why set aside? Because it brings clarity to analyze this as a two step problem.

(1) What path did the airplane fly relative to Citgo?

Radar data shows that but, who cares? Do you have evidence that shows the people that collected the aircraft parts lied or the parts were "planted"?

(2) What happened at the Pentagon?

A plane hit the building. There's no need to go on unless you can show that everyone at the scene lied and the scene was faked.

Can you do this?

 

[DGM]

Mr Deets:
It's really this simple. If you went to court as a plaintiff (claiming no plane) and the defendant called everyone that was there to verify the plane hit the building, You'd lose.

What exactly do you have to make your case?

 

[beachnut]

These planes should have been treated as inflight emergencies, not hijacked planes. All indicators were they were inflight emergencies:

1. Loss of radio contact
2. Diverting off of an assigned routing or altitude without ATC approval
3. Loss of transponder

The planes were treated as inflight emergencies. Traffic was moved for them. You have no idea what ATC does with since simple statement, you entire knowledge of ATC procedures is nil.

Wrong; the flight were treated as if they were emergencies. NORAD is not called up. Sorry.

Thus, NORAD should have responded in the way it always had responded for inflight emergencies, the same way first responders do when an emergency is called in to 911. The same way our air defenses have responded on average over 60 times per year prior to June 2001, when a new scramble protocol was instituted. (BTW, that new protocol was revoked late in the morning of 9/11/2001.)

Wrong, NORAD has nothing to do with ATC, zip. They don't do in-flight emergencies. You should study this before you expose you don't know anything. Please list all your 60 times and flight paths. This should be neat. Like education for you.

Big lie, no protocol was changed or revoked, I was on active duty on 911, and you are making up a BIG lie. Why? Ignorance of ATC, and flight procedures and no idea how the military works.

Whereas:

None of the four planes issued the transponder hijack code. (This means, none of the eight pilots (captains and first officers) issued the hijack alert they have been trained to issue in such circumstances.

This is nonsense. If I was hijacked I will set the code when I have time as to not attract the hijacker attention. On 911 the terrorists were not hijackers they were murderers, they kill the pilots before they could set the code, and the code does not bring on a NORAD intercept over the continental USA, and you failed to research past your own fantasy ideas what would happen.

What is the code for dying?

The transponder would be set when the pilot can do it. Can't do it when you are dead and removed from the seat.

You did zero rational, reality based research on this issue.

 

[dadeets]

To change the transponder code while some-one is cutting your throat would be a very difficult thing to do.
You -do- know just what is involved in changing the transponder code ?
And because the hijackers were pilots they knew about the transponders and later turned the switch (probably) to standby...

I'll respond as Lt. Col Dave Gapp (ret. USAF) responds. The hijackers weren't buckled in. The first thing the other pilot does is put the attacker on the ceiling, or bounce him around. Pilots know how to use the controls to their advantage. And secondly, dialing in the hijacker code is extremely easy, and it's what they've been trained to do.

 

[beachnut]

Boger was diving for cover. Although in a building (the control tower) just in front of the Pentagon, he was not in a position to distinguish between an explosion due to placed explosives, and an explosion due to an airplane impacting the Pentagon.

Boger watch 77 enter the Pentagon. No matter how what you make up, he saw 77 impact and enter.

Boger saw 77 enter the Pentagon. You say he is telling a lie. good for you. you spew nonsense, Boger tells the truth. Darn, who do we believe here, the guy who saw exactly where the plane was on RADAR. oops, you are doing poorly, having a bad year. DNA, when will you tell the people their loved ones were fake?

 

[sts60]

the same way first responders do when an emergency is called in to 911

Mr. Deets, you have pushed yourself way beyond the boundaries of your expertise in your mad attempt to claim that no airliner hit the Pentagon.

Since you brought up first responders, I'll point out that I personally ride with firefighters who were at the Pentagon that day, removing parts of airliner and airline passenger - from the very airplane that many, many people directly witnessed strike the Pentagon. Your attempt to wave them away in favor of a supposedly precise assessment of flight path by a handful of unqualified bystanders - some of whom also saw the aircraft impact - is intellectually dishonest.

I've previously pointed out the absurdity of a plot to fake hitting the Pentagon with an airliner instead of a plot to actually do so. Your fundmental premise is not only nonsensical, it is actively anti-sensical.

It seems you have considerable aeronautics expertise, if you are the person you're warranted to be, but in pursuit of this pernicious twaddle you style yourself an expert in many other fields (only in several cases to be slapped down by real experts). I am an engineer, and you have committed one of the worst sins an engineer can make: pretending to expertise outside your field.

Worse, you're doing it in the service an insane claim, and making a fool out of yourself in the process. I don't know what happened to you to cause this sad state of affairs, but having worked with many fine and competent people at NASA - technicians, engineers, and astronauts - I am at least relieved you are retired and therefore cannot embarrass the agency with your ravings while still affiliated. I hope you get help, because this path only dishonors you and will bring only frustration and bitterness at time wasted on a delusion.

 

[beachnut]

I'll respond as Lt. Col Dave Gapp (ret. USAF) responds. The hijackers weren't buckled in. The first thing the other pilot does is put the attacker on the ceiling, or bounce him around. Pilots know how to use the controls to their advantage. And secondly, dialing in the hijacker code is extremely easy, and it's what they've been trained to do.

The hijackers rushed in and killed the pilots, cut their throats because they would be beat up in a real fight. The pilots are strapped facing forward, not a good place to be for people who are killing you from behind. Put the attackers on the ceiling? I thought you said they were hijackers, we were trained to do what the asked. Did you try to research this first, or make up your own fantasy world. Please explain in detail hijacking procedures.

The code is impossible to set when you are dead. It was not a hijacking, it was murder. What is the code for murder dadeets? Got an answer for that one? What do you put in the transponder when the warm blood flows down your chest? What is the code? Anything?

That is funny, you suspect people are hijacking you, you have no idea who is strapped in, and you put everyone on the ceiling killing passengers by breaking their necks, babies flying around the cabin. Good idea in a hijacking. Where did you get this nonsense from? Does the pilot announce to the cabin to strap in we are going to break the plane, do a procedure for hijacking that is made up by people who love fantasy. wow

 

[The Big Dog]

Boger watch 77 enter the Pentagon. No matter how what you make up, he saw 77 impact and enter.

Boger saw 77 enter the Pentagon. You say he is telling a lie. good for you. you spew nonsense, Boger tells the truth. Darn, who do we believe here, the guy who saw exactly where the plane was on RADAR. oops, you are doing poorly, having a bad year. DNA, when will you tell the people their loved ones were fake?

I pointed out that Dwain had accused Boger of lying several hours ago.

I also pointed out that Boger was standing in room where the clock allegedly stopped due to an explosion before the plane was near the Pentagon.

He ignored it.

At this point, I can only assume that Dwain is a troll. No one can unintentionally be this incompetent.

 

[beachnut]

1. AA77 was lost to positive radar contact when airplane was heading westward in eastern Ohio.
2. There was never a re-radar identification of any target flying anywhere as being AA77. Re-identification of a fast moving target eastward bound as AA77 was simply an assumption.

Wrong, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Do you make this up as you go?

77 was never lost to RADAR. You make up stuff and fail to research, or study.

Multiple RADAR sites track 77 from takeoff to impact at the Pentagon. You were wrong and have no idea why.

You made up this nonsense because you have no idea what RADAR is for ATC and how it works.

 

[dadeets]

Boger saw 77 enter the Pentagon. You say he is telling a lie.

I'm not saying he's lying. He is being very truthful, and saying exactly what he believes happened. What he saw most clearly was the plane flying at him, as it flew over the north side of the Navy Annex.

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm not saying he's lying. He is being very truthful, and saying exactly what he believes happened. What he saw most clearly was the plane flying at him, as it flew over the north side of the Navy Annex.

Hey Dwain the part you claim he is lying about is seeing and HEARING the plane hit the Pentagon.

You know, that part? Which you said is untrue? And therefore he was lying about it?

Yeah, that part.

I know it is dark under the bridge, but do try to keep up.

 

[beachnut]

I'm not saying he's lying. He is being very truthful, and saying exactly what he believes happened. What he saw most clearly was the plane flying at him, as it flew over the north side of the Navy Annex.

He saw 77 on the "official flight path" because it is where 77 was. Your made up north of the gas station stuff was made up my guy on drugs, a few idiots at CIT. They can't do math and physics and put on video witnesses pointing exactly to the "official flight path". I expect drugged up guys to not know which was south is, and I was right.

He was there, you were not! Boger wins, 77 impacted the Pentagon. And, the FDR, damage, RADAR, DNA, and the plane itself prove Boger was right, and you are wrong in all ways.

 

[NoahFence]

Hardly a compromise. Let's, instead, throw out the part of each witnesses' statement describing a plane hitting the building, and discuss the rest.

Or, maybe another alternative is to throw out all statements about hitting the building that were NOT around 9:32 AM when the clocks stopped.

Did an aircraft crash in Pennsylvania, and did two aircraft crash in New York?

 

[NoahFence]

I'll respond as Lt. Col Dave Gapp (ret. USAF) responds. The hijackers weren't buckled in. The first thing the other pilot does is put the attacker on the ceiling, or bounce him around. Pilots know how to use the controls to their advantage. And secondly, dialing in the hijacker code is extremely easy, and it's what they've been trained to do.

So what are you saying? The pilots were in on it too?

 

[dadeets]

77 was never lost to RADAR. You make up stuff and fail to research, or study.

"The only plane to be in an area of primary non-coverage was AAL77," according to andrewkornkven (at pilots for 9/11 truth forum)

Robin Hordon (Retired ATC Boston) follows up with an explanation that includes the statement, "nobody ever positively re-identified the eastbound target noticed west of Dulles by O'Brien as being AA77, it has only been presumed as such."

These are at: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t8803.html

 

[The Big Dog]

"The only plane to be in an area of primary non-coverage was AAL77," according to andrewkornkven (at pilots for 9/11 truth forum)

Robin Hordon (Retired ATC Boston) follows up with an explanation that includes the statement, "nobody ever positively re-identified the eastbound target noticed west of Dulles by O'Brien as being AA77, it has only been presumed as such."

These are at: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t8803.html

Ah, Pilots For Truth posts.

Y'all are posting a in a troll thread.

 

[NoahFence]

dadeets - you do understand that the pilot of a C130 was following AA 77, and we have recordings of his conversations with ATC?

And in those recordings, he explicitly states that AA 77 went right into the Pentagon?

And...actually there's video proof that the C130 was right there when it happened?

Was the pilot and ATC "in on it"?

 

[Mr. Skinny]

"The only plane to be in an area of primary non-coverage was AAL77," according to andrewkornkven (at pilots for 9/11 truth forum)

Robin Hordon (Retired ATC Boston) follows up with an explanation that includes the statement, "nobody ever positively re-identified the eastbound target noticed west of Dulles by O'Brien as being AA77, it has only been presumed as such."

These are at: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t8803.html

I think you would be wise to expand your research efforts.

 

[carlitos]

Well, if according to andrewkornkven at some loony truth forum, something witnessed by hundreds and supported by a mountain of documentary and forensic evidence didn't happen, that should settle it. Mr. Deets, you convinced me. Good job.