Ed Pentagon - TruthMakesPeace

[TruthMakesPeace]

Is a depressurized plane still flyable by RC?

What Oxygen system? How does it work? Where does the air come from for the aircraft?

The web site www.911Pentagon.org has changed recently to say "Asphyxiated (Gassed or Depressurized) Occupants (Crew, Passengers, and duped Hijackers) in Remote Controlled Planes..." and proposes a covertly installed, remote controlled air release valve to knock everyone unconscious/dead by asphyxia. So no cyanide gas tanks would need to be smuggled. Since you are a pilot, if the fuselage was gradually depressurized, particularly a Boeing 757 or 767, would it still be flyable by Remote Control?

 

[triforcharity]

Sorry if I missed your post, and want to answer as many questions as possible which are asked in an adult, intellectual manner.


You bring up a good question. A simple explanation is preferable to one that raises complications.

The www.911Pentagon.org site has recently changed to propose gradual cabin depressurization instead of gas. Simply removing breathable air would serve the same nefarious purpose as gassing. Opening a valve by remote control, to let air escape, could have accomplished this. During extreme fuselage depressurization, the oxygen masks would be ineffective.


The web site used to propose they were put in the baggage section by agents on the baggage handling crew.


I have looked. Cyanide tanks could have been in the luggage area. The flights less populated than the average so there was more room.

If you mean connected to the Oxygen system, the theory proposes that agents on the ground crew did it.

Depressurization is a simpler explanation. So a covert ground crew could have installed remote controlled air release valve(s).

Except that the passengers still made phone calls, which again, minces your delusions.

 

[triforcharity]

The web site www.911Pentagon.org has changed recently to say "Asphyxiated (Gassed or Depressurized) Occupants (Crew, Passengers, and duped Hijackers) in Remote Controlled Planes..." and proposes a covertly installed, remote controlled air release valve to knock everyone unconscious/dead by asphyxia. So no cyanide gas tanks would need to be smuggled. Since you are a pilot, if the fuselage was gradually depressurized, particularly a Boeing 757 or 767, would it still be flyable by Remote Control?

And wouldn't that have shown up in the FDR's and CVR's that were recovered?

Yes, they would have.

Guess what is missing? Yeah, evidence of a depressurization of the plane. In the Flt. 93 CVR, we have a transcript of people in the cockpit screaming in Arabic before the plane crashes.

Go back and try again.

 

[TJM]

The web site www.911Pentagon.org...

...is a Stundie goldmine.

 

[jaydeehess]

All that erractic flying needed to be compensated for. Multiple compensations resulting in PERFECT compensation at over 300 MPH!!!! That certainly deserves a spot with the plethora of amazing 9/11 coincidences

The hilited portion is what is known as an oxymoron.
If the pilot was making numerous corrections then his flying by definition imperfect.

You still indicate that you hold the idea that Hani hit the exact spot he wanted to hit yet you have nothing other than what amounts to a classic Sharpshooter Logical Fallacy with which to make this claim.

Once again with feeling; the likely, most logical thing for a suicide pilot who wants to impact the Pentagon to do is to aim for the center of the 300 foot by 77 foot wall. Hani missed that spot 30 some feet low and a few dozen feet wide. Did it matter? Not a bit, not one iota, nope, it just did not matter. As I stated he could have hit the earth 50 feet in front of the Pentagon and cartwheeled the aircraft into the Pentagon, and still caused as much damage and loss of life. He could have crashed on the roof and done as much damage, he could have been too high for that wall and crashed into the inner ring on the far side and done MORE damage (inner walls not being hardened as the outer walls.) He could have been 100 feet left or right and done as much damage (well if he plowed into the helipad tower that might have reduced damage to the Pentagon proper though it would have absolutly destroyed the smaller structure)

He hit where he hit, not necessarily exactly where he was aiming and GIVEN his inexpert handling of the aircraft he most likely did not hit the exact spot he was aiming for.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html

The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.
In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity.
We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.​

But they do not mention any specifics, alternative names, or corrections. Just "the FBI is confident". So we just have to take their word for it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1581063.stm
"Click here for pictures and more details on the alleged hijackers."
"There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks. At best the evidence is circumstantial."

You posted to the BBC which says 19 terrorists did it

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456983/html/
These page(s) from state sponsored mass media just parrot the Official Story, without any independent sources or evidence for their claims.

your failed claims of gas, spreading lies

Debating is not "spreading lies". Refute any points you don't like with sufficient logic and evidence, and they will go away. Learn from other JREFers, such as Fess, how to debate properly.

Considering that cyanide gas quickly dissipates, how many cylinders would be needed to incapacitate the crew and passengers? Where would these cylinders be stored? Have you ever been in the baggage area of an airliner? How would the baggage handlers have missed seeing these cylinders? How were the cylinders plumbed into the aircraft air handling system?

Fess pointed out, with courteous and irrefutable logic, that it would have been complicated to smuggle gas into the plane. So, that part of the theory went up in smoke IMHO. The recent change of the theory to asphyxiation, by simply letting air out of the plane, sounds more plausible - pending your response on whether a depressurized passenger plane can still fly.

The OCT may explain the evidence and testimonies for some. But this new theory explains the evidence and testimonies does also, in a different way.

 

[jaydeehess]

The web site www.911Pentagon.org has changed recently to say "Asphyxiated (Gassed or Depressurized) Occupants (Crew, Passengers, and duped Hijackers) in Remote Controlled Planes..." and proposes a covertly installed, remote controlled air release valve to knock everyone unconscious/dead by asphyxia. So no cyanide gas tanks would need to be smuggled. Since you are a pilot, if the fuselage was gradually depressurized, particularly a Boeing 757 or 767, would it still be flyable by Remote Control?

1: at what altitude was this supposedly done?

2: how big is this supposed 'air release valve"?

You see you would have to be above 10,000 feet to cause people to pass out due to lack of oxygen and even at that its not a given they'd all pass out. Problem is that passengers were making calls when the aircraft was at 10,000 ft and above.

Then there is the problem of this valve. If it is an addition to the a/c you have the very real additional problem of the flight crew and/or ground crew noticing it. These poeple are trained to inspect the a/c they are responsible for. Its not like hopping into your minivan and heading into traffic.
If its small its going to take a long time to depressurize the cabin, and you still have to be above 10,000 throughout this release period.
If it is larger its more noticible;
First Officer: Captain I was just doing the walkaround and there is a very odd outlet at the tail of the aircraft that I have never seen before on this or any other 757
Captain: Its probably nothing, those maintenance guys are always putting in new stuff and not telling us about it.

 

[jaydeehess]

In DeHavilland Otter and Beaver, Norseman and Beech 18 float planes flying VFR I have on many occassions been at 8000 ft asl (in general that would make it about 7000 ft agl in these parts). These are unpressurized a/c. No effect other than not as good a view of the earth as at 3000 ft.

 

[beachnut]

The web site www.911Pentagon.org has changed recently to say "Asphyxiated (Gassed or Depressurized) Occupants (Crew, Passengers, and duped Hijackers) in Remote Controlled Planes..." and proposes a covertly installed, remote controlled air release valve to knock everyone unconscious/dead by asphyxia. So no cyanide gas tanks would need to be smuggled. Since you are a pilot, if the fuselage was gradually depressurized, particularly a Boeing 757 or 767, would it still be flyable by Remote Control?

No, there is no remote control on a Boeing 757/767, you have a delusion.

You have no idea how the plane works.

 

[TSR]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm

.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456983/html/

Check the datelines.
.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

No, there is no remote control on a Boeing 757/767, you have a delusion.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_200back.html

The 757-200 flight deck, designed for two-crew member operation, pioneered the use of digital electronics and advanced displays. Those offer increased reliability and advanced features compared to older electro-mechanical instruments.

A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system assures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload.
The precision of global positioning satellite (GPS) system navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer.
...
Flight decks of the 757 and 767 are nearly identical and both aircraft have a common type-rating. Pilots qualified to fly one of the aircraft also can fly the other with only minimal additional familiarization.​

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Blowing 6 to 8 windows with

1: at what altitude was this supposedly done? You see you would have to be above 10,000 feet to cause people to pass out due to lack of oxygen and even at that its not a given they'd all pass out. Problem is that passengers were making calls when the aircraft was at 10,000 ft and above.

According to the theory, passengers were allowed to make calls, to get the official story out. Then "At about 10000 feet above sea level, remote controlled plastic explosives blew about 20 windows at once, balanced with 10 each side of the fuselage, so the plane would stay level, and equalize drag. This caused rushes of air to be released simultaneously and evenly, so the fuselage was not significantly damaged. This froze, asphyxiated and incapacitated the crew, passengers, and hijackers into unconsciousness."

2: how big is this supposed 'air release valve"?...Then there is the problem of this valve. If it is an addition to the a/c you have the very real additional problem of the flight crew and/or ground crew noticing it. These poeple are trained to inspect the a/c they are responsible for...there is a very odd outlet at the tail of the aircraft that I have never seen before

I agree with your good point. The air release valve idea is too complicated and slow. Blowing the windows with plastic explosives would be much easier, faster, and effective.

 

[TruthersLie]

Sorry if I missed your post, and want to answer as many questions as possible which are asked in an adult, intellectual manner.


You bring up a good question. A simple explanation is preferable to one that raises complications.

The www.911Pentagon.org site has recently changed to propose gradual cabin depressurization instead of gas. Simply removing breathable air would serve the same nefarious purpose as gassing. Opening a valve by remote control, to let air escape, could have accomplished this. During extreme fuselage depressurization, the oxygen masks would be ineffective.


The web site used to propose they were put in the baggage section by agents on the baggage handling crew.


I have looked. Cyanide tanks could have been in the luggage area. The flights less populated than the average so there was more room.

If you mean connected to the Oxygen system, the theory proposes that agents on the ground crew did it.

Depressurization is a simpler explanation. So a covert ground crew could have installed remote controlled air release valve(s).

and yet that technical analysis that I posted earlier completely destroys that theory.

why won't you addresss that technical analysis? Oh because it destroys your fragile gullible delusions.

 

[TruthersLie]

The web site www.911Pentagon.org has changed recently to say "Asphyxiated (Gassed or Depressurized) Occupants (Crew, Passengers, and duped Hijackers) in Remote Controlled Planes..." and proposes a covertly installed, remote controlled air release valve to knock everyone unconscious/dead by asphyxia. So no cyanide gas tanks would need to be smuggled. Since you are a pilot, if the fuselage was gradually depressurized, particularly a Boeing 757 or 767, would it still be flyable by Remote Control?

Why do you keep on ignoring the technical analysis that shows it would be virtually impossible to modify the jets on 911 to do what you claim w/out massive refits and w/out people noticing?

Why do you keep on ignoring that?

 

[TruthersLie]

According to the theory, passengers were allowed to make calls, to get the official story out. Then "At about 10000 feet above sea level, remote controlled plastic explosives blew about 20 windows at once, balanced with 10 each side of the fuselage, so the plane would stay level, and equalize drag. This caused rushes of air to be released simultaneously and evenly, so the fuselage was not significantly damaged. This froze, asphyxiated and incapacitated the crew, passengers, and hijackers into unconsciousness."


I agree with your good point. The air release valve idea is too complicated and slow. Blowing the windows with plastic explosives would be much easier, faster, and effective.

<facepalm>

Yet again, ignorance and incredulity rear their ugly heads.

So now they detonated plastic explosives on the jets at cruising altitude...but no one on the phones heard it. Damn... that hushaboom is amazing stuff.

Have you managed to read that technical analysis yet? didn't think so.

 

[000063]

It would only take a small crew to install it. It would not take THOUSANDS of people, including the ticket agents and airport janitor to be "in on it". If a few engineers are working on a plane, so what? Nobody is going to call the FBI to investigate. To every other airport worker, they are just some guys doing their job. They didn't have "Black Ops Team" on their uniforms, but would look like normal workers.

And then, after the planes crash, they realize that there were these strange new guys...

That is something that needs to be investigated. Who was working on those planes prior to 9/11. I'm not holding my breath for main stream media "investigative reports" to look into it.

This is an interesting tactic for you lot. Have something blatantly impossible? Claim it'll be cleared up in the investigation.

What does NASA have to do with this?

They were the ones who ran the program to remote-fly a plane which you bought up. Try to keep up, TMP.

But if we put the billions in to NASA that we did the NSA to listen to phone calls, we would have Moon bases by now, as in 2001: a space odyssey. Everyone on Earth would be friends, working towards a common goal of exploring the universe, which is our destiny. We wouldn't be going to war over oil - which is just stored solar energy from millions of years ago. We would have solar panels orbiting the earth, giving us abundant free energy.

Irrelevant.

This article says "The 777 was Boeing's first true fly-by-wire design. The 757 and 767 apparently used a mechanical linkage with hydraulic power assist. Although 757 and 767 are equipped with fully automatic flight controls, the pilot can always over-ride the automatic systems" http://www.911-strike.com/remote_bb.htm
But if everyone in the 757/767s were knocked out by gas on 9/11, including the pilots, that is not an issue.

Affirming the Consequent.

It would be nice if you would say "prove it" about the Official Conspiracy Theory.

I did some research, and IMO, it holds up.

Why don't you ask the 9/11 Commission or NIST to "prove it" that fire alone can bring down a steel skyscraper? You say "I believe without any proof" for the OCT. But you say "prove it" to anything questioning the official dogma. That is having double standards.

The NIST report cited a ton of experts. The 911CR cited a ton of experts. Truthers ignore requests for proof and can't even agree on which version of the events took place.

That was in 12/1/1984. Judging by how much computer have evolved, such as the Apple Macintosh to the Apple iPad, it is reasonable to assume that Remote Control technology has also advanced.

Yes, it is. However, use of the tech almost thirty years back isn't proof they retained it or improved it. They don't have working Moon Landing equipment either.

That is a good point. Yes, hidden cameras in the plane, to see the passengers, and crew, (to see if the gas knocked them out) and the direction of the plane would be helpful. Your suggestion should be added to the theory. I'll email to the webmaster.

Which would require more wiring and more men to install it, increasing the risk of detection by ground/flight crew or passengers.

 

[000063]

The request for proof applies equally well on the OCT. Prove fire can completely collapse a sky scraper.

In the case of 1 and 2, there was damage from the plane, and in 7, the fire was allowed to burn unfought for an extended period of time, in addition to the damage from debris. The fire doesn't need to completely collapse a building, just weaken it enough so that it starts a chain reaction. Fire didn't "completely collapse" them anymore than Mrs. O'Leary's cow was directly responsible for every building burned down in the Great Fire of Chicago.

Prove the occupants were alive inside the planes at the time of the crash.

Phone calls. Prove they weren't.

Prove there were no assistive explosives on the planes.

Experts found the explosions consistent with fully-loaded planes hitting buildings.

Prove there were not explosives in the buildings.

No time or chance to plant them, plus they would've had to function perfectly after being hit by an airplane moving at 100s of MPH and an hour or so of fire. Or are you positing that the only explosives detonated were at the exact floor and time the planes struck?

It cuts both ways. We're critical thinkers because we demand proof - even if a statement comes from the Government. This theory explains the evidence and witness statements equally well, if not better than the OCT, which asks us to accept that 19 guys intentionally killed themselves, without proof. www.911Pentagon.org

People commit suicide bombings all the time. This wasn't a bombing, this was an attack, and there was a ton of evidence which you refuse to accept.

 

[dafydd]

The request for proof applies equally well on the OCT. Prove fire can completely collapse a sky scraper. Prove the occupants were alive inside the planes at the time of the crash. Prove there were no assistive explosives on the planes. Prove there were not explosives in the buildings. It cuts both ways. We're critical thinkers because we demand proof - even if a statement comes from the Government. This theory explains the evidence and witness statements equally well, if not better than the OCT, which asks us to accept that 19 guys intentionally killed themselves, without proof. www.911Pentagon.org

It has been proved in the real world,I don't know about over there in the insane world that is Trutherland. Will you still be doing this in twenty years time?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Why didn't anyone see all the plastic explosives etc plastered all over the windows?

Why were the crew effected? they have masks to provide oxygen.

 

[Oystein]

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_200back.html

The 757-200 flight deck, designed for two-crew member operation, pioneered the use of digital electronics and advanced displays. Those offer increased reliability and advanced features compared to older electro-mechanical instruments.

A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system assures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload.
The precision of global positioning satellite (GPS) system navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer.
...
Flight decks of the 757 and 767 are nearly identical and both aircraft have a common type-rating. Pilots qualified to fly one of the aircraft also can fly the other with only minimal additional familiarization.​

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/193154dd0c7598379d.jpg[/qimg]

These features are designed to give the cockpit crew more control, not less, and most certainly not none, as in "remote control with no possibility of crew interference".
All that you quoted does not mean 757/767 fly on remote control.