Questions for 9/11 Truthers

[A-Train]

Don't be so quick to convince yourself that a 757 or 767 can be flown by remote control unless you have at least taken the time to read apathoid's paper on how the flight control systems of these airplanes work and the possibilities of flying them by remote control. You can find it here.

I took the time to read over apathoid's essay. For the most part, he is arguing against a remote takeover of an airplane. But in my scenario the airplane is not taken over remotely, but by human hijackers who then rig the cockpit for remote flight. Most of his arguments against the possibility of remote takeover involve the actions of the crew to thwart such a takeover. But that point is moot if the crew is dead when the plane is rigged for remote flight.

At the end of his essay, he considers the possibility of the crew being disabled by some kind of nerve gas, or cabin depressurization. His arguments against such possiblities are probably very good, but he never addresses the scenario I proposed, which is a crew disabled by a couple of bullets to the head.

 

[A-Train]

A-Train, are you going to post the "dozens" of flight manifests you claimed existed, or were you lying about those?

I just had an e-mail in my box about that but I flushed it a couple of days ago. I'm working on getting the info back. Give me some time. I'm working on it.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...I don't know.

The first thing you've written with any semblance of truth.

 

[R.Mackey]

After killing the pilots and putting on the mock-Arab stageshow hijacking, the passengers are herded to the back of the plane. The hijackers now rig the cockpit for remote navigation. Do they program the Flight Management Computer to fly a pre-designated flight plan, or do they rig the cockpit to be flown by a real human at a remote location? I don't know.

With the plane now flying pilotless, the hijackers slip down a hatch to the cargo hold at the front of the plane, where they are invisible to the passengers in the back of the plane. The plane is flown over a pre-determined GPS point corresponding to a rural area where the sight of skyjumpers is common. They exit the plane in a manner similar to that described by former Navy SEAL Chuck Pfarrer in the passage quoted above. This occurs at least 10 minutes before the planes crash.

It should be noted that some genuine Arab patsies, like Satam al-Suqami, were actually on the plane, and were shot by the hijackers as was Suqami. When the plane crashes, the recovered DNA of these patsies is held up to a credulous American public as "proof" that al-Qaeda did 9/11.

What a perfect frame-up job. So slick, so lovely. It almost makes your eyes water.

Those are called "tears," and in this case they're caused by laughing too hard.

 

[ktesibios]

I took the time to read over apathoid's essay. For the most part, he is arguing against a remote takeover of an airplane. But in my scenario the airplane is not taken over remotely, but by human hijackers who then rig the cockpit for remote flight. Most of his arguments against the possibility of remote takeover involve the actions of the crew to thwart such a takeover. But that point is moot if the crew is dead when the plane is rigged for remote flight.

At the end of his essay, he considers the possibility of the crew being disabled by some kind of nerve gas, or cabin depressurization. His arguments against such possiblities are probably very good, but he never addresses the scenario I proposed, which is a crew disabled by a couple of bullets to the head.

However, there's enough ancillary information in his paper to make it clear that the 757 andd 767 have no inbuilt remote-control capability and that their inertial navigation systems aren't capable of flying the plane into a target the size of the WTC towers.

So, "rigging the cockpit" for remote-controlled flight isn't a matter of throwing switches and pushing buttons. Neither is programming the plane to fly itself into a target.

As I said earlier, this isn't a story conference for some tripewad action movie. Your scenario now requires that your putative evil Joooos modify the zarking control and/or navigation systems to fulfil your fantasies and that they do it with tools and materials from their carry-on luggage, or that your conspiracy be widened to include a number of airline personnel who somehow carry out these modifications undetected on a plane that's in service.

Try to propose, in detail, just how this would be accomplished. Then, demonstrate that this scenario has superior explanatory power to the known-possible method of a human suicide pilot guiding the plane into his target, lest your claim be cut off by Ockham's razor. Then produce positive evidence to support the claim that your scenario is historical reality, not merely a possibility, and you might be getting somewhere.

I'm betting that you can't do it, and that you'll just add another layer of handwaving to your pathetic efforts to pin the crime on your chosen hate-object.

 

[Firestone]

Every single bit of "evidence" provided by A-Train has been shred to pieces, yet he ignores it and sticks to his phantasy-scenario. Never mind that it is falsified over and over again by facts, real facts that is. He just ignores these unconvenient facts and rambles on. And on. And on.

OK, A-Train, I got it. The Israelis did it. Not because you have any evidence for this, but because that's the way it is: The Israelis/Zionists/Jews always do it.

Next.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The hijackings were necessary to properly frame the Arabs, by having Arab-looking commandos do the hijackings while committing heinous acts like stabbing stewardesses. This false impression of a horrific Arab hijacking was then passed on by the passengers via their phone calls to the American public, who bought it hook, line, and sinker, and were thus incited to support wars in the Middle East.

After killing the pilots and putting on the mock-Arab stageshow hijacking, the passengers are herded to the back of the plane. The hijackers now rig the cockpit for remote navigation. Do they program the Flight Management Computer to fly a pre-designated flight plan, or do they rig the cockpit to be flown by a real human at a remote location? I don't know.

With the plane now flying pilotless, the hijackers slip down a hatch to the cargo hold at the front of the plane, where they are invisible to the passengers in the back of the plane. The plane is flown over a pre-determined GPS point corresponding to a rural area where the sight of skyjumpers is common. They exit the plane in a manner similar to that described by former Navy SEAL Chuck Pfarrer in the passage quoted above. This occurs at least 10 minutes before the planes crash.

It should be noted that some genuine Arab patsies, like Satam al-Suqami, were actually on the plane, and were shot by the hijackers as was Suqami. When the plane crashes, the recovered DNA of these patsies is held up to a credulous American public as "proof" that al-Qaeda did 9/11.

What a perfect frame-up job. So slick, so lovely. It almost makes your eyes water.

Very. So much more likely than the possibility that:
(1) A stewardess under extreme mental strain confused seats 9B and 10b, and
(2) One of the hijackers managed to smuggle a gun on board, but didn't have occasion to fire it, or two eyewitnesses under extreme mental strain thought they saw a gun but actually didn't.
And the proof of all this is that nobody heard a gunshot. A highly suspicious thing, not hearing gunshots.

Look, I don't want to get all snarky about this, but your line of argument is totally unconvincing as it stands. If you want to convince anyone who isn't already convinced, but is open to argument - and I like to think that includes me, but I may be wrong - you'll need some more actual proof than a debatable interpretation of a series of conflicting eyewitness accounts. A hundred accounts that mostly agree on something are convincing. Two or three that don't agree with each other on a number of points are not convincing, however many scenarios you want to construct or real life hero action books you want to quote.

Dave

 

[twinstead]

Very. So much more likely than the possibility that:
(1) A stewardess under extreme mental strain confused seats 9B and 10b, and
(2)
Look, I don't want to get all snarky about this, but your line of argument is totally unconvincing as it stands.

A-Train is the ONLY one on this thread who doesn't see how ludicrous his theory is. It would only be convincing if he were trying to sell it as a movie script to somebody.

If you totally make up the details, you can claim anything. It's fun. We should start a thread in the games section and play A-Train what ifs. Hell, using A-Train's patented Super Morphing Debate Technique^TM I could prove A-Train himself was one of the super secret Israeli commandos.

 

[zeppy_gorrila]

A-Train: If you're trolling you've got us, but I'm afraid you might actually believe this :/

 

[Kiwiwriter]

As for me...

A-Train's theory doesn't make my eyes water, but it makes my stomach turn.

Too many hands in this theory for it to work. It violates a lot of physics and chemistry, not to mention Occam's Razor.

Anyway, his theory isn't the point. What matters to A-Train is the bottom line: The evil Jews. Those horrid, vile, lice-ridden, caftan-clad, money-grubbing, filthy, bearded, hook-nosed Satan-spawned Jews. The evil behind all of history, as depicted by "Der Sturmer" 70 years ago and Tom Metzger last week.

What I really want to know from A-Train and MaGZ are what they think the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" should be.

Odd how they dodge and weave that, in favor of James Bond stories about Israeli commandos parachuting out of a 757 10 minutes before it hits the World Trade Center. And who picked them up out of the streets of Yonkers when that happened?

 

[Firestone]

And who picked them up out of the streets of Yonkers when that happened?

The five dancing Jews?