3292 replies to this topic

[turbonium]

skyeagle409, on 05 January 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

Look at the altitude profiles for each aircraft. Any experienced pilot would know those profiles are not flown by professional pilots.

You do realize that we're talking about a false flag op here, don't you?

It is supposed to look like goofballs are flying these planes.

So you want the crazed hijackers to look like professional pilots, for some reason?

skyeagle409, on 05 January 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

It sure is and building aircraft in secret doesn't mean there are no  records for such aircraft. I hope you didn't t think there were no records for the SR-71,. A-12, and the YF-12. I might add that the A-12 was faster and flew higher than the SR-71 and the YF-12.


  
And yet, even those aircraft have tail, part and serial numbers, flight and maintenance records.

The records could have been completely destroyed, if need be. Which means it never existed to
you or me. Get the point here? It existed. They had records. But it's up to them when/if we know about it's existence,

It's not hard to dispose of their records, if they want to.

[Babe Ruth]

Kludge808, on 05 January 2013 - 04:24 AM, said:

BR, there remains one major problem, that being that there are too many contradictory conspiracy theories.  Until there can be agreement among all the CTists, there will always be those who believe the rest of the CTists are being deceived or are part of the conspiracy.  Even here, you and Q24 don't even agree on everything.

The only common element is "The government lies" which is something no one will argue against.  We all know governments lie as a part of doing business.  Heck, we even elect people to office whom we know will lie through their teeth once they get there.  And yet somehow we keep on electing them and re-electing them.  So the question here is who's to blame, the politicians or the people who put them in office?

I speak only for myself.  I am able to recognize the difference between facts and fantasy.  Yes, I have some hunches about different possible scenarios, but I understand in my mind, and admit to anybody involved in the discussion that speculation is speculation and facts are facts.

So, all I really KNOW is that the official story is grossly inaccurate, and nothing more than a myth or fable that is NOT supported by the facts.

That is as simple as I can put it Kludge.  I'm sorry if that is too sophisticated for you to understand.  I've repeated here many times.

I don't really KNOW whodunnit and why, but I can sure offer some educated guesses.

All I really know is that the OCT is a hoax.  The only part of it that is true is that 2 airplanes hit the towers.

Happy New Year.

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 05 January 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

You do realize that we're talking about a false flag op here, don't you?

Yes! And, I know what has to be in place for a 9/11 false flag operation to work and I see no such indicators.

Quote

It is supposed to look like goofballs are flying these planes.

There were professional pilots flying the airliners when they took off and it was obvious they were not in control in the minutes before they aircraft crashed and professional pilots do not fly in that manner in positive controlled airspace and it was obvious the airliners were hijacked by hijackers who were not interested in maintaining assigned headings and altitudes. The fact the hijackers tampered with the transponders in positive controlled airspace was another indicator the airliners were hijacked.

Quote

So you want the crazed hijackers to look like professional pilots, for some reason?

From the specifics of the data, it was obvious the airliners were hijacked and they thought that turning off or switching the transponders would make the aircraft invisible on radar, which did not make the aircraft invisible on radar..  

Quote

The records could have been completely destroyed if need be.

Not those kind of records.

Quote

Which means it never existed to you or me. Get the point here? It existed,...

There is no room for speculation.   Either you know, or you don't, and what I have read from 9/11 conspiracist is nothing more than disinformation, misinformation, and speculation which does not reflect on the reality of the way we do things in the real world.

Edited by skyeagle409, 05 January 2013 - 05:47 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 05 January 2013 - 02:21 PM, said:

I speak only for myself.  I am able to recognize the difference between facts and fantasy.

Let's take a look. What crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/2001? What crashed near Shanksville on 9/11/2001?

[skyeagle409]

Kludge808, on 05 January 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

I heard that.  I've changed tactics.  Now I'm just enjoying the contradictions among the CTists.  And, of course, pointing them out when I think of it.  Trying to convince them that any part of the Official Version is true is like trying to herd cats.  Well, no.  Some accept parts of the OV but they pick and choose which ones they go along with.  It's all really funny when you think about it.

It is amazing that some CTists continue to claim the airliners were not real and that the aircraft were just holograms. What a joke!!

[Kludge808]

Babe Ruth, on 05 January 2013 - 02:21 PM, said:

That is as simple as I can put it Kludge.  I'm sorry if that is too sophisticated for you to understand.  I've repeated here many times.

Ah, old friend, I know your position quite well but you're not the only CTist here.  My only point was that your position isn't shared by all CTists.  There are many different conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 which makes things a bit confusing.

Quote

All I really know is that the OCT is a hoax.  The only part of it that is true is that 2 airplanes hit the towers.

And there are CTists who don't even believe that.  Among other things, cruise missiles and space-borne directed energy weapons have been forwarded instead of airliners.

Quote

Happy New Year.

Thanks.  To you as well.  It was pretty much like a lengthy firefight with artillery support here starting around 2100 on the 31st and continuing through daybreak on the 1st.  Not a good thing to hear by a number of the vets here.

[Kludge808]

skyeagle409, on 05 January 2013 - 05:51 PM, said:

It is amazing that some CTists continue to claim the airliners were not real and that the aircraft were just holograms. What a joke!!

It would be nice if they all would settle down on one theory but as it is they're shotgunning which does no one any good.  Well, no one except me since all I'm doing now is enjoying the conflicts between them.  

[Babe Ruth]

Kludge

What you say is true, on your second sentence.  No doubt.

One must learn to sort the wheat from the chaff, if you know what I mean.  Some theories are reasonable, and some are not.  One cannot believe everything he hears.  That's where the facts come in handy.

I don't think my position is unique.  There are quite a few polls out there, much more in Europe, showing that most people doubt the official story.  Eleven years later, it might be that the truth has finally prevailed, for those looking for it.

[skyeagle409]

Kludge808, on 05 January 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

It would be nice if they all would settle down on one theory but as it is they're shotgunning which does no one any good.  Well, no one except me since all I'm doing now is enjoying the conflicts between them.  

I heard that!!

It would be nice if they settled down with one theory. Some have said the airliners were modified to fly into buildings under remote control and that interceptors were deliberately sent away from those aircraft and then I read the military shot down one of them. Why modify an aircraft to fly under remote control into a building and then, shoot it down? Why modify an aircraft to fly at higher airspeeds for which it was designed and then fly it into a headwind, which decreased its groundspeed?

There are those who have said that an aircraft approached the Pentagon and then, fly over the Pentagon, which they say, then landed at Ronald Reagan National airport where it blended with other traffic. Question is, how can an aircraft blend in with other traffic after landing without permission in the first place? I guess they figured that ATC and pilots wouldn't have noticed or perhaps they figured that radar coverage was non-existent.   Others have said that a missile struck the building despite the fact the video shows a B-757 in the background, not a missile. Perhaps they should have asked those at the scene if they saw a missile or an aircraft.

They've claimed the aircraft passed north of the gas station, but damaged light poles and the damaged generator leading up to the Pentagon and the distributed wreckage within the Pentagon proved that the aircraft passed south of the gas station.

Some have said no wreckage was found in the crater of United 93, but I guess they didn't look close enough because I could see aircraft wreckage and even hi-lock fasteners in the photos, which are used on high stressed areas of an airframe, in the crater. And then, the case of nukes in the absence of nuclear explosions and their effects. Makes you want to say; hmmmmm!!.

Edited by skyeagle409, 05 January 2013 - 11:32 PM.

[turbonium]

skyeagle409, on 05 January 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

Yes! And, I know what has to be in place for a 9/11 false flag operation to work and I see no such indicators.

What has to be "in place" for it to work, exactly? If you can provide a detailed list, that would be great...

skyeagle409, on 05 January 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

There were professional pilots flying the airliners when they took off and it was obvious they were not in control in the minutes before they aircraft crashed and professional pilots do not fly in that manner in positive controlled airspace and it was obvious the airliners were hijacked by hijackers who were not interested in maintaining assigned headings and altitudes. The fact the hijackers tampered with the transponders in positive controlled airspace was another indicator the airliners were hijacked.

Are you aware that these planes could have been 'hijacked' by unconventional means?

That is, these planes could have been taken over by remote control, with the actual pilots helpless to stop it.

The technology already existed. And 757's and 767's were ideal planes to use, since they had the capability of being remote controlled already. Just set these planes up to override the pilots' commands, turn off transpnders, voice comm. etc. That's it   

skyeagle409, on 05 January 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

From the specifics of the data, it was obvious the airliners were hijacked and they thought that turning off or switching the transponders would make the aircraft invisible on radar, which did not make the aircraft invisible on radar..  

As I said above, this is all do-able by remote commands.

skyeagle409, on 05 January 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

Not those kind of records.

What do you mean by "those kind" of records? Do you think there is an indestructible kind or something??

Unless the records are etched into some sort of 'indestructible' material, there is absolutely nothing to prevent them from being destroyed.

skyeagle409, on 05 January 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

There is no room for speculation.   Either you know, or you don't, and what I have read from 9/11 conspiracist is nothing more than disinformation, misinformation, and speculation which does not reflect on the reality of the way we do things in the real world.

Actually, disinfo and misinfo are keystones of your 'official' storykeepers. It would literally take pages to list them all.

It's your side that comitted a crime by unlawful removal/disposal of evidence. It's your side that already 'knew' who did it before an investigation had even begun. It's your side that held all the interviews behind closed doors. It's your side that didn't include any testimonies that didn't 'fit' their pre-planned version of events. It's your side that changed its account over and over, and still it conflicts.

That's just for starters, btw..

[Kludge808]

turbonium, on 06 January 2013 - 06:58 AM, said:

It's your side that comitted a crime by unlawful removal/disposal of evidence. It's your side that already 'knew' who did it before an investigation had even begun. It's your side that held all the interviews behind closed doors. It's your side that didn't include any testimonies that didn't 'fit' their pre-planned version of events. It's your side that changed its account over and over, and still it conflicts.

Prove it.

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 06 January 2013 - 06:58 AM, said:

What has to be "in place" for it to work, exactly?

First of all, you have to have the facilities, equipment, professionals such as engineers, mechanics, pilots, and the means to modify the aircraft without drawing attention from the airlines because there was no way to switch aircraft, and the list just keeps right on piling up.

The aircraft were tracked by ATC on radar and by other radar systems after takeoff so we know that all four aircraft were not drones nor switched. In addition, passenger and crew remains from those flights have been identified from those flights as well which further confirms the aircraft were not drones, and further confirmations came from the owners and operators of those aircraft.

The airlines, along with the Boeing Aircraft company, supplied the necessary information needed to support the data of the black boxes for those aircraft only. Another example was that countries around the world were warning the United States before the 9/11 attacks that Muslim terrorist were planning such an attack and some of those warnings mentioned the use of aircraft as weapons by the terrorist, so we had the warnings prior to the 9/11 attack and nothing there that implicated the United States.

To continue, both bin Ladin and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed have already admitted their role in the 9/11 attacks.

Quote

Are you aware that these planes could have been 'hijacked' by unconventional means? That is, these planes could have been taken over by remote control, with the actual pilots helpless to stop it.

No way!  Especially in 2001. As I have said, it takes many months to design, engineer and modify an aircraft and there was no way to modify and integrate such modifications into the systems of B-757s and B-767s unnoticed.

There were no indications from the pilots to ATC, communications nor the special transponder hijacking **** codes,  which should have told you something right there nor did they have the time to do so before they were killed by the hijackers.

Quote

The technology already existed.

We are not talking about systems of the old B-707s and B-720s, we are talking advanced systems of the B-767 and the B-757. There was no way to install a camera on the aircraft unnoticed and to do so would have required modification of the airframe and installation of special brackets and other hardware, which would have drawn a lot of attention. A camera on a B-767 and the B-757 would have been clearly visible to anyone on the tarmac.

Quote

And 757's and 767's were ideal planes to use, since they had the capability of being remote controlled already.

Where did you get that idea?! Neither the aircraft FD, FMC, nor the autopilot were set up for remote control operations from the ground in 2001.

Quote

Just set these planes up to override the pilots' commands, turn off transpnders, voice comm. etc. That's it

It is clearly evident that you are not knowledgeable about aircraft systems nor what it takes to modify an aircraft for remote control purposes. We are not dealing with Hollywood fantasy.   

Quote

As I said above, this is all do-able by remote commands.

Not true at all. How are you going to do it?

Quote

What do you mean by "those kind" of records? Do you think there is an indestructible kind or something??

Air Force does not keep all of its aircraft records in one basket and such records are spread around the country amongst its many contractors who were responsible for building secret aircraft, which are not for your eyes to view..

Unless the records are etched into some sort of 'indestructible' material, there is absolutely nothing to prevent them from being destroyed

Quote

Actually, disinfo and misinfo are keystones of your 'official' storykeepers. It would literally take pages to list them all.

Mr.Reality and my own experience will simply say that your comments are based on pure speculation and lack of knowledgeable on the way we do things in the real world of aviation.  

Quote

It's your side that comitted a crime by unlawful removal/disposal of evidence.

There you go again, making things up!

Quote

It's your side that already 'knew' who did it before an investigation had even begun. It's your side that held all the interviews behind closed doors. It's your side that didn't include any testimonies that didn't 'fit' their pre-planned version of events. It's your side that changed its account over and over, and still it conflicts.

Your comments are nothing more than pure fiction.   How about providing evidence to backup what you say because you have already proven that you are just making things up as you go!

Edited by skyeagle409, 06 January 2013 - 09:47 AM.

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 06 January 2013 - 06:58 AM, said:

Unless the records are etched into some sort of 'indestructible' material, there is absolutely nothing to prevent them from being destroyed.

Why would anyone want to destroy records on operational or experimental aircraft, past, present, secret or otherwise?

Edited by skyeagle409, 06 January 2013 - 12:30 PM.

[Kludge808]

Oh, crud.  At one time I knew all the X-planes but you just trotted out a bunch I don't know.  Damn, those aliens must be busy over at Groom Lake.  ;-)

[Babe Ruth]

It's been proved many times Kludge.  It's been obvious from day 2 that the story was being controlled, and one way to do that was get rid of forensic evidence.  There are so many factual events and statements contradicting the official story that have been suppressed, and removed from media website and records, so that the official story may be promoted.

Turbonium

Interesting thing about remote controlling aircraft with crew aboard.  Do you know any of the companies who provide or install such hardware?