2236 replies to this topic

[pallidin]

Babe Ruth, on 22 January 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

They are not going to write down on some government memorandum: "This is a conspiracy".  No Hen, it does not work that way.

Of course not. It's only included in "fringe" conspiracy blogs.  

[skyeagle409]

redhen, on 22 January 2013 - 08:34 PM, said:

There's nothing that shows a conspiracy. All it shows is the usual government incompetence. And speculation, lots of speculation.

"Clarke speculates—and readily admits he cannot prove—that the CIA withheld the information because the agency had been trying to recruit the terrorists, while they were living in Southern California under their own names, to work as CIA agents inside Al Qaeda"

911 conspiracist seem to have a need to make things up as they go and my proof is what they post.

[joc]

skyeagle409, on 22 January 2013 - 08:56 PM, said:

911 conspiracist seem to have a need to make things up as they go and my proof is what they post.

You know though, if you are in a graveyard, at night, looking for ghosts, and the wind is blowing, you ARE going to see some ghosts.  Any plausible explanation to the contrary is not even considered because of the 'I know what I saw' mentality.  It's like there are so many things that 'prove' the WTC was an inside job...and yet..in reality...there just aren't any ghosts in the graveyard.

[Little Fish]

redhen, on 22 January 2013 - 08:34 PM, said:

There's nothing that shows a conspiracy. All it shows is the usual government incompetence. And speculation, lots of speculation.

the anglo american establishment rules the world, and you think they're incompetent? you're just repeating a false meme.

to quote michael parrenti - "God knows what they would achieve if they put their minds to it!"

[Babe Ruth]

joc, on 23 January 2013 - 04:20 AM, said:

You know though, if you are in a graveyard, at night, looking for ghosts, and the wind is blowing, you ARE going to see some ghosts.  Any plausible explanation to the contrary is not even considered because of the 'I know what I saw' mentality.  It's like there are so many things that 'prove' the WTC was an inside job...and yet..in reality...there just aren't any ghosts in the graveyard.

And, you know if you are watching a parade, and the Emperor is in the parade wearing his New Clothes, you will admire those clothes, and chant with the rest of the crowd.

Even though the disinterested observer may note that the Emperor wears no clothes at all, and that the group assembled exhibits mob behavior.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 23 January 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

And, you know if you are watching a parade, and the Emperor is in the parade wearing his New Clothes, you will admire those clothes, and chant with the rest of the crowd.

Even though the disinterested observer may note that the Emperor wears no clothes at all, and that the group assembled exhibits mob behavior.

In the case of 911, facts and evidence support the official line.

[skyeagle409]

Little Fish, on 23 January 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

the anglo american establishment rules the world, and you think they're incompetent? you're just repeating a false meme.

to quote michael parrenti - "God knows what they would achieve if they put their minds to it!"

Not in the case of 911. The government couldn't even keep the Watergate scandal a secret nor the missteps of our intelligence services prior to 911.

[Little Fish]

skyeagle409, on 23 January 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

Not in the case of 911. The government couldn't even keep the Watergate scandal a secret nor the missteps of our intelligence services prior to 911.

last i checked, woodwood and berstein didn't receive anthrax in the post, and warrantless wiretapping wasn't routine at the time.

[skyeagle409]

Little Fish, on 23 January 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

last i checked, woodwood and berstein didn't receive anthrax in the post, and warrantless wiretapping wasn't routine at the time.

That is neither here nor there simply because there was no way the US government could pulled off 911 and not get caught.

There was no way to modify the 911 aircraft in the manner that conspiracist have claimed and no way you can switch a B-767 or a B-757 without attracting attention. A conspiracy would have left long paper trails from Washington State and Washington D.C. If you add their engines, the paper trail will extend to the UK.

[Babe Ruth]

Such nonsense you post Sky.

As other posters have pointed out to you, Boeings are modified and specially equipped all the time.  STC stands for Supplemental Type Certificate, and you know it.  Why do you keep posting untrue statements?

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 23 January 2013 - 09:24 PM, said:

Such nonsense you post Sky.

As other posters have pointed out to you, Boeings are modified and specially equipped all the time.[/quote


No they were not?  If you were a pilot you would have known that they confusing the flight director, autopilot and autothrottles with a remote control device, which are not the same.

Quote

STC stands for Supplemental Type Certificate, and you know it.  Why do you keep posting untrue statements?

Show us all where that applies to remote control devices and airliners.

Edited by skyeagle409, 23 January 2013 - 09:28 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

I thought you knew aviation Sky?

STC applies to all types, all models, all certified aircraft.

[Little Fish]

"The 757-200 flight deck, designed for two-crew member operation, pioneered the use of digital electronics and advanced displays.
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.
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.
The captain and the first officer each have a pair of electronic displays for primary flight instrumentation.
The engine indicating and crew alerting system, often called EICAS, monitors and displays engine performance and airplane system status before takeoff. It also provides caution and warning alerts to the flight crew if necessary. EICAS monitoring also aids ground crews by providing maintenance information.
The 757-200 is available with a wind shear detection system that alerts flight crews and provides flight-path guidance to cope with it.

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.

Built-in test equipment helps ground crews troubleshoot avionics and airplane systems quickly for easier maintenance than on earlier aircraft."
http://web.archive.o...back/back4.html

"Robert Ayling, a former boss of British Airways, suggested in the Financial Times this week that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack. The problem with this, says Mr Taylor, is that remote-control systems might themselves open aircraft up to hijacking by malicious computer hackers."
http://www.economist...Story_ID=787987

"Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground," says Jeff Gosling of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley."
http://www.newscient.../article/dn1280

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 23 January 2013 - 09:36 PM, said:

I thought you knew aviation Sky?

STC applies to all types, all models, all certified aircraft.

If you knew anything  about B-757s and B-767s, you would have understood why those aircraft could not have been modified to fly under remote control in 2001.

[skyeagle409]

Little Fish, on 23 January 2013 - 09:39 PM, said:

"The 757-200 flight deck, designed for two-crew member operation, pioneered the use of digital electronics and advanced displays.
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.
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.
The captain and the first officer each have a pair of electronic displays for primary flight instrumentation.
The engine indicating and crew alerting system, often called EICAS, monitors and displays engine performance and airplane system status before takeoff. It also provides caution and warning alerts to the flight crew if necessary. EICAS monitoring also aids ground crews by providing maintenance information.
The 757-200 is available with a wind shear detection system that alerts flight crews and provides flight-path guidance to cope with it.

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.

Built-in test equipment helps ground crews troubleshoot avionics and airplane systems quickly for easier maintenance than on earlier aircraft."
http://web.archive.o...back/back4.html

"Robert Ayling, a former boss of British Airways, suggested in the Financial Times this week that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack. The problem with this, says Mr Taylor, is that remote-control systems might themselves open aircraft up to hijacking by malicious computer hackers."
http://www.economist...Story_ID=787987

Once again, there was no way to modify B-767s and B-757s to fly under remote control and the flight profiles proved my case that the aircraft were not flown under remote control. There was no capability in place to fly those airliners under remote control and remember, the control systems of the B-757 and the B-767 are mechanical systems, which simply means that a hard tug on the  yokes will override automatic flight control system. In the C-5, there are shear pins on the control tubes leading to the control quadrates and a pilot can shear those pins.

Quote

"Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground," says Jeff Gosling of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley."

There was no such capability for B-757s nor B-767s in 2001.

The fact the autopilots were switched off and on in the cockpit, as depicted in the flight data, should have told 911 conspiracsit the aircraft were not flown under remote control and the depicted altitude data when the autopilots were turned off should have told them the aircraft were not flown under remote control as well. It was evident the terrorist were having difficulty maintaining altitude whenever the autopilot was turned off, which was another indication that professional pilots were not flying those aircraft under remote control.

If you are going to claim that aircraft were flown under remote control, you have to provide the evidence. You have to also understand the nature of how the systems of the B-767s and B-757s are designed, which should have told you that there was no way those airliners were modified to fly under remote control.

Now read and understand the following facts.

" Although the 757 and 767 are equipped with fully automatic flight controls, the pilot can always over-ride the automatic systems. Normally this is done by simply disabling the automatic systems, but in any event the mechanical linkage would always allow the pilot to wrestle control by applying sufficient force to the yoke." The B-777 is a 'fly-by-wire' system whereas, the B-767 and the B-757 use mechanical systems. Those aircraft were never designed to fly under remote control.

Edited by skyeagle409, 23 January 2013 - 10:44 PM.