900 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 26 December 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

It was already proven that airliners could be used at the WTC.

If used under remote control, please spell out the details of how that can be done in regards to the 9/11 attacks.

Edited by skyeagle409, 26 December 2012 - 08:12 PM.

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 21 December 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

If there was no missing funds, then why had congress been investigating it since before Bush took office?  Why had ONI investigated these irregularities?

The untracked funds where reported back in 1999.  In 2/20/2002, the DoD reported that most of the funds have been tracked through the database of 600 storage files on 50 different databases that did not communicate with each other without proper translation software.

By 2/20/2002 the DoD reported only $700 billion were still in the process of being tracked.

The "missing $2.3 trillion" argument has no steam behind it.  Just because a plan hit the Pentagon where some of those financial records are kept does not mean that the DoD is never going to be held accountable for the untracked funds.

Evidence of nothing is not considered evidence of a coverup when it comes to the $2.3 trillion dollars Rumsfeld was talking about.

[Babe Ruth]

Thanks Raptor, and welcome back.  And Happy Holidays too.

As I've told you before, I happened to watch on CSPAN the deposition of Rumsfeld, in which I had the luxury of body language in addiction to words.

I'm old enough to know when a witness is stonewalling the questions and frustrating the process.  That was Rummy in spades.

You might not get it, but Eastman, Flocco, Durham and Schwarz DO get it.  So do many thousands of others.

Was Santa Claus good to you?

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 28 December 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

As I've told you before, I happened to watch on CSPAN the deposition of Rumsfeld, in which I had the luxury of body language in addiction to words.

You don't seem to understand the Pentagon was unable to track the $2 trillion.

[Babe Ruth]

What I understand Sky, is that our government was hijacked by the bad guys a long time ago.  They won, and they are in control.  I understand it too well.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 28 December 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

What I understand Sky, is that our government was hijacked by the bad guys a long time ago. They won, and they are in control.  I understand it too well.

That has nothing to do with the Pentagon's $2 trillion.

[skyeagle409]

CBS Reports Pentagon

"'According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions,' Rumsfeld admitted.
-- CBS, 1/29/02

"We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible."

[Q24]

skyeagle409, on 26 December 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:

If used under remote control, please spell out the details of how that can be done in regards to the 9/11 attacks.

Well we all know that these airliners can practically fly themselves through the onboard computer - it's just a case of inputting the correct details to the system.  I won't go further than that because, no matter what I say, you’d only come back with some unfocussed ‘rebutal’ that we have been over already, like, “AA and UAL would not allow their airliners to be modified” or “drone airliners are not permitted without approval”, neither of which are essential to presence of a drone aircraft.  Had anyone else not been able to figure it out and made the request then I’d likely answer more thoroughly... but not for you skyeagle, it’d largely be a waste of time.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 31 December 2012 - 02:27 PM, said:

Well we all know that these airliners can practically fly themselves through the onboard computer - it's just a case of inputting the correct details to the system.

There is no way you can carry out such modifications without drawing a lot of attention from the crew during their preflight system checks, mechanics, inspectors, and from the affected airlines. The data and flight profiles relating to the aircraft are not indicative of aircraft that are flown under remote control nor even flown by professional pilots.

Quote

I won't go further than that because, no matter what I say, you’d only come back with some unfocussed ‘rebutal’ that we have been over already, like, “AA and UAL would not allow their airliners to be modified” or “drone airliners are not permitted without approval”, neither of which are essential to presence of a drone aircraft.  Had anyone else not been able to figure it out and made the request then I’d likely answer more thoroughly... but not for you skyeagle, it’d largely be a waste of time.

Regarding aircraft modifications, I should know what I am talking about because modifying airframes of all types, including helicopters, has been my job for decades. In addition, I have held airframe maintenance and modification positions such as supervisor, inspector, and technician in the Air Force and during employment with defense contractors and that while flying as an C-5, DCC. I have invented and developed components for aircraft and support equipment used in airframe maintenance and modifications and as a pilot of over 40 years, I know what I am talking about concerning flight performances and profiles.

I have visited a few 9/11 conspiracy websites and I have seen so much disinformation and misinformation relating to the 9/11 aircraft, that I have lost count. In other words, those CT people have no understanding what they have presented and I am sorry to say that they have been very successful duping many people as well as themselves.

Edited by skyeagle409, 31 December 2012 - 04:13 PM.

[Q24]

skyeagle409, on 31 December 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

There is no way you can carry out such modifications without drawing a lot of attention from the crew during their preflight system checks, mechanics, inspectors, and from the affected airlines.

Your concerns are invalid; there is no crew, inspection or affected airline when it comes to the drone aircraft.  The necessary modifications can be carried out privately by the same individuals responsible for the operation.

skyeagle409, on 31 December 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

The data and flight profiles relating to the aircraft are not indicative of aircraft that are flown under remote control nor even flown by professional pilots.

It’s all very well making statements of opinion but you need to back it up.  How or why is the flight profile not indicative of remote control?  The final approach of Flight 77 at the Pentagon matches the WAAS descending turn used to line up for landings and the profile of some missile guided systems.  It is even possible that the drone flights could additionally be controlled using a simulator linked to a camera aboard the aircraft – this could produce any manner of manoeuvre possible of a manual, onboard pilot.  So bearing all this in mind (which I know you won’t, but hey) there can be no founded objection to remote controlled aircraft.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 04 January 2013 - 03:19 PM, said:

Your concerns are invalid; there is no crew, inspection or affected airline when it comes to the drone aircraft.  The necessary modifications can be carried out privately by the same individuals responsible for the operation.

Privately by whom? Do you realize what is involved in engineering, manufacturing, preparing and installing modifications on large aircraft?  No airline is not going to allow its aircraft down time for months for the purpose of illegal modifications and it is very clear that you do not know how things work in the real world of aviation, especially modifications of large aircraft. We are not talking Hollywood fantasies.

Quote

It’s all very well making statements of opinion but you need to back it up.

It was all very simple from the links I've posted. Why do you think the FAA deregistered the tail numbers of the 9/11 aircraft? I've posted the fleet history of American Airlines but it seems that you are not knowledgeable enough to understand the significance of the message regarding the fleet histories of American Airlines and United Airlines because you have no experience in the field of aviation to understand what I have posted.

Quote

How or why is the flight profile not indicative of remote control?

Look at the altitude data pertaining to the aircraft whenever the autopilot was tuned off.





Look at the sloppiness of those altitude profiles after the aircraft were hijacked! Those are not  profiles of professionally flown aircraft and the data should have told you the aircraft were not flown under remote control by professional pilots nor indicative of flight profiles of drones.

Secondly, there were no need for a remote controlled aircraft to fly a circling maneuver in order to strike a building. Look at the flight path of United 175 and American 77.



Flight path of United 175

I want to add that 9/11 conspiracist claimed the aircraft was modified for the purpose of increasing its airspeed and that didn't make any sense because United 175 was flown into a headwind which decreased its groundspeed.

Quote

The final approach of Flight 77 at the Pentagon matches the WAAS descending turn used to line up for landings and the profile of some missile guided systems.

A sesending turn to line up for landings?! That doesn't make any sense becasue the correct profile would have been a direct approach and diving attack upon the Pentagon, so why waste time with a circling maneuver?

Quote

It is even possible that the drone flights could additionally be controlled using a simulator linked to a camera aboard the aircraft –....

Another magic word; "camera." What camera? How can you install a camera and integrate that camera into the systems of a B-767 and B-757 without drawing attention from the airline's mechanics and inspectors? Once again,

Quote

...this could produce any manner of manoeuvre possible of a manual, onboard pilot. So bearing all this in mind (which I know you won’t, but hey) there can be no founded objection to remote controlled aircraft.

Once again, refer to the altitude and flight path data charts. The profiles are not indicative of aircraft flown under remote control by professional pilots. In addition, it was very clear the pilots were killed instantly. Question is, was there enough time for the pilots to switch to the hijack code on the their transponders? Think about it.

9/11 conspiracist have enveloped themselves within Hollywood fantasies, which does not reflect on the way we do things in the real world of aviation.

Edited by skyeagle409, 04 January 2013 - 05:24 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 04 January 2013 - 03:19 PM, said:

Your concerns are invalid; there is no crew, inspection or affected airline when it comes to the drone aircraft.

Look at the B-757 and B-767 fleet history of American Airlines and tell us how many of its B-757-200 and B-767-200 series aircraft were written off and please provide the reasons why they were written off and provide the dates they crashed.

American Airlines Fleet History

http://www.planespot...erican-Airlines


American 77

http://www.planespot...an-Airlines.php


American 11

http://www.planespot...an-Airlines.php

----------------------------------------------------------------

United Airlines Fleet History

http://www.planespot...United-Airlines


United 175

http://www.planespot...ed-Airlines.php


United 93

http://www.planespot...ed-Airlines.php

Edited by skyeagle409, 04 January 2013 - 06:05 PM.

[Q24]

skyeagle409, on 04 January 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

Privately by whom? Do you realize what is involved in engineering, manufacturing, preparing and installing modifications on large aircraft?  No airline is not going to allow its aircraft down time for months for the purpose of illegal modifications and it is very clear that you do not know how things work in the real world of aviation, especially modifications of large aircraft. We are not talking Hollywood fantasies.

I’m not referring to AA or UAL or any regular/commercial airline (though by the way, such mainstream aircraft do sometimes have months of downtime in storage).  However, anyone with the money can own a Boeing aircraft.  The heads of state of Argentina, Azerbaijan, Brunei, Chile, China, Iraq, Mexico and Mongola all use these aircraft as private transports.  Even private millionaires such as the owner of Chelsea Football Club, Google and others have their own 767s.  Private companies such as Blackwater military contractors (now known as Academi) own 767s.  Even intelligence services have been known to posses their own subsidiary airlines which operate Boeing aircraft.  It’s not like the U.S.  Joint Chiefs of Staff didn’t see it as a possibility before through a CIA subsidiary airline (reference:  not ‘Hollywood’ but the very real ‘Operation Northwoods’ document).  With the many options, and without physical identification of the aircraft, we cannot know who was responsible for drone aircraft potentially used on 9/11, only that the possibility exists.

skyeagle409, on 04 January 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

It was all very simple from the links I've posted. Why do you think the FAA deregistered the tail numbers of the 9/11 aircraft? I've posted the fleet history of American Airlines but it seems that you are not knowledgeable enough to understand the significance of the message regarding the fleet histories of American Airlines and United Airlines because you have no experience in the field of aviation to understand what I have posted.

Due to the covert nature of the aircraft switch, either in the air or on the ground, the FAA along with AA and UAL all legitimately believe the original aircraft were destroyed.  Though without physical identification of the crashed airliners’ debris, this has never been confirmed.

skyeagle409, on 04 January 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

Look at the altitude data pertaining to the aircraft whenever the autopilot was tuned off.

Look at the sloppiness of those altitude profiles after the aircraft were hijacked! Those are not  profiles of professionally flown aircraft and the data should have told you the aircraft were not flown under remote control by professional pilots nor indicative of flight profiles of drones.

Why?  Professional pilots can’t fly up and down?  Drone aircraft can’t adjust altitude?  Even if the very intention is to give appearance of a hijacking?

skyeagle409, on 04 January 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

Secondly, there were no need for a remote controlled aircraft to fly a circling maneuver in order to strike a building. Look at the flight path of United 175 and American 77.

...

A sesending turn to line up for landings?! That doesn't make any sense becasue the correct profile would have been a direct approach and diving attack upon the Pentagon, so why waste time with a circling maneuver?

Ok, you realise there is a height difference between WTC2 and the Pentagon of approximately 1,285ft?  It would look pretty darn suspicious for a number of reasons had Flight 77 arrowed straight into the Pentagon from some altitude and distance out – Hani just took on a whole new level of skill and accuracy there!  Obviously the aim is to make the drone flight and approach look somewhat believable.  Thus the descending turn as used to line up for landings, to hit a target not far off the ground, was necessary.

skyeagle409, on 04 January 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

Another magic word; "camera." What camera? How can you install a camera and integrate that camera into the systems of a B-767 and B-757 without drawing attention from the airline's mechanics and inspectors? Once again,

The same type of camera and control link that is used for UAVs, which rather than ‘magic’ is quite mundane technology today – it’s like the pilot is in the cockpit, but they aren’t.  I’m sure that one day in the not too distant future, fighter pilots in the cockpit will be a thing of the past.  Also refer to the above – the necessary modifications are made in-house – we do not need to avoid AA or UAL mechanics or inspectors (you might get this point one day... though probably not).

[Q24]

skyeagle409, on 04 January 2013 - 05:40 PM, said:

Look at the B-757 and B-767 fleet history of American Airlines and tell us how many of its B-757-200 and B-767-200 series aircraft were written off by American Airlines and please provide the reasons why they were written off and provide the dates they crashed.

See previous response.  The aircraft in question were assumed to be crashed and written-off on 9/11 though without physical identification of the aircraft that remains unconfirmed.  9/11 skeptics are not prepared to accept such assumptions here, we are looking for proof as confirmation.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 04 January 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

I’m not referring to AA or UAL or any regular/commercial airline (though by the way, such mainstream aircraft do sometimes have months of downtime in storage).

That won't work either because even in storage, there are records as well and I might add that I also worked in an aircraft storage yard at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona.

Quote

However, anyone with the money can own a Boeing aircraft.

And in doing so, you will create a number of records that will result in a traceable paper trail.

Quote

  It’s not like the U.S.  Joint Chiefs of Staff didn’t see it as a possibility before through a CIA subsidiary airline (reference:  not ‘Hollywood’ but the very real ‘Operation Northwoods’ document).  With the many options, and without physical identification of the aircraft, we cannot know who was responsible for drone aircraft potentially used on 9/11, only that the possibility exists.

Once again, I was attached to MASDC, Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ, and here to tell that acquiring any large aircraft will leave behind a long and traceable paper trail. In fact, it took me less than 5 minutes to trace the first aircraft I have ever flown and traced that aircraft to the State of Washington.

Quote

Due to the covert nature of the aircraft switch, either in the air or on the ground, the FAA along with AA and UAL all legitimately believe the original aircraft were destroyed.  Though without physical identification of the crashed airliners’ debris, this has never been confirmed.

As I mentioned before, there are tons of evidence and the reason why you said there is no evidence because you are not familiar of how aircraft are tracked or identified.

Quote

Why?  Professional pilots can’t fly up and down?

Not in that manner, and it is very obvious the terrrorist were having difficulty maintaining proper altitude.

Quote

...Drone aircraft can’t adjust altitude?

Look at the flight  profiles again. They are having great difficulty maintaining altitude control without autopilot.

Quote

... Even if the very intention is to give appearance of a hijacking?

That doesn't work either because the aircraft were tracked from takeoff on radar and in communications with ATC before they were hijacked so we know the aircraft in question were not drones.

Quote

Ok, you realise there is a height difference between WTC2 and the Pentagon of approximately 1,285ft?

What is the point?

Quote

...It would look pretty darn suspicious for a number of reasons had Flight 77 arrowed straight into the Pentagon from some altitude and distance out – Hani just took on a whole new level of skill and accuracy there!

Thank you for  confirming that Hani was in control of American 77,  which underlines the point that American 77 was not flown under remote control nor a drone and explains the sloppy flight profile of American 77.

Quote

Obviously the aim is to make the drone flight and approach look somewhat believable.  Thus the descending turn as used to line up for landings, to hit a target not far off the ground, was necessary.

You don't seem to understand that the flight path of American 77 was traced right back to the airport from where it embarked, which clearly indicates that aircraft was not a drone.

Quote

The same type of camera and control link that is used for UAVs, which rather than ‘magic’ is quite mundane technology today – it’s like the pilot is in the cockpit, but they aren’t.

How are you going to integrate a camera into the systems of a B-757 or a B-767 and not draw attention from the pilots during their external preflight inspections and systems checks as well as from servicing and maintenance personnel? Did the pilots of those aircraft indicate that something was wrong?

Quote

...I’m sure that one day in the not too distant future, fighter pilots in the cockpit will be a thing of the past.  Also refer to the above – the necessary modifications are made in-house – we do not need to avoid AA or UAL mechanics or inspectors (you might get this point one day... though probably not).

How are you going to acquire such large aircraft and not leave a traceable paper trail? This is not Hollywood.

Edited by skyeagle409, 04 January 2013 - 06:56 PM.