3292 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 13 January 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

The additional features don't have any affect on their standard system checks.

That doesn't work in the real world. Simply making things up and not in tuned to the way things are done simple highlights your lack of knowledge on that way things are done.

Quote

...Do you know about electronics, its apllications re: variable circuitry, and so on?

Yes, and why I have said what I did?

Quote

...Do you know how easy it is to hide something in an aircraft when you have unlimited access to it? And we are also talking about small electronic components here, It's not exactly like trying to hide an 800 lb. gorilla! It's all very do-able.

First of all, when electronics are added, wiring and mounting brackets must be installed and that requires a lot of drilling and hardware and attachments. Next, you have to find a way to integrate a new system into the current system. We are not talking about the old B-720s. Do you know how long it took to wire and modify a single C-5 in regards to new avionics?

Quote

The seventy-ninth and final C-5 Galaxy aircraft modified under the Avionics Modernization Program, or AMP, was re-delivered to the US Air Force in ceremonies at Travis AFB, California, on 27 April 2012. AMP, the first part of a two-phase C-5 modernization effort, began in 1998 and incorporates a glass cockpit with digital avionics, a new mission computer and autopilot, and also includes air traffic management equipment.

The first aircraft to enter the RERP production line is a C-5B based at Dover AFB, Del. This aircraft, Air Force serial number 83-1285, was the first C-5B to come off the production line in 1985. Modernization of this first aircraft is expected to take 13 months. At rate production, the conversion time on future C-5s is expected to be reduced to eight months.

Now, what airline is going to allow its aircraft to be grounded for many weeks?

Quote

All sorts of paper trails are kept in secret.

Each aircraft contains thousands of parts that are manufactured by private companies across the United States and in many cases, from around the world and there is no way to manufacture a B-757 in secret. If you order parts, that will create a paper trail that investigative news reporters can follow.

Quote

Look at the JFK paper trail - the government has sealed it until 2038. Do you wonder why it would take them 75 years!! before releasing it to the public?! Hmm...

But, we are not talking about JFK, we are talking about aircraft. Black projects known as the 'Bird of Prey; 'Have Blue' and 'Tacit Blue' are no longer secret aircraft and those aircraft were not manufacture by the government either. Tacit Blue was manufactured by Northrup, and 'Have Blue' was manufactured by Lockheed, while the 'Bird of Prey' was manufactured by Boeing, and they are not government agencies.

Quote

Any such project can be kept a secret from the public, and many have been. No matter where they get their parts from,

Once again, there was no way to manufacture a B-757 in secret and in many cases, there is only one source that manufactures certain parts for a B-757. Where are you going to get the engines? Where are you going to get the APU? Who is going to manufacture the formers, longerons, stringers, spars and wing assemblies? Who is going to supply the alignment fixtures? Who is going to supply the electronics, tubing, cable assemblies, brackets, vertical and horizontal fins and control surfaces, flaps, avionics, and landing gears? Just a few of the thousands of individual parts that are manufactured by private companies across the country and around that world.

Looking at the manufacturer's record books and shipping information, an investigative news reporter can track down those parts.

If you manufacture those aircraft, how are you going to switch those aircraft with American 77 and United 93?

Quote

The contractors don't need to know what the parts are being used for. They just build, say, an engine to certain specs, and ship it off.

Oops, you have just created a paper trail beause aA lot of paperwork is generated in the manufacture of parts along with shipping paperwork.

Quote

The contractor isn't concerned with what happens to the engine after that point. No. They only care about being paid for it. Period.

Where did you get that idea? An engine manufacturer will keep track of every engine it manufactures and of course, each engine will have its own unique serial number for record purposes as well. Yes, each engine and its components have their own individual serial numbers as unique as the license plate on your vehicle and such information can be used by investigative news reporters for tracking purposes as well.

Edited by skyeagle409, 13 January 2013 - 11:08 AM.

[DONTEATUS]

It wil forever amaze that some people cannot understand the way we do things in this world ! Skyeagle  we are always going to have these types in here ! Cheer`s and a Happy New Year mate ! On your Six !

[skyeagle409]

DONTEATUS, on 14 January 2013 - 04:01 AM, said:

It wil forever amaze that some people cannot understand the way we do things in this world ! Skyeagle  we are always going to have these types in here ! Cheer`s and a Happy New Year mate ! On your Six !

I heard that!! I have visited some of those CT websites and was amazed at the scope of disinformation and misinformation they are spewing. They have made claims that I knew doesn't happen in the real world of aviation. Happy New Year and save me some of that Texas BBQ.

[Liquid Gardens]

Q24, on 11 January 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:

That’s where I think Kludge and LG get confused – between which parts of the theory are evidence and which are speculation.  We are all working to the same evidence and broad conclusions that come of it, only having different solutions in the underlying detail where evidence is lacking – which as I mentioned, given the lack of investigation we decry, is not so important.  On the other hand, I don’t think that OCTs have the right to speculate for a second – too many lives depended on it.

The last sentence has nothing to do with anything, you've mentioned it many times and I still have trouble not seeing it as a plea to fudge a little in favor of your theory, to lower the bar and bend over backwards for it.  And I don't understand why this doesn't work both ways, since a 'civil war' is the consequence of your efforts, which was part of the reason the experts who know of the blatant demolition are silent.

You're on the right track with the rest of it though, but what we are talking about is the mass of differing CTs, not just your theory and categorization of data points.  What is evidence, speculation, and conclusion is subjective for everyone working from the same set of data, and the point is, as socrates reiterated well, CTs have come up with widely disparate theories from this data, and the OCT is not that disparate.  You may believe that drone aircraft were involved because you believe it was a false flag, but other CTs are free to reverse it, they may believe that there is no way Hani could have pulled off that maneuver (evidence), thus a drone were required (conclusion), thus it was a false flag (conclusion).

This quote from earlier might help clarify the point,  "All MIHOPers are unified in the belief that the evidence, and/or lack of, indicates the attack was not carried out by bin Laden/Al Qaeda but elements within the U.S. We all are unified in the end that evidence of the OCT is lacking. And that’s the main point – so really how significant are disagreements in the detail? ".  The significance is that if the CT's case was as strong as it is sometimes asserted, we shouldn't expect such variety with significant number of CTists championing them.  Maybe 'significance' isn't the best word to use, it implies political topics, let's try just magnitude.  The OCTists probably do differ on how the blame apportions out to the various AQ parties involved for instance, we aren't privy to all that communication that occurred, but how it is apportioned does not seem to me to be of the 'magnitude' of whether a plane struck the Pentagon.  If Osama was hardly involved, does that evidence point really require as much explanation and supporting evidence as the questions of "where is Flight 77?", "where are the passengers?", "who really are the eyewitnesses and why are they lying?", "what really hit the Pentagon?", "how many more conspirators are required to pull this deception off?"?  The explanations for all these questions are part and parcel of the veracity of that CTists' CT; the fact that he can fall back to Q's admittedly more reasonable position and still be a believer in the overall MIHOP is noted but I think kinda kludge's point.  A lot of CTs which have great differences in detail can comfortably coexist, an observation whose possible explanation is that the evidence and reasoning being used to arrive at CTs are not as founded as sometimes sold.

In all fairness part of this might just be definitional, we could look at it from the standpoint that the OCT is a fairly concise, defined theory on it's own so by definition it wouldn't have that much variety.  But I have trouble thinking of possible OCT scenarios that would again include data points as large and requiring as much explanation as whether a plane hit the Pentagon (maybe I shouldn't have mentioned the demolitions, I had assumed there were some MIHOPs who still may not believe in a demolition, but that may actually be a very small number).  I don't think the fact that the MIHOP theory is so malleable is an evidence point in it's favor, as I'm sure I've mentioned I think that malleability is a byproduct of not having any good direct evidence to confine it.  Is there really any piece of it that must be, is it still a CT if Cheney knew nothing about it?  If there was no demolition?  The OCT is called into serious question if we had good evidence of anyone in the government who was involved in the plot; the MIHOP CTs are nearly invulnerable in comparison to the OCT as far as the OCT's fragility to potential contrary evidence, merely by it having a relatively concise definition.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 14 January 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

The last sentence has nothing to do with anything, you've mentioned it many times and I still have trouble not seeing it as a plea to fudge a little in favor of your theory, to lower the bar and bend over backwards for it.  And I don't understand why this doesn't work both ways, since a 'civil war' is the consequence of your efforts, which was part of the reason the experts who know of the blatant demolition are silent.

I wouldn’t word it that way, and I certainly wouldn’t expect anyone to bend over backwards, but you are not so far off when you say, “to lower the bar”.  At least, the results brought about through each theory require different standards.  Of course I accept this different standard when I say that I can afford to speculate but you never can.  Absolutely war (result of the OCT) should require a higher standard of evidence than does investigation (result of MIHOP).  In calling for further investigation, in the meanwhile speculation is justified – it’s an acceptance that we do not have all of the facts, and the investigation would solve that.  In accepting the story that propped up a war, there is no justification for speculation, especially in the most vital areas (see further below regarding ‘responsibility’) that form very basis for the war.

Also I need to clear up that I actually said “political civil war” was the potential worst consequence of our efforts.  I probably confused the issue by making rhetorical use of the word “bloody”, sorry about that.  I was not implying a civil war of lethal force, but of politics, and certainly nothing on the level of say, Afghanistan or Iraq which the OCT led to.

Thank you for the thoughts in the rest of your post.  All I would like to comment, is that there is no question of greater magnitude than who was responsible for the 9/11 attack – so much hinges on it, including the subsequent response, which is one of the most significant points of all.  The OCT is unable to pin the tail squarely on either of the donkeys – bin Laden or KSM – so how do we know either were responsible at all?  Without a clear answer, the whole basis of the OCT and subsequent war falls apart.  Logic dictates that Atta and the hijackers should be held most accountable according to the OCT, but then we need to understand the background and surrounding circumstances to Atta and the hijackers (hint: it is not what might be expected of Jihadists, rather an intelligence driven operation).

To my mind, questions of internal disagreement in the MIHOP camp, for example whether a plane hit the Pentagon or not, pale in significance to the above – we still all concur that there is insufficient evidence that Hanjour was in charge of the aircraft, and that brings us back to the most important question of responsibility, where again, those calling for investigation can afford to speculate, whilst those accepting the OCT cannot.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 17 January 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

The OCT is unable to pin the tail squarely on either of the donkeys – bin Laden or KSM – so how do we know either were responsible at all?

Let's take another look.

Quote

Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11


Usama bin Laden (search ) made his first televised appearance in more than a year Friday in which he admitted for the first time ordering the Sept. 11 attacks and accused President Bush of "misleading" the American people.

Injecting himself into the campaign four days ahead of the presidential election, bin Laden said the United States can avoid another Sept. 11-style attack if it stops threatening the security of Muslims.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c...l#ixzz2IFkthl9r



Bin Laden Admits 9/11 Responsibility, Warns of More Attacks

A tape aired by Al-Jazeera television Friday showed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden admitting for the first time that he orchestrated the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and saying the United States could face more.

http://www.pbs.org/n...n_10-29-04.html

In regards to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed;

Quote

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

After seeing the respect that his nephew Ramzi Yousef had gained from the World Trade Center 1993 bombings, Mohammed decided to engage more directly in anti-U.S. activities as well. He traveled to the Philippines in 1994 to work with Yousef on the Bojinka plot, a Manila-based plot to destroy twelve commercial airliners flying routes between the United States, East Asia, and Southeast Asia. The 9/11 Commission Report says that "this marked the first time KSM took part in the actual planning of a terrorist operation

Echoes of '95 Manila Plot

The airline bombing plot that British officials said they disrupted Thursday bears striking similarities to a 1995 plot hatched by Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his nephew, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, in the Philippines.

http://articles.lati...ion/na-manila11

[turbonium]

skyeagle409, on 13 January 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

That doesn't work in the real world. Simply making things up and not in tuned to the way things are done simple highlights your lack of knowledge on that way things are done.



First of all, when electronics are added, wiring and mounting brackets must be installed and that requires a lot of drilling and hardware and attachments. Next, you have to find a way to integrate a new system into the current system. We are not talking about the old B-720s. Do you know how long it took to wire and modify a single C-5 in regards to new avionics?

Most of the basic wiring is not seen by pilots, it's behind panels. The pilots see controls, switches, etc. So why is this a problem? And a bracket can be fixed without drilling holes - spot welding, adhesives, etc. work just as well.  

What is impossible to do? Please be specific...

[turbonium]

skyeagle409, on 13 January 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

Each aircraft contains thousands of parts that are manufactured by private companies across the United States and in many cases, from around the world and there is no way to manufacture a B-757 in secret. If you order parts, that will create a paper trail that investigative news reporters can follow.



But, we are not talking about JFK, we are talking about aircraft. Black projects known as the 'Bird of Prey; 'Have Blue' and 'Tacit Blue' are no longer secret aircraft and those aircraft were not manufacture by the government either. Tacit Blue was manufactured by Northrup, and 'Have Blue' was manufactured by Lockheed, while the 'Bird of Prey' was manufactured by Boeing, and they are not government agencies.





Once again, there was no way to manufacture a B-757 in secret and in many cases, there is only one source that manufactures certain parts for a B-757. Where are you going to get the engines? Where are you going to get the APU? Who is going to manufacture the formers, longerons, stringers, spars and wing assemblies? Who is going to supply the alignment fixtures? Who is going to supply the electronics, tubing, cable assemblies, brackets, vertical and horizontal fins and control surfaces, flaps, avionics, and landing gears? Just a few of the thousands of individual parts that are manufactured by private companies across the country and around that world.

Oops, you have just created a paper trail beause aA lot of paperwork is generated in the manufacture of parts along with shipping paperwork.


Where did you get that idea? An engine manufacturer will keep track of every engine it manufactures and of course, each engine will have its own unique serial number for record purposes as well. Yes, each engine and its components have their own individual serial numbers as unique as the license plate on your vehicle and such information can be used by investigative news reporters for tracking purposes as well.

What serial numbers were found in the wreckage of those 4 planes? And if any were found, have they been verified by independent parties?

Let's start with answers to those points, for now...

[turbonium]

You assume the investigators are honest, and innocent of any involvement.

And so, if they find no explosives, you claim it must be the truth.

But your assumption is not valid to start with. So the rest of your argument becomes worthless..

It's circular reasoning - and nothing else.


Suppose I murder someone, and I hire my uncle to investigate the crime? I'm not about to hold up the evidence for my own damn crime, am I??

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 19 January 2013 - 09:31 AM, said:

Most of the basic wiring is not seen by pilots, it's behind panels.

That doesn't make any sense since the pilots do system checks.

Quote

And a bracket can be fixed without drilling holes - spot welding, adhesives, etc. work just as well.

What do you mean, fixed?

Quote

What is impossible to do? Please be specific...

Modifying the aircraft in the manner without drawing attention from mechanics and inspectors of American Airlines and United Airlines and the flight crew during their system checks.

Edited by skyeagle409, 19 January 2013 - 05:46 PM.

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 19 January 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

What serial numbers were found in the wreckage of those 4 planes? And if any were found, have they been verified by independent parties?

Anyone who has worked around aircraft would know that there are all kinds of serial and/or part numbers listed on each part of an aircraft, including individual electrical wires and wire bundles, tubing and cable assemblies, formers, stringers, longerons, landing gear assemblies, skin and access panels, etc. Those numbers can be used to identify individual aircraft models and time sensitive replacement numbers can be used to identify a particular aircraft.

With those numbers in my file cabinet, I had the ability to track individual aircraft anywhere in the world.

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 19 January 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

You assume the investigators are honest, and innocent of any involvement.

That doesn't make any sense. Are you also implying that the airlines and the Boeing company were lying?

Quote

And so, if they find no explosives, you claim it must be the truth.

They did tell the truth because no evidence of explosives was found.

Quote

But your assumption is not valid to start with. So the rest of your argument becomes worthless.

In reality, my argument is right on the mark. Remember, you do not have the expertise nor knowledge of the way we do things in the real world of aviation, but I do, and with over 40 years experience as a pilot and experience as an airframe supervisor, technician and inspector, is why I have indicated to you that you have no idea what you are talking about.

[ali smack]

Coffey, on 06 July 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:

I don't beleive it was a terrorist attack. Even Martin and Charlie Sheen questioned it and then Charlie goes nuts... Something not right there.

I jsut can't beleive a guy in a cave did it, I can't beleive passports cna be found when everything else is ash, i can't beleive jet fuel melted the structure supports when a few months before it was shown how this was impossible and that the twin towers could withstand planes being flown into them.

John lear said himself he couldn't fly a plane into those building on the first try.

I don't beleive the Taliban where even a threat, the CIA trained them and gave them weapans to fight the Russians years ago.

I've read endless information from both sides ont his and this is one conspiracy theory I think is true.

I feel sorry for every man and woman who serves in the forces and is being used. it's nto fair on good people who want to serve and protect their coutnry to be used like this. Veterans are laready throwing their medals back at the the people behind it.

In all due respect. OBL didn't live in a cave, nor did any of the other terriosts. I am not sure exactly what happened but IMO don't believe it's that ridicilous for terriosts to do what they did. Why only recently terriosts took hostage a few hundred gas workers in algeria. terriosts are clever evil people.

[Coffey]

ali smack, on 19 January 2013 - 10:45 PM, said:

In all due respect. OBL didn't live in a cave, nor did any of the other terriosts. I am not sure exactly what happened but IMO don't believe it's that ridicilous for terriosts to do what they did. Why only recently terriosts took hostage a few hundred gas workers in algeria. terriosts are clever evil people.

Hijacking a US airliner flown by ex USAF pilots is a bit different. Also flying those planes into buildings after the training (if you can call it that)  they received is also different.

Of course he didn't live in a cave, but it's what the media and government made out to start of with. Then they eventually take him in his house... Where he was the whole time. Complete joke.

Edited by Coffey, 19 January 2013 - 11:12 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Coffey, on 19 January 2013 - 11:11 PM, said:

Hijacking a US airliner flown by ex USAF pilots is a bit different.

Looking at the flight profiles of the 911 airliners after the autopilots were discounted show the airliners were not flown by experienced air force pilots. Did I say, "autopilots were disconnected?" That simply means those aircraft were not flown under remote control by experienced air force pilots. What better way to bring instant attention to ATC personnel than to turn off the transponder and change heading and altitude in positive control airspace without permission.

Quote

Of course he didn't live in a cave,...

****Breaking News!!****

Quote

Bin Laden's Tora Bora (Afghanistan)  escape, just months after 9/11

The SBS soldiers had joined an American-led team alongside CIA and US Special Forces who had followed Bin Laden from Jalalabad into the White Mountains and finally to Tora Bora, a remote complex of caves.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-14190032

Recently, I mentioned placing the blame on General Tommy Franks

Quote

...but it's what the media and government made out to start of with. Then they eventually take him in his house... Where he was the whole time. Complete joke.

This just in!!

Quote

EARLY 1996: The CIA’s Counter Terrorism Center creates a special unit focusing specifically on bin Laden

In early 1996, the CIA set up a special bin Laden unit, largely because of evidence linking him to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. At the time, he was living in Sudan, but he was expelled from that country in May 1996 after the CIA failed to persuade the Saudis to accept a Sudanese offer to turn him over.

AUGUST 20 1998: Clinton orders missile attack in Sudan, narrowly misses Bin Laden

“The most dramatic attempt to kill bin Laden occurred in August 1998, when Clinton ordered a Tomahawk cruise missile attack on bin Laden’s suspected training camps in Afghanistan in response to the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania… Clinton approved the cruise missile attack recommended by his advisers, and on Aug. 20, 1998, 66 cruise missiles rained down on the training camps.

An additional 13 missiles were fired at a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that the Clinton administration believed was a chemical weapons factory associated with bin Laden.”


LATE 1998: Clinton authorizes covert action against Bin Laden and al Qaeda

In addition to a secret “finding” to authorize covert action, which has been reported before, Clinton signed three highly classified Memoranda of Notification expanding the available tools. In succession, the president authorized killing instead of capturing bin Laden, then added several of al Qaeda’s senior lieutenants, and finally approved the shooting down of private civilian aircraft on which they flew.

…The Clinton administration ordered the Navy to maintain two Los Angeles-class attack submarines on permanent station in the nearest available waters, enabling the U.S. military to place Tomahawk cruise missiles on any target in Afghanistan within about six hours of receiving the order.

[Washington Post, 12/19/01]

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 January 2013 - 01:47 AM.