990 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

lightly, on 19 October 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

I don't buy the official explanations. I've always thought remote control might have been a possibility.  It would take the involvement of very few people.   .. as would the planning.
   here is a link that speaks to the possibility:  http://www.public-action.com/911/noradsend.html  

. . ."Controlling the aircraft from the ground is nothing new.  The military has been flying obsolete high performance fighter aircraft as target drones since the 1950s.  In fact, NORAD (the North American Air Defense Command) had at its disposal a number of U.S. Air Force General Dynamics F-106 Delta Dart fighter aircraft configured to be remotely flown into combat as early as 1959 under the auspices of a program known as SAGE.  These aircraft could be started, taxied, taken off, flown into combat, fight, and return to a landing entirely by remote control, with the only human intervention needed being to fuel and re-arm them."

Re-read that final sentence in the above quote:

"These [NORAD] aircraft could be started, taxied, taken off, flown into combat, fight, and return to a landing entirely by remote control … "

Given over 40 years of institutional experience, flying remotely controlled "suicide" jets into the World Trade Center towers would have been a piece of cake for NORAD.

(sorry, the  link  doesn't seem to be 'clickable'... copy and past web address to your browser)

First of all, how are you going to convince American Airlines and United Airlines to take their aircraft out of service for many months for the purpose of modifying those aircraft? Secondly, how are you going to integrate such a modification into the systems of the B-767 and B-757, and do in such a way that the pilots can't detect the modification during their systems checks? Remember, we are not talking about older generation airliners. Thirdly, how are you going to modify the aircraft under the watchful eyes of mechanics and inspectors?

Now, if you order hardware and engineering technical data for such a modification, that will leave a paper trail that can be easily tracked.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 19 October 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:

Outrageous claims? Here are some outrageous claims that the OCT makes: that the fires at WTC were hot enough to weaken steel,...

But, you have already admitted the temperatures were high enough. Yes you did!

Quote

...that there was a Boeing at Shanksville

But, you have already seen wreckage from United 93 near Shanksville, Yes you did.

Quote

...and at the Pentagon,

But, you have already admitted that an aircraft was involved. Yes you did!

Quote

...that despite all the destruction and mayhem at WTC, certain identification documents were found in almost pristine condition, that it is perfectly normal for jetfuel and gravity to generate sufficient heat to keep steel

But, the Windsor fire in Spain shows that contents inside a building can generate heat high enough to weaken steel. After all, that fire collapsed its steel structure.

Quote

...molten for weeks and to blister paint and melt tires of vehicles on the street.

Wait a minute!! Didn't you just claim that heat wasn't high enough to weaken steel?

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 19 October 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

I don’t normally give much notice to claims that individuals with damaging information on 9/11 risk their lives in coming forward.  I think those with snippets of information that challenge the official story more rather risk their jobs than lives.  But this case of alleged suicide did make me take notice: -

http://www.prisonpla..._connection.htm

I’m sorry about the source, it’s not usually one I’d go for but it gives outline of the story and, if you look into it, you will see that the evidence is credible; coming from the victim herself and Wayne Madsen, a former Navy and NSA employee.  Basically it appears that Madam Palfrey was set to expose members of the government for untoward activity along with a connection to information that existed prior to the 9/11 event.  She stated herself that she was, “not planning to commit suicide”... before then, prior to her trial, where she vowed, “"I plan on exposing the government in ways that I do not think they want me to expose them", allegedly committing suicide... hmm.

I do think some individuals would go so far to prevent damaging information coming out.

Coffey raised this over in the Pentagon footage thread.  Here's how I responded then.

The DC Madam?  Deborah Jeane Palfrey?

It was reported as a suicide because that's what the evidence at the scene supports, as did her general demeanor at the time.

• Two suicide notes, hand written, and confirmed by her family to be her hand writing.
  
• Put her affairs in order in the days leading up to her suicide.
  
• Confided in a colleague that she would commit suicide before going back to prison.

Of course Alex Jones wouldn't accept such things as legitimate.  Virtually everything is a conspiracy to Alex Jones.  Surely the notes were planted, the fact she put her affairs in order was in preparation for going back to jail, and her colleague was lying about her statement that she would commit suicide before going back to jail.

All because at one point on the radio she said that she wouldn't commit suicide.


For the sake of argument, let's assume that she was 'taken out' by the 'evil government cabal' that orchestrated 911.  Why wait until May of 2008?  Why let this potential loose end hang out there for 7 years?  Why wait until after the trial, where she could potentially divulge these juicy tidbits and have them entered into the public record?  And if she did have some kind of information about foreknowledge, why didn't that information come out in the trial, or get leaked to a media source, or whatever else?


In my opinion, this was a suicide.  A sad story, yes, but still a suicide.  Do you still think it might not be?

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 19 October 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

In my opinion, this was a suicide.  A sad story, yes, but still a suicide.  Do you still think it might not be?

Sure I think it might not be, as I said, the circumstances were enough to make me take notice.  Though honestly, if forced to make a call, ok I wouldn't bank on it being anything other than a suicide.  Now don't say I never make any concessions to you, ha.  Though the final line of my previous post still stands.

[TrueBeliever]

booNyzarC, on 19 October 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

Coffey raised this over in the Pentagon footage thread.  Here's how I responded then.

The DC Madam?  Deborah Jeane Palfrey?

It was reported as a suicide because that's what the evidence at the scene supports, as did her general demeanor at the time.

• Two suicide notes, hand written, and confirmed by her family to be her hand writing.
  
• Put her affairs in order in the days leading up to her suicide.
  
• Confided in a colleague that she would commit suicide before going back to prison.

Of course Alex Jones wouldn't accept such things as legitimate.  Virtually everything is a conspiracy to Alex Jones.  Surely the notes were planted, the fact she put her affairs in order was in preparation for going back to jail, and her colleague was lying about her statement that she would commit suicide before going back to jail.

All because at one point on the radio she said that she wouldn't commit suicide.


For the sake of argument, let's assume that she was 'taken out' by the 'evil government cabal' that orchestrated 911.  Why wait until May of 2008?  Why let this potential loose end hang out there for 7 years?  Why wait until after the trial, where she could potentially divulge these juicy tidbits and have them entered into the public record?  And if she did have some kind of information about foreknowledge, why didn't that information come out in the trial, or get leaked to a media source, or whatever else?


In my opinion, this was a suicide.  A sad story, yes, but still a suicide.  Do you still think it might not be?

They wait as long as possible to terminate a target. they do not want to kill, but WILL if indicated. They don't just go around looking and lusting to kill. They have a cause, a greater goal...and everything they do in their mind is for our own good. So thinking a delay means it is highly unlikely they staged a suicide is incorrect. Now of course she could have committed suicide. Death is preferable sometimes to being harrassed by these sickos.

[booNyzarC]

TrueBeliever, on 19 October 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

They wait as long as possible to terminate a target. they do not want to kill, but WILL if indicated. They don't just go around looking and lusting to kill. They have a cause, a greater goal...and everything they do in their mind is for our own good. So thinking a delay means it is highly unlikely they staged a suicide is incorrect. Now of course she could have committed suicide. Death is preferable sometimes to being harrassed by these sickos.

Well TB, I think you may have missed my point.  If this ambiguous "they" were going to kill her, they would have done so before the trial.  In fact, "they" probably would have done so very soon after she made the claim that she was going to divulge some kind of secret.

And considering the business she was in, it is extremely likely that the secret(s) she had was nothing more than a client list of philandering politicians, military men, and other assorted government officials.

[MID]

skyeagle409, on 19 October 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

But, you have already admitted the temperatures were high enough. Yes you did!




But, you have already seen wreckage from United 93 near Shanksville, Yes you did.



But, you have already admitted that an aircraft was involved. Yes you did!



But, the Windsor fire in Spain shows that contents inside a building can generate heat high enough to weaken steel. After all, that fire collapsed its steel structure.



Wait a minute!! Didn't you just claim that heat wasn't high enough to weaken steel?

Indeed, Sky!

I find myself in some wonderment over the fact that he, and many other CT-types, keep coming back to spew ignorance, get shot down by knowledge, and then, return yet again for more of the same.
Indeed, B.R. seems to take 9-11 threads as his ticket to talk...about what has never been too clear because he's usually wrong or inaccurate, but it does appear that his ego needs a massage, even if it's only given by himself!

[lightly]

skyeagle409, on 19 October 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

First of all, how are you going to convince American Airlines and United Airlines to take their aircraft out of service for many months for the purpose of modifying those aircraft? Secondly, how are you going to integrate such a modification into the systems of the B-767 and B-757, and do in such a way that the pilots can't detect the modification during their systems checks? Remember, we are not talking about older generation airliners. Thirdly, how are you going to modify the aircraft under the watchful eyes of mechanics and inspectors?

Now, if you order hardware and engineering technical data for such a modification, that will leave a paper trail that can be easily tracked.

I don,t know sky eagle,    what do you think of this? :

http://www.oilempire.us/remote.html

www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/12/01/210869/
Diagrams+Boeing+patents+anti-terrorism+auto-land+system+for+hijacked.html

DATE:01/12/06 (December 1, 2006)
SOURCE: Flightglobal.com

Diagrams: Boeing patents anti-terrorism auto-land system for hijacked airliners
By John Croft

Boeing last week received a US patent for a system that, once activated, removes all control from pilots to automatically return a commercial airliner to a predetermined landing location.
The “uninterruptible” autopilot would be activated – either by pilots, by onboard sensors, or even remotely via radio or satellite links by government agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, if terrorists attempt to gain control of a flight deck.
Boeing says: "We are constantly studying ways we can enhance the safety, security and effiecency of the world's airline fleet."
“There is a need in the industry for a technique that conclusively prevents unauthorised persons for gaining access to the controls of the vehicle and therefore threatening the safety of the passengers onboard the vehicle, and/or other people in the path of travel of the vehicle, thereby decreasing the amount of destruction individuals onboard the vehicle would be capable of causing,” the patent authors write. “In particular, there is a need for a technique that ensures the continuation of the desired path of travel of a vehicle by removing any type of human decision process that may be influenced by the circumstances of the situation, including threats or further violence onboard the vehicle.”
According to the patent, existing preventative measures are less than fullproof – pilots can decide to open the lockable, bullet-proof cockpit doors and federal air marshals can be overpowered and de-armed. Boeing’s alternative has an onboard processor that once activated, disallows pilot inputs and prevents anyone on board from interrupting an emergency landing plan that can be predefined or radioed to the aircraft by airline or government controllers and carried out by the aircraft’s guidance and control system. To make it fully independent, the system has its own power supply, independent of the aircraft’s circuit breakers. The aircraft remains in automatic mode until after landing, when mechanics or government security operatives are called in to disengage the system.
Boeing envisions several methods of activating the system. Options include manual switches for pilots to hit, or possibly force sensors on the cockpit door that would trip the anti-terror mode if a minimum force threshold were crossed, for instance if someone were trying to break down the door. Another option is a remote link whereby airline or government workers in ground facilities would monitor and aircraft and command the automatic control mode “once it is determined that the security of the air vehicle is in jeopardy.” Radio links could also be used to inform ground facilities and nearby aircraft that an aircraft has been placed in the automatic flight mode.
It’s unclear if the Boeing work is related to last week’s issuance of a $1.9 million US Federal Aviation Administration contract to Raytheon for an Advanced Route Evaluation System (ARES). According to Raytheon, ARES will perform risk analysis on aviation routes to help planners determine the best routes for aircraft to use during emergencies.”
Aside from the safety and security aspects of having such a system, Boeing sees it as a preventative measure: “Once the automatic control system provided by the present invention is initiated, no one on board the air vehicle is capable controlling the flight to the air vehicle, such that it would be useless for anyone to threaten violence in order to gain control the air vehicle.”

[TrueBeliever]

booNyzarC, on 19 October 2012 - 05:33 PM, said:

Well TB, I think you may have missed my point.  If this ambiguous "they" were going to kill her, they would have done so before the trial.  In fact, "they" probably would have done so very soon after she made the claim that she was going to divulge some kind of secret.

And considering the business she was in, it is extremely likely that the secret(s) she had was nothing more than a client list of philandering politicians, military men, and other assorted government officials.

I don't know if she committed suicide or not, but like I said death can be preferable to harrassment.

[booNyzarC]

TrueBeliever, on 19 October 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

I don't know if she committed suicide or not, but like I said death can be preferable to harrassment.

If you consider being prosecuted for criminal acts to be 'harassment' I'm not sure what to tell you.  Maybe she should have chosen a more honest line of work.  Seems that she did this to herself from my perspective.

[TrueBeliever]

booNyzarC, on 19 October 2012 - 09:18 PM, said:

If you consider being prosecuted for criminal acts to be 'harassment' I'm not sure what to tell you.  Maybe she should have chosen a more honest line of work.  Seems that she did this to herself from my perspective.

but of course, whatever you say. it's always to blame the victim anyways.

and quite frankly she was just as honest as say a....congressman

[skyeagle409]

lightly, on 19 October 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

I don,t know sky eagle, what do you think of this? :

http://www.oilempire.us/remote.html

www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/12/01/210869/
Diagrams+Boeing+patents+anti-terrorism+auto-land+system+for+hijacked.html

DATE:01/12/06 (December 1, 2006)
SOURCE: Flightglobal.com

Diagrams: Boeing patents anti-terrorism auto-land system for hijacked airliners
By John Croft

Boeing last week received a US patent for a system that, once activated, removes all control from pilots to automatically return a commercial airliner to a predetermined landing location.
The “uninterruptible” autopilot would be activated – either by pilots, by onboard sensors, or even remotely via radio or satellite links by government agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, if terrorists attempt to gain control of a flight deck.
Boeing says: "We are constantly studying ways we can enhance the safety, security and effiecency of the world's airline fleet."
“There is a need in the industry for a technique that conclusively prevents unauthorised persons for gaining access to the controls of the vehicle and therefore threatening the safety of the passengers onboard the vehicle, and/or other people in the path of travel of the vehicle, thereby decreasing the amount of destruction individuals onboard the vehicle would be capable of causing,” the patent authors write. “In particular, there is a need for a technique that ensures the continuation of the desired path of travel of a vehicle by removing any type of human decision process that may be influenced by the circumstances of the situation, including threats or further violence onboard the vehicle.”
According to the patent, existing preventative measures are less than fullproof – pilots can decide to open the lockable, bullet-proof cockpit doors and federal air marshals can be overpowered and de-armed. Boeing’s alternative has an onboard processor that once activated, disallows pilot inputs and prevents anyone on board from interrupting an emergency landing plan that can be predefined or radioed to the aircraft by airline or government controllers and carried out by the aircraft’s guidance and control system. To make it fully independent, the system has its own power supply, independent of the aircraft’s circuit breakers. The aircraft remains in automatic mode until after landing, when mechanics or government security operatives are called in to disengage the system.
Boeing envisions several methods of activating the system. Options include manual switches for pilots to hit, or possibly force sensors on the cockpit door that would trip the anti-terror mode if a minimum force threshold were crossed, for instance if someone were trying to break down the door. Another option is a remote link whereby airline or government workers in ground facilities would monitor and aircraft and command the automatic control mode “once it is determined that the security of the air vehicle is in jeopardy.” Radio links could also be used to inform ground facilities and nearby aircraft that an aircraft has been placed in the automatic flight mode.
It’s unclear if the Boeing work is related to last week’s issuance of a $1.9 million US Federal Aviation Administration contract to Raytheon for an Advanced Route Evaluation System (ARES). According to Raytheon, ARES will perform risk analysis on aviation routes to help planners determine the best routes for aircraft to use during emergencies.”
Aside from the safety and security aspects of having such a system, Boeing sees it as a preventative measure: “Once the automatic control system provided by the present invention is initiated, no one on board the air vehicle is capable controlling the flight to the air vehicle, such that it would be useless for anyone to threaten violence in order to gain control the air vehicle.”

It is interesting and after what happened on 9/11, it is not surprising that such an idea would crop up in time. It takes a lot of planning, time, and effort to modify a large aircraft. After completing our contract at Travis AFB, where we were employed with L3 Aerospace, Raytheon Aerospace, and Vertex Aerospace through the years, on the same contract, some of my guys went to work on the C-5 update program with Lockheed-Martin. Check it out and take note how long it took to modify the aircraft.

Quote

5/8/2012 - TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif.

A 1970 C-5A Galaxy was the last C-5A to be converted from a "legacy" C-5 to an Avionics Modernization Program C-5 in the Air Force and was completed at Travis Sunday.

Since June 2005, 38 C-5 A/B aircraft were modified at Travis by the Lockheed Martin contract field team as part of a two-phased modernization program. AMP is the first part of the modernization effort for the C-5. The AMP modifications replace the old analog avionics with a digital avionics suite and it also adds a digital architecture connecting everything.

Lt. Col. Robert Griffith, Defense Contract Monitoring Agency (quality assurance) acceptance pilot, said Travis active duty and Reserve Airmen and Lockheed Martin crews worked hard to update the C-5, and that the acceptance of the last aircraft went very smoothly because of the hard work of all units involved despite runway closures and weather delays.

Throughout the life of the program, there were three aircraft undergoing various stages of the AMP modification at any one time. AMP changes include updates to comply with modern airspace requirements such as a new autopilot, a new communications suite, flat-panel displays as well as an enhanced navigation and safety system. The entire system is designed to increase safety, ease crew workload and enhance situational awareness, according to Lockheed Martin.

Lockheed Martin personnel stripped approximately 12,000 old wires and put in 4,000 new wires in the aircraft while DCMA quality assurance personnel along with acceptance check flight crews observed work throughout the program.

Performing functional checks on the aircraft is the last stage of the C-5 AMP before sending the aircraft for an actual flight test. Once the acceptance flight crew completes their inspection and, when it passes, the aircraft is bought back from Lockheed and is put back in operational status, said Lt. Col. Tom Corcoran, the government flight representative.

The last tests before the final flight include preflight checks of new systems like the ground check of the instrument landing systems and checks of legacy systems disturbed by the AMP modification like the ram air turbine checks.

The 60th and 349th Aircraft Maintenance squadrons teamed with the Lockheed workforce every step of the way, providing dual support for seven years, Corcoran said.

"Of the 38 converted aircraft, the 312th AS flight tested 33 of them," he said, "(Two) acceptance check flight crews from the 312th flew over 100 sorties testing all aspects of the newly installed cockpit and equipment."

He said the test profile included a near-stall performed in a warning area over the Pacific Ocean as well.

Another goal of the flights was to test warning systems that pilots would never want to hear in normal operations: "too low terrain," "caution obstacle, "and "sink rate-pull up." The ultimate aim of these ACF flights was to ensure that the newly modified aircraft were ready to return to daily Air Force operations and perform more effectively and efficiently.

The AMP and ACF programs were extremely rewarding and a career highlight for the 312th AS crews, Corcoran said.

The C-5B aircraft will go on to the second phase of the C-5 modernization: the Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program. The RERP modifications consist of more than 70 improvements and upgrades to the C-5 airframe and systems and include new CF-6 General Electric engines that are less noisy, have more thrust and provide a higher climb rate than allowed by current engines. Once the avionics and engine updates are complete, the aircraft becomes an "M" model

http://www.travis.af...sp?id=123301323

People don't realize that you can't just modify an aircraft the size of a B-767 or B-757 and not attract attention. In regards to the systems of the B-767 and B-757, how are they going to integrate such a modification and not attract attention when the pilots do their system checks? Question is; Would the airlines have allowed their aircraft to be grounded for many months in order to have their aircraft illegally modified?

They say that the airliners were modified to fly under remote control, but all I have to do is to follow-up on an aircraft's airframe and engine maintenance documentation and flight records to put that tale to rest. Looking at the profile of American 77, that is not a practical way to fly an attack mission especially with many obstacles around the Pentagon that could have jeopardized the mission before the aircraft impacted the building. With such obstacles already known, the practical approach path would have been a direct, angled dive into the Pentagon, not through a forest of light poles, trees, and other obstacles.

The approach to the Pentagon by American 77 was very sloppy to say the least.

Edited by skyeagle409, 19 October 2012 - 10:38 PM.

[booNyzarC]

TrueBeliever, on 19 October 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:

but of course, whatever you say. it's always to blame the victim anyways.

and quite frankly she was just as honest as say a....congressman

Was she the victim when she ran an illegal escort agency?  Was her conviction on racketeering and money laundering charges some kind of victimization?

That's interesting.

So tell me something.  Does this definition of victim only apply to her?  Or do you equally apply it to all convicted criminals?  Our prisons are just full of victims then aren't they?

If someone commits a crime against you, please don't report them, otherwise they will become a victim...

I'm sorry, but your position just doesn't appear to make sense to me.  Am I simply misunderstanding?  Maybe I should just come out and ask.


Exactly how do you think she was victimized?

[TrueBeliever]

booNyzarC, on 19 October 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

Was she the victim when she ran an illegal escort agency?  Was her conviction on racketeering and money laundering charges some kind of victimization?

That's interesting.

So tell me something.  Does this definition of victim only apply to her?  Or do you equally apply it to all convicted criminals?  Our prisons are just full of victims then aren't they?

If someone commits a crime against you, please don't report them, otherwise they will become a victim...

I'm sorry, but your position just doesn't appear to make sense to me.  Am I simply misunderstanding?  Maybe I should just come out and ask.


Exactly how do you think she was victimized?

I don't think she was any worse than some of our congressmen.

and of course you dont understand. Cops do  though.....when a prostitute is murdered no one really cares who killed her....she was less than someone else. not worth the time to defend. not all cops are like this, but some are.

[booNyzarC]

TrueBeliever, on 19 October 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

I don't think she was any worse than some of our congressmen.

and of course you dont understand. Cops do  though.....when a prostitute is murdered no one really cares who killed her....she was less than someone else. not worth the time to defend. not all cops are like this, but some are.

Does that mean that you aren't going to answer my question about how exactly you think she was victimized?