Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 4 votes

911 inside job - for what?


  • Please log in to reply
4446 replies to this topic

#1726    poppet

poppet

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 154 posts
  • Joined:09 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 April 2013 - 06:42 PM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 20 April 2013 - 07:25 PM, said:

Well ,Well, Well another truther I see with Poppet,Is poppet the short little pirate on THat movie ,Pirates of the Caribbean ? Just what we need another Truther ! Four Aircraft went in that day, Eight Engines,Lots of Lives ! :tu:

im the poppet who has trouble seeing 757 's even though im told with a subliminal message in the left hand corner that it is a plane impact.

Posted Image

when the government released these "convincing" images it seemed to be enough for the majority of people but this poppet was expecting to see something more on the lines of this.

Posted Image

now if you want to show me some official images showing something a bit more credible then i will hold my hands up and say i was wrong ,but you can't and neither are any images likely be open to public scrutiny any time soon.

i wonder why ?


#1727    shrooma

shrooma

    doesn't have one screw fully tightened.....

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leeds, UK.

  • Live.
    Sin.
    Die.

Posted 21 April 2013 - 06:52 PM

View Postpoppet, on 21 April 2013 - 06:42 PM, said:



im the poppet who has trouble seeing 757 's even though im told with a subliminal message in the left hand corner that it is a plane impact.

Posted Image

when the government released these "convincing" images it seemed to be enough for the majority of people but this poppet was expecting to see something more on the lines of this.

Posted Image

now if you want to show me some official images showing something a bit more credible then i will hold my hands up and say i was wrong ,but you can't and neither are any images likely be open to public scrutiny any time soon.

i wonder why ?
.
I don't understand what you mean?
and bear in mind that i'm looking at these pics on a mobile phone not a computer, so they only measure 2''X 1'', and aren't very clear.....

- - - - -disclaimer- - - - -
all posts- without exception- are humourous.
if you fail to grasp the sublety, then don't whine on due to your lack of understanding.

#1728    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,105 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 April 2013 - 07:23 PM

View Postpoppet, on 21 April 2013 - 06:42 PM, said:

im the poppet who has trouble seeing 757 's even though im told with a subliminal message in the left hand corner that it is a plane impact.

Posted Image

when the government released these "convincing" images it seemed to be enough for the majority of people but this poppet was expecting to see something more on the lines of this.

Posted Image

now if you want to show me some official images showing something a bit more credible then i will hold my hands up and say i was wrong ,but you can't and neither are any images likely be open to public scrutiny any time soon.

i wonder why ?

That doesn't work for you, so Is that the best you can do? We can tie the path of damaged light poles and the generator, which was struck by American 77. Your post is the reason why 911 Truthers cannot be taken seriously.

Edited by skyeagle409, 21 April 2013 - 07:25 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1729    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,105 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 April 2013 - 07:31 PM

View PostTesla II, on 21 April 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

Sky the same people who were involved in this mystery are most likely trying to cover it up...probably manipulating the information at hand.

The government couldn't even do a good job of covering up the Watergate scandal, so how could the government have covered up 911, and not get caught? Fact of the matter is, there was no way the government could have pulled it off and not get caught. You see, it is like this, remains of passengers and crew of those flights were recovered and have been identified and only a certain number of those aircraft were built and accounted for. It would have been easy for me to uncovered a switched airliner, and in fact, it would have taken me less than 30 minutes to do so. Each aircraft, even those of the same make and model, is different and have certain signatures that are as unique as a fingerprint, but it seems that. 911 Truthers, who have been concocting unfounded conspiracy theories to that affect, are not aware of those signatures regarding each aircraft.

For years, and in the months leading up to the 911 attack, countries around the world had warned the United States that the terrorist were planning to attack the America, and in some cases, the warnings were of the use of aircraft as missiles which were to be flown into the Capitol building, the Pentagon, the White House, CIA headquarters and other American landmarks. There was nothing in those warnings that implicated the United States. Later, Osama bin Laden admitted that he was responsible for the 911 attacks, which should have been no mystery since Osama bin Laden had declared war on the United States before the 911 attacks.

Edited by skyeagle409, 21 April 2013 - 07:44 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1730    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,511 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 21 April 2013 - 07:42 PM

Poppet

I hope you know that the third picture in your collection above is faked.

Kinda funny really, somebody has photoshopped a Boeing in there.  :clap:


#1731    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,105 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 April 2013 - 07:46 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 21 April 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

Poppet

I hope you know that the third picture in your collection above is faked.

I don't think that Poppet had noticed.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1732    poppet

poppet

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 154 posts
  • Joined:09 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 April 2013 - 07:56 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 21 April 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

Poppet

I hope you know that the third picture in your collection above is faked.

Kinda funny really, somebody has photoshopped a Boeing in there.  :clap:

the first image is from a blogger named Killtown who was involved in the dis-information program a few years back and the photoshopped boeing is from this site and under the image it states.

a newly-made video shows the true size of a 757, precisely calculated from published measurements, as well as engineering drawings from the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). This video displays what the Pentagon security camera would have recorded, had the official story been correct.

http://physics911.net/pentcrashvideo/


#1733    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,105 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 April 2013 - 08:01 PM

View Postpoppet, on 21 April 2013 - 07:56 PM, said:

the first image is from a blogger named Killtownwho was involved in the dis-information program a few years back and the photoshopped boeing is from this site and under the image it states.

But, the original wasn't 'photoshopped image.' Do you know why?

Quote

This video displays what the Pentagon security camera would have recorded, had the official story been correct.

The official story of which can be confirmed by the evidence.


Posted Image

Posted Image



Posted Image



Edited by skyeagle409, 21 April 2013 - 08:04 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1734    shrooma

shrooma

    doesn't have one screw fully tightened.....

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leeds, UK.

  • Live.
    Sin.
    Die.

Posted 21 April 2013 - 08:03 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 21 April 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

Poppet

I hope you know that the third picture in your collection above is faked.


.
THIRD picture?!
I can only see TWO pictures!!
whassappenin'??
am I being conspired against?
it's coz i'm british isn't it! you bloody yanks are all the same!!
*sulks*
:-D

- - - - -disclaimer- - - - -
all posts- without exception- are humourous.
if you fail to grasp the sublety, then don't whine on due to your lack of understanding.

#1735    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,511 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 21 April 2013 - 08:05 PM

Awesome, Poppet!  Thanks for that--I get it now. Very effective, once you understant the point. :tu:


#1736    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,105 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 April 2013 - 08:08 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 21 April 2013 - 08:05 PM, said:

Awesome, Poppet!  Thanks for that--I get it now. Very effective, once you understant the point. :tu:

Actually, Poppet crashed and burned because Poppet didn't do the homework. :no:

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1737    lightly

lightly

    metaphysical therapist

  • Member
  • 6,066 posts
  • Joined:01 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan U.S.A.

  • "The future ain't what it used to be"
    Yogi Berra

Posted 21 April 2013 - 10:03 PM

Posted ImageReann, on 21 April 2013 - 10:53 AM, said:

Maybe commercial planes ought to  have an remote auto pilot control system set up with the airforce , where as, if ever someone did try to take one over , they would not be able to do so,  like an airforce personal would be able to operate full conrol of the plane,  dismantle any attempt for the plane to be flown by highjakers..


View Postshrooma, on 21 April 2013 - 05:33 PM, said:

.
that technology has been around for 30yrs.
civil aviation authorities have been remotely flying large passenger aircraft since the 80's, mainly with the intention of crashing them, to better understand the mechanics of plane disasters, but NASA/Dryden have also tested systems to take-off, fly, and land passenger aircraft too, to see if the technology was feasable, with a 100% success rate on a dozen flights, so your idea may yet come about reann!

    I thought i had heard and read about such anti highjacking remote control systems.    And, being installed on commercial airliners by the 70's?      (can't seem to find info about it on the web anymore¿)

all i can find now are 'conspiracy' sites on the subject.


http://www.911-strike.com/remote.htm

    New Questions about remote control and 9-11

By Jerry Russell
British aeronautical engineer Joe Vialls claims that all 757 and 767 aircraft are equipped with computerized remote flight control systems for the purposes of rescuing the planes from attempted hijackings.  If this were true, it would raise some very interesting questions.  On the one hand, if the systems were used to control the aircraft and pilot them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, then who was at the controls?  How did they get access to the secret codes?
But on the other hand: if these systems were on the aircraft, and they were not compromised by some enemy trick of espionage, then why weren't they used on September 11 to save the four ill-fated flights?

quote from Vialls, who posted in October 2001:


In the mid-seventies America faced a new and escalating crisis, with US commercial jets being hijacked for geopolitical purposes. Determined to gain the upper hand in this new form of aerial warfare, two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. Brilliant both in concept and operation, “Home Run” [not its real code name] allowed specialist ground controllers to listen in to cockpit conversations on the target aircraft, then take absolute control of its computerized flight control system by remote means.

◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊

http://911review.com...otecontrol.html


All modern jetliners have sophisticated flight control computers, which allow the planes to be flown with at least the precision of a skilled human pilot. The 757s and 767s used in the 9/11/01 attack were developed in the 1970s and employ similar avionics. Both contain integrated flight management computer systems (FMCS) which provide automatic guidance and control of the aircraft "from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing." 1
Researcher Don Paul was among the first to describes the possible use of remote and programmed control in the execution of the 9/11/01 attack, in his 2002 book Facing Our Fascist State:                                        e x c e r p t                                            title: Facing Our Fascist State                                            authors: Don Paul                                                                                        

Home Run and Global Hawk



If the supposed pilots are impossible or unlikely prospects for flying a Boeing 757 or 767 through sharp turns and complex maneuvers, how COULD those airliners otherwise have been flown?


                

In an interview with the German newspaper Tagesspeigel on January 13, 2002, Andreas von Buelow, Minister of Technology for the united Germany in the early 1990s, a person who first worked in West Germany's Secretary of Defense 30 years ago, told about a technology by which airliners can be commanded through remote control.


                

The former Minister of Technology said: '"The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting."'


...one more  

http://www.kolki.com...ce/Home-Run.htm


Edited by lightly, 21 April 2013 - 10:25 PM.

Important:  The above may contain errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and other limitations.

#1738    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,105 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 22 April 2013 - 12:19 AM

View Postlightly, on 21 April 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:

Posted ImageReann, on 21 April 2013 - 10:53 AM, said:

Maybe commercial planes ought to  have an remote auto pilot control system set up with the airforce , where as, if ever someone did try to take one over , they would not be able to do so,  like an airforce personal would be able to operate full conrol of the plane,  dismantle any attempt for the plane to be flown by highjakers..




I thought i had heard and read about such anti highjacking remote control systems. And, being installed on commercial airliners by the 70's?   (can't seem to find info about it on the web anymore¿)

all i can find now are 'conspiracy' sites on the subject.


http://www.911-strike.com/remote.htm

New Questions about remote control and 9-11

By Jerry Russell
British aeronautical engineer Joe Vialls claims that all 757 and 767 aircraft are equipped with computerized remote flight control systems for the purposes of rescuing the planes from attempted hijackings.  If this were true, it would raise some very interesting questions.  On the one hand, if the systems were used to control the aircraft and pilot them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, then who was at the controls?  How did they get access to the secret codes?
But on the other hand: if these systems were on the aircraft, and they were not compromised by some enemy trick of espionage, then why weren't they used on September 11 to save the four ill-fated flights?

quote from Vialls, who posted in October 2001:


In the mid-seventies America faced a new and escalating crisis, with US commercial jets being hijacked for geopolitical purposes. Determined to gain the upper hand in this new form of aerial warfare, two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. Brilliant both in concept and operation, “Home Run” [not its real code name] allowed specialist ground controllers to listen in to cockpit conversations on the target aircraft, then take absolute control of its computerized flight control system by remote means.

◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊

http://911review.com...otecontrol.html


All modern jetliners have sophisticated flight control computers, which allow the planes to be flown with at least the precision of a skilled human pilot. The 757s and 767s used in the 9/11/01 attack were developed in the 1970s and employ similar avionics. Both contain integrated flight management computer systems (FMCS) which provide automatic guidance and control of the aircraft "from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing." 1
Researcher Don Paul was among the first to describes the possible use of remote and programmed control in the execution of the 9/11/01 attack, in his 2002 book Facing Our Fascist State: e x c e r p t title: Facing Our Fascist State authors: Don Paul

Home Run and Global Hawk


civil aviation authorities have been remotely flying large passenger aircraft since the 80's,

... with the intention of crashing them, to better understand the mechanics of plane disasters, but NASA/Dryden have also tested systems to take-off, fly, and land passenger aircraft too, to see if the technology was feasable, with a 100% success rate on a dozen flights, so your idea may yet come about reann!





In an interview with the German newspaper Tagesspeigel on January 13, 2002, Andreas von Buelow, Minister of Technology for the united Germany in the early 1990s, a person who first worked in West Germany's Secretary of Defense 30 years ago, told about a technology by which airliners can be commanded through remote control.   


The former Minister of Technology said: '"The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting."'

...one more  

http://www.kolki.com...ce/Home-Run.htm

Did you really think that American Airlines and United Airlines would have allowed their aircraft to be grounded for up to 6 months or longer in order for them to be illegally modify their aircraft into drones and do so under the nose of their mechanics, inspectors and FAA inspectors?

The B-757 and the B-767 are not fly-by-wire aircraft and as a result, any illegal modifications would have been detected during aircraft system checks conducted by the aircrew. One of my specialties was the modification of aircraft and jet engines and some of those modifications were of my design which were approved by Air Force engineers at Kelly AFB, TX. In fact, the U.S. Air Force and Raytheon Aerospace sent me on a mission to Pensacola, Florida to develop a new techical repair manual for the TF-39 inlet, which is used on the C-5 transport. One of my inventions took 7 years, from development to Air Force approval, to incorporate into all new Air Force C-5B transports which were on the assembly line at that time.

One of the fatal mistakes that 911 Truthers tend to make is that they don't really understand what they are posting. As I have said before, it would have taken me less than 30 minutes to reveal a switched aircraft because I would know what to look for. Once again, there was no way for the government to modify an airliner as drone not get caught.

1.   How could anyone fly an illegally modified B-767 in the colors of an airline into an airport and not draw attention to airline and airport officials? The alarm will have gone off even before the aircraft left the ground if they attempted to  file a flight plan. Try flying that aircraft into Boston airport in the colors of United Airlines without a flight plan and see what happens.

2. How can you switch an airliner in controlled airspace and not draw attention from ground controllers?

Quote



If the supposed pilots are impossible or unlikely prospects for flying a Boeing 757 or 767 through sharp turns and complex maneuvers, how COULD those airliners otherwise have been flown?


Complex maneuvers? I've conducted similar maneuvers as a student pilot with less than 30 hours of total flight time. There was nothing spectacular about the Hani maneuver by any means and in fact, it was nothing more than a boring maneuver to say the least. Take 4 minutes to walk one complete circle and you will get the idea just how boring that maneuver really was.

I might also add that Hani didn't complete a full circle.

Edited by skyeagle409, 22 April 2013 - 01:09 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1739    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,105 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 22 April 2013 - 01:33 AM

View Postpoppet, on 21 April 2013 - 07:56 PM, said:

the first image is from a blogger named Killtown who was involved in the dis-information program a few years back and the photoshopped boeing is from this site and under the image it states.

a newly-made video shows the true size of a 757, precisely calculated from published measurements, as well as engineering drawings from the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). This video displays what the Pentagon security camera would have recorded, had the official story been correct.

http://physics911.net/pentcrashvideo/

I think there is a bit of a problem here. Look at that second image. What is the height of the Pentagon? What is the height of a B-757?

BTW, I guess it is time to reveal what is unknown to 911 Truthers, and that is,  the "no-plane at the Pentagon claim" was actually a hoax on the same level as that WTC7 hoax video. What happened was that 911 Truthers grabbed some false information and ran off to the Internet races without doing any homework as to where the original story originated and it is clear to me that Babe Ruth was one of the victims of the "no-plane" hoax, but I decided to keep quiet to see how far he was willing to go since I knew he would not bother to do his homework anyway, and he didn't.

Edited by skyeagle409, 22 April 2013 - 02:25 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1740    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,105 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 22 April 2013 - 01:55 AM

View Postlightly, on 21 April 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:


You've got to be kidding, Right?!

Once again, did you really think the airlines would have grounded their aircraft for many months in order for someone to illegally modify their aircraft? Did the aircrew notify ground controllers of any trouble before they were hijacked? The fact that the hijackers were identified by flight attendants before the aircraft crashed underlines the fact that the aircraft were hijacked by terrorist from the Middle East and nothing to do with the U.S. government. The flight data also confirms the aircraft were not flown by professional pilots after they were hijacked.

Edited by skyeagle409, 22 April 2013 - 01:56 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users