2281 replies to this topic

[Babe Ruth]

Tesla II, on 08 March 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

Interesting link... here.

Holy Cow!  Dick Cheney is a liar?  Say it ain't so!

Q

I think we've been over this once before, regarding P4T.  I too found myself in the proverbial hot water over there, but was never banned.  I was just the subject of much invective for having questioned certain theories regarding whether anything at all hit the Pentagon, in the way of flying objects.  Because of the debris that we did see, it has always been my theory, and except for the debris I CANNOT prove my theory, that some sort of flying machine did indeed strike the building.  Somebody at P4T had proposed that he could prove beyond a doubt that no flying machine had struck the building.  I was called all sorts of dirty names, but I'm rather used to that.

Anyway, eventually I watched the piece CIT did about those people who had been present at or very near to the notorious Citgo station.  I found it persuasive and fairly well done, considering that it was amateurs who did it.  It seems to me that the people interviewed (it's been some years since I've watched it) were describing what they saw as best they could and were being honest.

In that vein, I would be most interested in reading the statements, or watching a video, whatever you have, regarding those many witnesses who saw the plane passing south of the Citgo as you claim.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 08 March 2013 - 08:28 PM, said:

In that vein, I would be most interested in reading the statements, or watching a video, whatever you have, regarding those many witnesses who saw the plane passing south of the Citgo as you claim.

What did the physical evidence depict as far as the flight path of American 77 is concerned?

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 08 March 2013 - 08:17 PM, said:

www.911woodybox.blogspot.com

Scroll down to the article on 25 October 2012.  He explains it in very much detail.  18 uplinks to 93 after the Shanksville time of crash.

Woody Box needs to do what I have done on multiple occasions, and that is, call the folks at ARINC, so they can tell him how wrong he is.

Quote

As for the Caspian flight, I'm not going there because in the end it's irrelevant.

Actually, it is relevant because that crash site is similar to the crash site of United 93.

Quote

If you believe that the pictures of the debris at Shanksville as posted here by Sky and others are genuine and belong to 93,...

Those pictures of the crash site of United 93 near Shanksville are genuine.

Quote

Further, your previous statement that the 93 airplane was reduced to smithereens, vaporized, or however you put it, do not square with the existence of those fuselage pieces that you accept as genuine.  That is, how can an airplane that was blown to smithereens by penetrating the earth at very high speeds, still generate whole pieces of fuselage sections, including windows, showing no compression damage at all?

Look at the photos of the Caspian Airlines crash site and note the simalarities between that crash site and that of United 93. No real mystery.

Edited by skyeagle409, 08 March 2013 - 09:30 PM.

[skyeagle409]

skyeagle409, on 08 March 2013 - 09:29 PM, said:

Look at the photos of the Caspian Airlines crash site and note the simalarities between that crash site and that of United 93. No real mystery.

That was suppose to be; similarity.

Babe Ruth wrote:

Quote

Anyway, eventually I watched the piece CIT did about those people who had been present at or very near to the notorious Citgo station.

And, there were witnesses who did not see American 77 pass north of the gas station. So, we have people saying the aircraft passed north of the gas station and others saying that the aircraft did not pass north of the gas station, and that is where the physical evidence comes in.

Quote

... I found it persuasive and fairly well done, considering that it was amateurs who did it.

Nothing special about that maneuver.

Today, I watched a C-5 conduct a high altitude maneuver at an estimated altitude of 10,000 feet. The aircraft then conducted a descending 90 degree turn to the south and straighten out for 20 seconds before conducting a 90 degree turn to the west. Then, the C-5 conducted another 90 degree turn to the north for a short period of time before turning 90 degrees to the east. After 30 seconds, the C-5 conducted the 180 degree turn for final approach and landed. The whole maneuver took about 4 1/2 minutes and I timed the maneuver with my watch and it was a very boring to watch.

In the case of the Hani, how long did it take for him to complete his maneuver? Keeping in mind he didn't complete a full 360 degree circle.

Edited by skyeagle409, 09 March 2013 - 01:59 AM.

[awest]

redhen, on 12 January 2013 - 01:48 AM, said:

For those who hold that 911 was an inside job, I would like to discover why you believe those responsible would have executed this plan.

I can only think of one possible reason that might make sense; to launch a war, to give the armed forces combat experience.

You go.

Thanks

Why did Hitler burn down Reichstag? Who knows, but he got power out of it and enacted an emergency decree granting him and the government that now worked for him massive power. Sounds a little familiar if you think about it, needed an excuse for a few wars and the patriot act. Not saying that is what the actual reasoning behind it was if it truly was an inside job, but trying to understand the minds of people that would be willing to do such things is pointless till many years later when the truth starts to come out.

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 08 March 2013 - 08:17 PM, said:

www.911woodybox.blogspot.com

Scroll down to the article on 25 October 2012.  He explains it in very much detail.  18 uplinks to 93 after the Shanksville time of crash.

Thank you for that.

It’s bizarre.  The article tries to argue that presence of an uplink attempt from the RGS automatically means that message was received by the aircraft, even though each of those latter uplink attempts contain error codes specifically indicating delivery failures.  So... huh?  To claim those messages were delivered to the aircraft is a contradiction of the very message text.

Woody knows the above but tries to gloss over it:  “This raises the question why they were not acknowledged. As important as an answer to this problem certainly is, it's not mandatory for the basic result of my argumentation: a sent ULBLK indicates that the addressed plane is airborne.”

1)   The ‘important’ (and very obvious) answer to the question is, ‘because the plane had crashed’.

2)   The ‘basic result of my argumentation’ is completely unfounded.  Why would the system contain error codes for non-delivery in the first place if all uplink attempts were automatically received?

I’ve been through the article a couple of times and can’t even figure how Woody is making that claim:  “a sent ULBLK indicates that the addressed plane is airborne”.  It is not a reflection of ACARS system documentation or the message text/source evidence.  It appears to be made-up/fantasy.

On top of the uplink failure codes, is such ‘mystery’ as the fact that no downlinks were received from Flight 93 after the crash time either.  Now why ever would that be?  Because Woody can conjure-up his own procedure, claim the FBI may have edited interview text and the FOIA record may be “in part manipulated”?

And that is ‘evidence’ Flight 93 was still in the air after the crash time?  

No, imagination is not evidence, especially when the record shows completely the opposite.

Babe Ruth, on 08 March 2013 - 08:17 PM, said:

As for the Caspian flight, I'm not going there because in the end it's irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant, it’s as relevant as any other precedent or lesson from history.  The Caspian Airlines crash shows that, like Flight 93, airliners can leave a pit in the earth with relatively little visible debris.

Babe Ruth, on 08 March 2013 - 08:17 PM, said:

If you believe that the pictures of the debris at Shanksville as posted here by Sky and others are genuine and belong to 93, I find it curious that while you demand serial numbers from other airplanes that day, you are apparently content to accept the 93 wreckage as genuine without such serial number checks.  I find that to be a strange position on the matter, all things considered, especially your acknowlegement that the events of the day constituted a FF operation.

You have misinterpreted me somewhere.  Please see my previous response to LG:  “I wouldn’t put my house on specific identity of the aircraft in the Shaksville crash, not without a physical cross-check of the debris serial numbers against records”.  There is a big difference between doubting identity of an aircraft and claiming that no aircraft crashed altogether.

Babe Ruth, on 08 March 2013 - 08:17 PM, said:

Further, your previous statement that the 93 airplane was reduced to smithereens, vaporized, or however you put it, do not square with the existence of those fuselage pieces that you accept as genuine.  That is, how can an airplane that was blown to smithereens by penetrating the earth at very high speeds, still generate whole pieces of fuselage sections, including windows, showing no compression damage at all?

It’s not a “whole” fuselage section, it’s a piece that has very clearly suffered compression damage, i.e. it’s been ripped and twisted away from the rest of the aircraft.  I don’t understand the ‘problem’ here.

Babe Ruth, on 08 March 2013 - 08:28 PM, said:

Anyway, eventually I watched the piece CIT did about those people who had been present at or very near to the notorious Citgo station.  I found it persuasive and fairly well done, considering that it was amateurs who did it.  It seems to me that the people interviewed (it's been some years since I've watched it) were describing what they saw as best they could and were being honest.

Now consider why none of the interviewed witnesses who claim to have seen a south of citgo flight path made it into the presentation.

How is it that the the might of governments cannot deceive you, yet a dishonest amateur with a camera can?

Babe Ruth, on 08 March 2013 - 08:28 PM, said:

In that vein, I would be most interested in reading the statements, or watching a video, whatever you have, regarding those many witnesses who saw the plane passing south of the Citgo as you claim.

I started you off the last time you asked (link) but it seems you were intent only on speculating against those eyewitnesses.  What’s that you always say?  You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink, you can lay it out for man but you cannot make him think!  Sorry, until you choose to consider evidence objectively there’s not much that can be done.

Edited by Q24, 11 March 2013 - 12:07 PM.

[Stundie]

Q24, on 08 March 2013 - 06:35 PM, said:

You can’t have laid bare their deceit, that’s when the claws and censorship come out.

Oh but you can’t know they are lying, Q.  Yes, I can, and so can you.  To anyone familiar with the topic, this is apparent from posing to them the question, “how many witnesses are you aware of who claim to have seen a south of citgo flight path?” and the CIT answer, “there are none”.

Whereas in fact, CIT have interviewed numerous witnesses who testify to a south of citgo flight path, it’s on record.  CIT simply will do everything to discredit and conceal them because their whole premise relies on one-sided promotion of only witness statements that support their flyover theory.  It is not surprising these can be found in a large body of notoriously unreliable witness statements.

It is through raising this fact and asking the question above that CIT banned me from their forum.  There are no two ways about this - they know what they are doing.

Where a witness supports north of citgo they are depicted as credible accounts, despite any other contradiction found in the statement.  Where a witness supports south of citgo they are depicted as unreliable, the slightest discrepancy is magnified to disproportionate levels, they are slandered, hounded and provided minimum exposure.

This in my opinion is not ‘nice’ behaviour but actually quite disgusting.

For the record, witnesses who can corroborate the aircraft on the south of citgo (official) flight path outnumber those who report a north of citgo (flyover) flight path by approximately 3:1.  Not that CIT would like us to believe those three times as many exist.

Just something to look out for Stundie, should you head across to Loose Change forum or delve into the subject again.

I suppose I don't have much to disagree with them about because I believe their theory as a possibility but I do not know much about AA77 and the Pentagon.

I know they have been very defensive but to be fair, they come under a lot of criticisms. Whether that is justified or not I couldn't tell you, but they have always been nice to me.

However, I didn't know that they had witnesses who had said they saw the plane SOC, so if that is true, then it highlights a major flaw seeing as the NOC witnesses is what they rely on.

[Stundie]

Tesla II, on 08 March 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

Interesting link... here.

Thanks Tesla II.

I'm keeping my eye out for this documentary as the movements of Dick Cheney on the morning of 9/11 is of a particular interest to me. I'm hoping that he tells us about what he did that morning again as it might prove beyond reasonable doubt that the lying b****** could have saved the lives of those at the Pentagon if he and his SS outfit had informed them.

[Q24]

Stundie, on 11 March 2013 - 12:14 PM, said:

However, I didn't know that they had witnesses who had said they saw the plane SOC, so if that is true, then it highlights a major flaw seeing as the NOC witnesses is what they rely on.

Of course it is true.

Please watch from 6:00 to 15:00 in this video as ‘CIT’ conduct an interview with Flight 77 eyewitness Keith Wheelhouse (hopefully I've linked it so the video starts on the 6 minute mark for you): -

http://www.youtube.c...6KAyvOA0#t=6m0s

So Keith is contacted as an eyewitness to the events of 9/11, he gives up his spare time (he doesn’t have to) to give his story, he sits in front of ‘CIT’ and sketches the south of citgo (official) flight path that he witnessed (which you will see if you watch up to 15:00).

Then what do ‘CIT’ do?  Does the interview find its way into the main presentation of eyewitnesses?  Of course not – he’s an official flight path witness - ‘CIT’ set out to discredit and slander Keith based on some minor discrepancies in the account regarding distance and timing which Keith himself stated as ‘guesstimates’ and are notoriously difficult for the human mind and memory to judge.

Look at the abuse ‘CIT’ aimed at Wheelhouse: -
http://z3.invisionfr...p?showtopic=467

They accuse him of being a part of a cover-up, label his statement a charade and call him a liar.

This is not nice behaviour – this is not how we treat people.

It’s the same pattern over and over with any official flight path witness ‘CIT’ encountered.  Not only do ‘CIT’ treat eyewitnesses in this way but also their biased presentation deceives genuine researchers.  Fortunately this is quite apparent to any objective person who has thoroughly researched the eyewitnesses and Pentagon event.

Please click and read each of these very brief slides from the 911research site: -

http://911research.c...on/methods.html
http://911research.c...ntacon/lie.html
http://911research.c...on/enemies.html
http://911research.c...n/contempt.html

Of course ‘CIT’ were nice to you because you don’t challenge their ‘theory’, but no wonder a large part of the truth movement have disassociated themselves from these characters.

[Babe Ruth]

Q

Just so we're on the same page regarding ACARS question, I would like to start by describing how the system works.  You probably already know this, but I would like to have a starting point.

Other than frequency allocation and cell/sector design, ACARS is but a texting system designed for the airlines, and the general operating principles are very much like that of our cell phone systems.  That design requires that even though the humans for whom the systems were designed may not be using the system to communicate, the system elements, base and mobile units, must stay in communication so that the base units know exactly where the mobile units are, and vice versa, so that the proper frequency can be employed should the exchange of messages be required.

Handshakes, ARINC 618 Appendix, phase coherence, are all relevant.  The Appendix gives some of the esoteric protocols that Woody references.

Even though the humans were not sending messages, the ARINC system was still communicating, including the unit assigned to the airplane that was 93 that day, and that record shows that 93 was communicating with the base units somewhere in Illinois, 30 minutes after is supposedly crashed.

"Because the plane had crashed" that you offer sounds good and seems logical, but the trouble is that there is no proof that it had crashed.  And even worse, all the photographic evidence and witness testimony at the site say that there was no Boeing there.  The Caspian flight is interesting, but unless that took place in soil and terrain conditions similar to Shanksville, it's irrelevant.  Yes, I know and have seen examples of crashed airplanes being consumed by the earth, but while the Everglades and soft sandy soil might do that in given conditions, those conditions did not exist in the Pennsylvania coal country.  Further, the pictures of the fuselage section you show do not comport with the official version, and the one embraced by yourself, in which it was reduced to smithereens by hitting an immovable object, or however else you put it.

As for CIT, I suppose they chose the gas station because several of the witnesses were actually at that gas station that day?  A point of reference perhaps?

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 11 March 2013 - 03:25 PM, said:

Just so we're on the same page regarding ACARS question, I would like to start by describing how the system works.  You probably already know this, but I would like to have a starting point.

Other than frequency allocation and cell/sector design, ACARS is but a texting system designed for the airlines, and the general operating principles are very much like that of our cell phone systems.  That design requires that even though the humans for whom the systems were designed may not be using the system to communicate, the system elements, base and mobile units, must stay in communication so that the base units know exactly where the mobile units are, and vice versa, so that the proper frequency can be employed should the exchange of messages be required.

Handshakes, ARINC 618 Appendix, phase coherence, are all relevant.  The Appendix gives some of the esoteric protocols that Woody references.

Yes, that is how it works on a good day, with the added note that handshakes occur periodically, not continuously (just in case that were not self-apparent from the description: 'handshake').  Now, the record shows that the last handshake from Flight 93 occurred at 10:01:59  The question is, do you know what happens when the aircraft ceases these handshakes?  I have already linked you to the answer here:  "If the DSP does not have tracking information for the aircraft addressed... "

Babe Ruth, on 11 March 2013 - 03:25 PM, said:

Even though the humans were not sending messages, the ARINC system was still communicating, including the unit assigned to the airplane that was 93 that day, and that record shows that 93 was communicating with the base units somewhere in Illinois, 30 minutes after is supposedly crashed.

No, that’s exactly the thing, the record specifically shows that the aircraft was not acknowledging receipt of uplinks after the crash time (thus those non-receipt codes mentioned in the record) nor is there any record of aircraft downlinks after the crash time.  The record we are looking at after the crash time is very simply one of attempted, and failed, uplinks from the ground station.  Why anyone thinks this indicates the aircraft was still communicating when the record shows exactly the opposite is beyond me.  Well, it's not actually.  Explanations could be lack of awareness, misunderstanding, willful ignorance, intentional deception, desperation, stubbornness......

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 11 March 2013 - 03:25 PM, said:

As for CIT, I suppose they chose the gas station because several of the witnesses were actually at that gas station that day?  A point of reference perhaps?

But, physical evidence proved that American 77 did not pass north of the gas station. 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

[skyeagle409]

Tesla II, on 08 March 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

Like i said this is pure inside job...

Not possible! It has been 11 years and yet, not one shred of evidence has surfaced that implicates the U.S. government.

[Babe Ruth]

Q

What I like about these exchanges is that they force me to examine evidence, or re-examine evidence as the case may be.

Your previous post forced me to go back and read again Woody's work.  In the end, you and I must agree to disagree on this ACARS business.

Either you did not read all of Woody's work, especially ARINC 618 which he references closely, or you are simply interpreting the information differently.  I suspect it is the former, because you are fairly meticulous here.  Or, perhaps it's my experience during the licensing process for my radio license, experience and knowledge that you might not have.

Woody makes a very clear case, and in the process considers several different possible scenarios, including the information learned from the work of Warren STutts.  He considers several different possibilities, and then chooses the most likely of them.  The testimony of Winter and Knerr is also most helpful.

And to me, this fits in logically with the strong evidence at Shanksville showing no Boeing crashed there.  No airplane, and radio records showing it was still in the air, testimony from Miller and friends showing the FBI pressured him into being a team player.  Really, the picture is quite complete.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 11 March 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

And to me, this fits in logically with the strong evidence at Shanksville showing no Boeing crashed there.

Impossible!! People at the crash site have confirmed the crash site as that of United 93.

Quote

No airplane, and radio records showing it was still in the air,...

That is rather silly considering that radar tracked United 93 to its crash site.

Quote

...testimony from Miller and friends showing the FBI pressured him into being a team player.

That is false, and you know it as well, but then again, you have been served notice by others and myself that you have been caught spewing false stories on many occasions.



“What happened above this Pennsylvanian field ranks among the most courageous acts in American history.”  George W. Bush

#9/11 #9 11 #september 11 #flight 93 #united 93 #heroes #courageous

Edited by skyeagle409, 11 March 2013 - 09:16 PM.