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.


* * * * * 2 votes

The 9/11 Planes and the Pentagon attack


  • Please log in to reply
2521 replies to this topic

#1996    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,560 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 28 December 2011 - 09:14 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 28 December 2011 - 03:05 PM, said:

You see a vertical fin at the Pentagon?  That's rich.  Now see if you can find either of the two very large engines, or any of the very large landing gear assemblies.  Remember, we're talking Boeing here, not some smaller airplane.

Keep looking at that short video and play it back as often as needed, and you will see the while smoke trailing the aircraft and the verfical stabilizer as well just before impact.

The landing gear wheel of American 77 at the Pentagon.



Posted Image


B-757 landing gear

Posted Image


This is how American 77 approached the Pentagon just before impact. You can see the vertical stabilizer and while smoke trailing in the background.

Posted Image


Posted Image

Now, take a look at this aerial view and note the white trail leading toward the Pentagon.
Posted Image

Edited by skyeagle409, 28 December 2011 - 09:14 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1997    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 28 December 2011 - 09:21 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 28 December 2011 - 12:58 AM, said:

I find this quite curious on many levels, but alright I'll bite.  Can you share the evidence alluded to above?

In particular I'd like to see the evidence of the final bullet point.  I don't personally doubt the first bullet point, the second I find plausible, and the third I still question; but the fourth...  That's the one I really want to see some evidence for.

Cheers.
I will state the case for the first three points just to reaffirm and set background for the rest of the evidence.

To begin, some testimony from NORAD commanders provided to the 9/11 Commission and media: -

Their story, in a nutshell, was one of being caught off guard initially, then very quickly ramping up to battle status—in position, and in possession of enough situational awareness to defend the country, and the capital in particular, before United 93, the fourth hijacked plane, would have reached Washington.

Major General Arnold explained to the commission that the military had been tracking United 93 and the fighters were in position if United 93 had threatened Washington. "It was our intent to intercept United Flight 93," Arnold testified. "I was personally anxious to see what 93 was going to do, and our intent was to intercept it."

Colonel Marr, the commanding officer at neads on 9/11, had made similar comments to ABC News for its one-year-anniversary special on the attacks, saying that the pilots had been warned they might have to intercept United 93, and stop it if necessary: "And we of course passed that on to the pilots: United Airlines Flight 93 will not be allowed to reach Washington, D.C."

When I interviewed him recently, Marr recalled a conversation he had had with Arnold in the heat of the attack. "I remember the words out of General Arnold's mouth, or at least as I remember them, were 'We will take lives in the air to save lives on the ground.'" In actuality, they'd never get that chance.


http://www.vanityfai.../08/norad200608


That final sentence is media commentary repeating the official narrative.

Of real interest are the four direct quotes above from NORAD commanders.

The article also features NORAD discussing earlier on the morning how they might go about a shoot down, prior to 09:20:  “My recommendation, if we have to take anybody out, large aircraft, we use AIM-9s in the face…. If need be.”

The 9/11 Commission further confirms that the fighers scrambled from Langley AFB to defend Washington were armed:  “Two of the three Langley fighters were fully armed (i.e., with missiles and guns); the third fighter carried only guns.”

Another fact: at 09:37, the fighters were approximately 150 miles from the Pentagon.  This would place the fighters approximately 280 miles from the Flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania.  This means that the fighters would be required to travel an average speed of approximately 650 mph to reach the final location of Flight 93 by 10:03.  Well… I’ll let you lookup the combat radius and top speed of an F-16.  There is no doubt the fighters could have been there.

Now, if you have followed all of the above, the main points to take from this post: -

  • NORAD intended to intercept.
  • The aircraft would not be allowed to reach Washington.
  • The possibility of shoot down had been discussed.
  • The cost in lives in the air was deemed the lesser of two evils.
  • The fighters were armed and able to reach Flight 93.

Oh, everything was set to do what they had to.

The 9/11 Commission estimates that Flight 93 was only 10-20 minutes from Washington.  So when were NORAD planning to act?  Time was fast running out, the confirmed threat was approaching, three other targets had been hit.  It was now or never for NORAD.

Of course, the 9/11 Commission tried to refute this possibility.  The report claims that NORAD were not aware of Flight 93 until after the crash and highlight that no shoot down authorisation had been granted.  Well no, at that time, the President and Vice President were too busy chatting on the phone.  The Secretary of Defence was playing rescue worker on the Pentagon lawn in disregard of his role.  None were available to authorise that shoot down order.

The 9/11 Commission did find the issue contentious enough to be worthy of discussion: -

    “It is possible that NORAD commanders would have ordered a shootdown in the absence of the authorization communicated by the Vice President, but given the gravity of the decision to shoot down a commercial airliner, and NORAD’s caution that a mistake not be made, we view this possibility as unlikely.

    NORAD officials have maintained that they would have intercepted and shot down United 93.  We are not so sure.”

Yes it certainly is possible, “that NORAD commanders would have ordered a shootdown in the absence of the authorization communicated by the Vice President” (especially as the Vice President was unavailable).  A show of hands for those who give a damn what the 9/11 Commission think is “unlikely” or are “not so sure” about?  Anyone who has read the full report knows they have very little credibility in these areas of speculation.

Then comes the official narrative that Flight 93 crashed singularly due to a passenger revolt.  It would be quite a coincidence that occurred shortly before the aircraft reached Washington, meeting the NORAD objective.  Saved NORAD a job didn’t it… hmm… didn’t it?  I don't think so.  We will see with the evidence to follow that is but a cover story…

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1998    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 28 December 2011 - 09:24 PM

Sky

I wonder what sort of aircraft you flew?  Did you say USAF?

Anyway, let's consider that picture you offer of the Boeing one inch off the ground before it strikes the building.  Do we agree that is essentially very precise terrain-following flight?

And since you (or was it Q?) that references the various radar tracks flown by 77, have you considered the actual maneuver that the airplane had to fly to end up in that position in your picture?


#1999    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 28 December 2011 - 09:26 PM

Ok, so evidence more direct to the shoot down of Flight 93 which I will split into five main headings…


ATC comments

We saw in the previous post how fighters were within range to intercept the aircraft and that it was NORAD’s intention to do so.

Listen to this…

Bill Keaton, Cleveland ATC, when asked if fighters were in the vicinity of Flight 93:  “I know what you're getting at.  But that goes beyond the scope of what I can comment on.  I'm sorry to be evasive.  There were a few little things that happened that day that I can't comment on.”  Ok, not very interesting, other than to confirm there is something there which is not public knowledge and that ATC have been told not to comment on.

But how about this…

The Nashua controllers have learned through discussions with other controllers that an F-16 fighter stayed in hot pursuit of another hijacked commercial airliner until it crashed in Pennsylvania, the employee said.

Although controllers don't have complete details of the Air Force's chase of the Boeing 757, they have learned the F-16 made 360-degree turns to remain close to the commercial jet, the employee said.

"He must've seen the whole thing," the employee said of the F-16 pilot's view of United Flight 93's crash near Pittsburgh.


http://www.usatoday....ate-collide.htm


Now we are getting somewhere - hot pursuit, a chase, 360-degree turns, saw the whole thing.

I find it difficult to explain why ATC or USA Today would make that up… though understandable why official sources might want to cover it up.


The call of Edward Felt

The above named individual was a passenger on Flight 93.  At 9:58, five minutes prior to the crash, Felt made a 911 emergency call answered by dispatcher John Shaw and listened in on by his supervisor Glen Cramer.

On September 19th the FBI were advised by Cramer: -

The caller advised hysterically that he was locked in the bathroom of United Flight #93, a 757 jet with lots of passengers, which was en route to San Francisco from Newark.  He heard the caller repeat several times that the aircraft was being hijacked, that he believed the aircraft was going down, and that some sort of explosion had occurred aboard the aircraft.  The male caller also stated that there was white smoke somewhere on the plane.

http://intelfiles.eg...302-ed-wart.pdf
http://www.historyco...item=a958edfelt


An explosion, smoke, going down… I don’t need to explain.

The FBI confiscated the tape and Shaw later denied that Felt had made the comment.  The issue was ignored in the 9/11 Commission report, even the name of Edward Felt appearing only as a footnote.

Again, I find it difficult to explain why Cramer would make this up… though understandable why official sources might want to cover it up.


The Secondary Debris Field(s)

A video: -




Excerpt from the video: -

“We don’t want to speculate about this large debris field, but it seems to me from covering a number of plane crashes on the scene that if nothing else, you can say this is not typical for a plane crash to be spread across an area this large.”

“It certainly doesn’t make sense because most of the debris has been found in a very compact area within 100 yards, 200 yards, maybe a little beyond that and then all of a sudden they are telling us 6 miles away they have another concentration of debris.  They say it’s very small pieces, most of these are very small pieces, most of the pieces here are no bigger than the size of a briefcase they say and the pieces 6 miles away may be even smaller than that… And as to whether it broke up on the way, we don’t know that, the FBI is being very tight-lipped about that.  But again, it leads to that possibility – it certainly leads to a number of questions.”


The reports are not of a continuous trail of debris outward from the crash site.  The reports are of distant and isolated debris fields.  This, as the reporters suggested, indicate that the aircraft suffered a trauma in flight - pieces broke away and/or the fuselage was punctured.

This damage is in turn suggestive of a shoot down – remember, the aim is not to blow up the whole aircraft but to take out an engine in attempt to force a landing.

There has been a concerted attempt to disprove this possibility through the claim that journalists misinterpreted distance of the secondary debris field(s) – the claim is that a route-planner was used rather than measuring ‘as the crow flies’.  But, I do not see this article makes a mistake: -

http://911research.w...ight93site.html


Eyewitnesses

There is nothing conclusive here but the area is worth a mention.

What we have are eyewitnesses who describe: -

  • Military aircraft in the area at the time of the crash.
  • A large silver plane at the time of the crash.
  • The sound of “high-pitch screeching” overhead thought to be a missile.
  • The sound of a sonic boom.
  • Flight 93 trailing smoke and flames in one instant.

Whilst some of the above is contained in mainstream media articles, parts are also unsourced, i.e. the reference to “trailing smoke and flames”.  At least, I can’t find the source journalists used for it.

Two articles describing the above are found here: -

http://911research.w...tdidhappen.html
http://www.americanf.../flight_93.html

The report of the large silver aircraft which flew toward the crash site and then headed back in the direction it had come from is particularly interesting in conjunction with this account: -

In April 2002, Anthony Kuczynski will tell the University of St. Thomas’s weekly newspaper that he had flown toward Pittsburgh alongside two F-16s on 9/11.  He says he was piloting an E-3 Sentry AWACS plane, which has advanced radar and surveillance equipment that can be used to direct fighter jets to their targets.  He was just about to intercept Flight 93 when it crashed.  He says, “I was given direct orders to shoot down an airliner.” (E-3s are unarmed, so, if this account is accurate, the order presumably applied to the fighters Kuczynski was accompanying.)

http://www.historyco...ighterstrailing


In all, it can be said there is a body of eyewitnesses who believe there was military activity in the area at the time of the crash.  Perhaps not convincing in itself but, combined with everything else I have presented, I’m certainly not going to say they were wrong.


The Rumsfeld comment

Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defence.

If anyone knows what happened that morning, it’s him right?

Another video from 2004 (listen for the slip): -



Did we all get that?

“… shot down the plane over Pennsylvania… ”
“… shot down the plane over Pennsylvania… ”
“… shot down the plane over Pennsylvania… ”


Now I’m not daft – I’m well aware it is possible to get tongue-tied, fluff your lines and misspeak.  Indeed, that is what the Pentagon claimed had happened in their follow-up here.  Heh yeah, it was damning enough for the Pentagon to make a retraction.

The thing is, it’s not a slip that can be swept under the carpet.  To come out and say, “shot down the plane” (something that absolutely did not happen, never ever, no siree!)… in my evaluation, that thought had to have been at the back of his mind.  Yes, somewhere in his head, for some reason, Rumsfeld holds that thought that Flight 93 was shot down.  And right there, in mid-flow of his sentence, it slipped.

Add to everything else.

All indication is that the air defense response finally got their act together.

Please note: none of this necessarily precludes a passenger revolt on the aircraft.  It can fit as well with one version of events as another.  Though a cover up is a cover up, whatever its cause or origin.

If any point is not clear please let me know.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#2000    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 28 December 2011 - 09:30 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 28 December 2011 - 09:24 PM, said:

And since you (or was it Q?) that references the various radar tracks flown by 77, have you considered the actual maneuver that the airplane had to fly to end up in that position in your picture?
When I mention the radar tack, that is in reference to the aircraft approaching the Pentagon and not witnessed to leave the area.  Regarding the actual manoeuvre, it was helluva risk which the aircraft succeeded in one for one attempt… I don’t think it in the slightest likely that Hanjour was at the controls.

Edit:  please see my post #49 here from earlier in the thread.

Edited by Q24, 28 December 2011 - 09:33 PM.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#2001    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,560 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 28 December 2011 - 09:48 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 28 December 2011 - 08:59 PM, said:

Sky
Perhaps you have me confused with one you call a "911 truther".  I am not that.

I am a private citizen who does not believe the official story for the simple reason that there is no evidence to support the official story.  Yes, it is true that 2 Boeing type aircraft struck the towers, but that's about it.

And, the operators, American and United Airlines,  reported the loss of those aircraft, which struck the WTC towers.

Quote

From impossible aeronautical maneuvers,...

The maneuvers were not impossible by any means. We have had aircraft that entered dutch rolls and other maneuvers that were considered impossible for large aircraft and yet, those aircraft survived and landed safely.

Quote

...to the absence of crash site debris consistent with the story,...
False, and crash debris from those aircraft have been shown in photos.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Quote


...to the OBVIOUS use of explosive devices for what is said to be a gravitational collapse, the official story does not pass even the most superficial scrutiny.

There were no explosives placed in the WTC buildings and experts have concluded that the structural beams were weakened by heat from the fires. You will notice that WTC north was the first building hit, but the last tower to collapse because it had less overhead weight to support than WTC south. The suport beams were damaged by impact, which meant that the surviving structural beams were struggling to maintain structural interity of the WTC towers and all it took was a bit of heat to weaken the remaining structural supports to the point of failure.

You will notice that more than 1000 pounds of explosives had failed to bring down the WTC building in 1993. Here is the result of the 1993 WTC bombing and you will notice the huge crater and yet the building remained standing.

Posted Image


Quote

What is absolutely CERTAIN to this social security recipient is that the government lies and covers it up with the assistance of the media.  It's been lying since I was a kid in the US Army and before.

Why is it NOT lying now?

I hope you don't think that I don't know that. There are cases where I have slammed the government for lying, but in the case of 9/11, we can blame foreign terrorist for what happened on 9/11/2001. I was returning from the Philippines in August 2001 for San Francisco and as I was going through the security checkpoints at the aiport in Manila, I wondered why airport security was not as strict in the States and less than a month later, it became evident that my concern was valid.

It should also be noted that in the Philippines, a terrorist plot was uncovered to blow up airliners and to fly an aircraft into CIA headquarters. The plot was known as The Bojinka Plot.

Quote


The Bojinka Plot

Posted Image

Ramzi Yousef

The Bojinka plot was a planned large-scale Islamist terrorist attack by Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to blow up 12 airliners and their approximately 4,000 passengers as they flew from Asia to the United States. The term can also refer to a combination of plots by Yousef and Mohammed to take place in January 1995, including a plot to assassinate Pope John Paul II. Murad proposed to crash a plane into the CIA headquarters in Fairfax County, Virginia, in addition to a plan to bomb multiple airliners, which leads credence that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed evolved this plot into the 9–11 airliner attacks.

Despite careful planning and the skill of Ramzi Yousef, the Bojinka plot was disrupted after a chemical fire drew the Philippine National Police's (PNP) attention on January 6 and January 7, 1995. Yousef set off test bombs in a mall and theater, injuring scores of people, and one person was killed in the course of the plot — a passenger seated near a nitroglycerin bomb on Philippine Airlines Flight 434, which could have caused enough damage to lose the entire plane.

My link


Edited by skyeagle409, 28 December 2011 - 09:54 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2002    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 28 December 2011 - 09:50 PM

View PostQ24, on 28 December 2011 - 09:30 PM, said:

When I mention the radar tack, that is in reference to the aircraft approaching the Pentagon and not witnessed to leave the area.  Regarding the actual manoeuvre, it was helluva risk which the aircraft succeeded in one for one attempt… I don’t think it in the slightest likely that Hanjour was at the controls.

Edit:  please see my post #49 here from earlier in the thread.


Well that is interesting.  If you do not think Hanjour was at the controls, who do you think was at the controls?


#2003    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 28 December 2011 - 09:59 PM

Sky

The aeronautical maneuver I mentioned earlier was not at WTC, but at the Pentagon.

Again, I am curious as to which command at USAF you were in--fighters or bombers?

In my post above I asked Q if he is familiar with the maneuver Hanjour flew, and I pose that same question to you.

I don't know if you watch 60 Minutes, but they performed some excellent journalism a few weeks back by exposing the lies told by numerous high level inviduals at both Citibank and Countrywide.

Point is that if Ken Lay and others can lie, so too can high level execs at UAL and AA.  I'm not saying they did, I'm saying that there is a certain probability that they did.  If AT&T would do the NSA's dirty work by illegally intercepting emails and voice communications without warrants, what is it that guarantees that UAL and AA execs are being forthright?


#2004    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 28 December 2011 - 10:46 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 28 December 2011 - 09:50 PM, said:

Well that is interesting.  If you do not think Hanjour was at the controls, who do you think was at the controls?
I think someone with access to a ground control station was at the controls.  It’s difficult to be more specific than that but I think we all know the leading suspect groups (first person to say “the U.S. government” loses).  I’m talking of those with Neocon and Zionist association, linked to the military and/or intelligence services.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#2005    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,560 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 29 December 2011 - 12:34 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 28 December 2011 - 09:59 PM, said:

Sky  
The aeronautical maneuver I mentioned earlier was not at WTC, but at the Pentagon.

It is really not as complicated as one might think and was actually a poorly planned approach. If he had struck an obstacle that took out the cockpit, things would have been different, however, light poles were struck by the aircraft on its approach to the Pentagon.

Quote

Again, I am curious as to which command at USAF you were in--fighters or bombers?

In Vietnam, I was attached to the 35th Tactical Fighter Wing, which flew F-100's, B-57's, and other support aircraft. At Hill AFB, we didn't have aircraft assigned to our squadron, but we were involved in combat support and some members of my squadron were involved in the transportation of Minuteman missiles, and at Travis AFB, I was involved with cargo aircraft. I am a pilot, but I did not fly as an Air Force pilot, however, I have flown as an Air Force DCC crewmember aboard the C-5 Galaxy as an Air Force reservist, which was assigned to me by the Air Force.

I received pilot training while stationed at Hill AFB,and continued pilot training after I was handed TDY orders to Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ. Flying out of Hill AFB provided me with cross-wind training and mountain flying and lots of it, while my flight training out of Davis-Monthan AFB, provided me with heavy turbulence flying. After my four years of active duty, I was honorably discharged and began commercial pilot training at the Ogden airport, which is only  a few miles from Hill AFB. In addition, I have flown many aircraft over the years and look forward to getting my hands on the P-51 Mustang.

On another note, It was my aircraft, (C-5, 68-0213)  that was tagged to fly support gear from Cubic Point, Philippines to Japan in support of recovery efforts for Korean Airlines 007, which was shot down by the Soviet Union. I was on a mission on that aircraft when we received orders to fly to Cubic Point from Clark, to pick up the recovery gear and fly the equipment to Yokota airbase, Japan.

As an Air Force civilian, I was involved with aircraft structures where I have also developed components for Air Force aircraft and support equipment for the Air Force, and defense contractors after my retirement from Air Force civil service. I have flown many types of aircraft over a period of more than 40 years, but I have never applied for an airline job. I come from a family of pilots and some of my relatives are currently flying as airline captains aboard aircraft that includes the B-767, one of whom doesn't use ACARS in his aircraft.

I have been actively involved in aviation over the years and have led the Tuskegee Airmen chapter at Travis AFB, which includes air force officers and enlisted personnel, air force civilians, and  military retirees, and some members of my chapter are original Tuskegee Airmen, one of whom flew our first POW's out of North Vietnam on the 'Hanoi Taxi," and was a crewmember on the aircraft that flew the Apollo 14 astronauts back to Houston after their moon flight. That was Colonel James C. Warren, and we still fly together.

Lt. Colonel James Warren, was the person who nominated me for president of the Lee A. Archer, Jr. chapter, Travis AFB, where afterward, its members voted me in as president, a position I held until I took on a government contract in Corpus Christi, TX.

Lt. Colonel James Warren is also the honorary commander of the 477th Fighter Group that flies the F-22 Raptor, which was his unit during World War II.

Posted Image

Lt. Colonel James Warren and F-22 pilots of the 477th Fighter Group

In addition, I once gave a lecture on the hazards of mountain flying to the Experimental Aircraft Association, (EAA) in Vacaville, CA. a few years ago. Look for the Tuskegee Airmen movie; "Red Tails," which is a George Lucas film and due for release on Januarty 20, 2012.

Posted Image

Attached Thumbnails

  • Skyeagle409 t-34.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409, 29 December 2011 - 01:30 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2006    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 December 2011 - 03:01 AM

Woody has a question over there.  I don't know if he'll bother looking over here for an answer, but I might as well provide one anyway...

woody said:

In case Warren is still here...a question for you...

a DLBLK block shows that the plane has (automatically) acknowledged a message from ground control. Okay. A missing DLBLK block shows that a message from ground control (ULBLK) was not acknowledged. Okay. But acknowledging is not the same as receiving. Before you can acknowledge a message, you have to receive it, but a plane can receive a message without acknowledging it.

Is it possible that the sheer existence of a ULBLK message proves that it was received by the plane?


No Woody it doesn't.  All it proves is that ARINC transmitted the message from a ground station.

Think of it like this...

It is kind of like when you take a piece of mail into your post office.  You might get a receipt when you pay the postage, which is proof that you've sent it, but that doesn't mean that it actually made it to the intended recipient.

I hope that helps.

Cheers.


#2007    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 December 2011 - 04:13 AM

View PostQ24, on 28 December 2011 - 09:26 PM, said:

Ok, so evidence more direct to the shoot down of Flight 93 which I will split into five main headings…

*snipped for brevity*
Thank you Q24.  You do present a compelling and thought provoking case, however it is riddled with speculation.  Don't get me wrong, you've communicated a plausible "shoot down" hypothesis about as clearly as one can be given, but there isn't really any substantial evidence in support of the speculation and an overwhelming body of evidence in support of the official account.  The transcript of the cockpit voice recorder alone makes it pretty clear; to me at least.  Wouldn't there be some kind of hint about this in the cockpit voice recorder if it had happened?

Question for you though...  if an engine had been shot to disable the aircraft and it had been smoking on the way down, would you expect to see some remnant of that smoke trail in the initial photos after the crash?

Posted Image


Aside from the upward billowing smoke cloud from the crash itself, I don't see any sign of a downward smoke trail; dissipating or otherwise.  Shouldn't there be some vestige of a smoke trail if the engine was burning?

I'm curious though, where exactly did you find this reference and do you have any more information about it:
  • Flight 93 trailing smoke and flames in one instant.

I've not heard this before and would like to know where it came from.

Cheers.


#2008    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,837 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Coast, NSW, Australia

  • "Truth needs no defence. Nobody - NOBODY - can ever take the footsteps I made on the surface of the Moon away from me."
    Gene Cernan, Apollo 17

Posted 29 December 2011 - 04:21 AM

Can I also add to Sky's reply that apart from being a private pilot myself and being involved in various aspects of military aviation for 20 years, I have also spoken to A-10 pilots, F-15 pilots, F-16 pilots, B767 pilots, B747 pilots and A380 pilots. They all agree that hitting the Pentagon would have been easy, even for a novice flier, with minimal training.


#2009    badeskov

badeskov

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,530 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

Posted 29 December 2011 - 05:23 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 29 December 2011 - 03:01 AM, said:

Woody has a question over there.  I don't know if he'll bother looking over here for an answer, but I might as well provide one anyway...

<snip>


Good grief, BooNy. I just went to that horrible place and it is clear that common sense and critical thinking has pretty much been eradicated there. Doubt that we will ever see some of those proponents here again.

Cheers,
Badeskov

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.

#2010    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 December 2011 - 05:32 AM

View Postbadeskov, on 29 December 2011 - 05:23 AM, said:

Good grief, BooNy. I just went to that horrible place and it is clear that common sense and critical thinking has pretty much been eradicated there. Doubt that we will ever see some of those proponents here again.

Cheers,
Badeskov
It is indeed a dismal landscape, I completely agree.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users