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

#1336    regeneratia

regeneratia

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,959 posts
  • Joined:20 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:All my posts are my own views, my own perceptions. Will not be finding links for why I think the way I do.

  • It is time to put the big guns down now, Little Boys!

Posted 20 March 2013 - 10:59 PM

I am well aware of what you want me and others to believe.

Honey, the proof is out there for the military use of intuits (word used as a noun). You have to look past your need to scoff to find it.



View PostLiquid Gardens, on 20 March 2013 - 10:51 PM, said:

Well we're not in disagreement on what you say here but it doesn't have much to do with what I said.  You said you don't determine what you believe to be true concerning 9/11 based on evidence, and I said that explains why you have the opinions that you do.  Since you arrive at conclusions and base your 'knowledge' concerning empirical questions on something besides evidence, it pretty much eliminates any possibility of discussion as it isn't possible to challenge, nor for you to defend, positions you've arrived at that are based on your feelings and intuition.  What am I going to challenge it with, non-evidence?



Ha, come to grips with what exactly?  What specifically has the US military accessed via the intuitive?



Sorry to break it to you, but this is plainly false.  I know that government involvement in 9/11 is merely a product of the wild imaginations of those people who are susceptible to the cognitive errors of conspiratorial thinking.  You clearly don't know that and must then be wrong.  Search your true feelings and listen to your intuition and you will know that you are wrong and I am correct.

Convinced yet?  I did what you suggested and made sure not to provide evidence and relied on my feelings and intuition.  Why do I think you're going to disagree with what I said there?  Doesn't that tell you something about this non-rational method of ascertaining the truth that you are proposing?  I'll grant that it certainly is an easier route to take, takes far less time, study, and effort compared to evaluating evidence rationally.


Edited by regeneratia, 20 March 2013 - 11:01 PM.

Truth is such a rare quality, a stranger so seldom met in this civilization of fraud, that it is never received freely, but must fight its way into the world
Professor Hilton Hotema
(quote from THE BIBLE FRAUD)

Robert Heinlein: SECRECY IS THE HALLMARK OF TYRANNY!

#1337    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,399 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 March 2013 - 12:43 AM

View Postregeneratia, on 20 March 2013 - 10:38 PM, said:

Oh I see, only the government is allowed to pull the wool over people's eyes.

Which they have done and I have brought it up before, but there was no way the government could have pulled off 911 and not get caught. As I have said before, if an aircraft was switched, it would take me 30 minutes or less to make that determination.

Quote

Oh yes, I get it now. I know just where you are coming from. Only the child-porn-laden Pentagon is supposed to tell us what is real and what is not. Oh yes, I get it.

There are ways to make that determination, which doesn't involve the U.S. government, and we can start with American Airlines, Rolls-Royce, and the Boeing Aircraft Company.

Quote

Only the Pentagon is the authority and tells us the truth. Oh yeah. I get it.

Of course not. Who supplied the conversion formulas for the FDR that pertained ONLY to the airframe of American 77? I might add that it wasn't the government.

Quote

I didn't feel bad for the Pentagon when it got hit on 9-11.

Neither did Osama bin Laden.

Edited by skyeagle409, 21 March 2013 - 12:44 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1338    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,399 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 March 2013 - 07:35 AM

New al Qaeda document sheds light on Europe, U.S. attack plans

(CNN) -- A previously secret document found at Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan sets out a detailed al Qaeda strategy for attacking targets in Europe and the United States.

The document -- a letter written to bin Laden in March 2010 by a senior operational figure in the terror group -- reveals that tunnels, bridges, dams, undersea pipelines and internet cables were among the targets. Yassin Musharbash, an investigative reporter with Die Zeit in Berlin, says the document seems "to support information gleaned from other terror trials that Al Qaeda in 2010 was trying to plan a comprehensive plot against the West," and al-Mauretani appears to have been bent on "hitting Europe and the U.S. by targeting critical infrastructure and economic targets."


Some of al-Mauretani's ideas may seem far-fetched, but they underline al Qaeda's continuing fascination with bringing down airliners. He proposed that men recruited into the Yemeni al Qaeda affiliate AQAP become pilots with airlines, and then drug their co-pilots before flying the plane into a target. One target he identified was the massive petrochemical facility at Abqaiq in Saudi Arabia.
Al Mauretani suggested that Osama bin Laden signal the go-ahead for attacks in Europe with a public message that al Qaeda's patience with Europe had run out. And he had a clear sense of how to finance attacks, saying that al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) had "millions" and its leaders trusted him, according to Die Zeit. Mauretani himself was originally from Mauritania in north-west Africa.

Bin Laden appears to have liked the ideas in al-Mauretani's letter, and assigned them high priority. Other documents found at his Pakistani compound in Abbottabad suggest he forwarded it to at least one other senior figure in al Qaeda. In around June 2010, bin Laden wrote to senior Libyan operative Atiyah abd al Rahman, then al Qaeda's head of operations in Waziristan, instructing him to tell the leaders of the al Qaeda affiliates AQIM in North Africa and AQAP in Yemen to "put forward their best in cooperating" with al-Mauretani "in whatever he asks of them." "Hint to the brothers in the Islamic Maghreb that they provide him with the financial support that he might need in the next six months, to the tune of approximately 200,000 euros," bin Laden wrote.

Pakistani authorities appear to have uncovered some of his terror plans. In announcing his arrest a month later, they stated: al-Mauretani "was tasked personally by Osama bin Laden to focus on hitting targets of economical importance in United States of America, Europe and Australia, including gas pipelines, power generating dams and oil tankers."

Edited by skyeagle409, 21 March 2013 - 07:54 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1339    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 21 March 2013 - 01:49 PM

View Postregeneratia, on 20 March 2013 - 10:38 PM, said:

Oh I see, only the government is allowed to pull the wool over people's eyes. Oh yes, I get it now. I know just where you are coming from.
Only the child-porn-laden Pentagon is supposed to tell us what is real and what is not. Oh yes, I get it.
Only the Pentagon is the authority and tells us the truth. Oh yeah. I get it.

I didn't feel bad for the Pentagon when it got hit on 9-11. I don't care to question it, because I just don't have concerns for the Pentagon, have no desire to protect it. Altho I am happy with Chuck, sure wanted him for president when he tried to get in the Oval Office.

BTW, I KNEW that the Pentagon had no way to track their money. What you fail to ask is WHY NOT? You didn't ask why not? I did. The pentagon at one time ws getting around 63% of US tax-payer dollars. There certainly should have been accounting for that amount of money.

The Pentagon's 'wounds' were self-inflicted, on purpose.  Destruction of records was the goal, and protection of the guilty.


#1340    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Humble Servent

  • Member
  • 10,827 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Parts Unknown

Posted 21 March 2013 - 02:31 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 21 March 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:

New al Qaeda document sheds light on Europe, U.S. attack plans
The document -- a letter written to bin Laden in March 2010 by a senior operational figure in the terror group --

Who was the senior operational figure? 2010, was his name 0bama?

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.

#1341    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 21 March 2013 - 03:16 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 18 March 2013 - 10:36 PM, said:

How so exactly, how specifically am I resistant to the possibility that there was a plane switch? Where did I say I reject it because it involves too many steps? That sure is a skewed reading of something that, if anything, I was overly repetitive on:  you have no evidence that there was a plane switch.

The evidence I set out in my last post is highly fitting and suggestive that there could have been a plane switch – the long list of everything we would expect to be present in such an operation and cover up exists.  Your last couple of posts refer to the number of “steps” involved as though that is a practical way to determine the truth.  Where we disagree, is that I think we need something solid to close the case – physical serial number identification, for example – whereas you don’t.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 18 March 2013 - 10:36 PM, said:

You don't know when, where, how, why or if it happened, you have no evidence to support any of those basic questions.  Yes, this plane switch and DNA planting and all this other spy-novel-fiction stuff, which we are discussing on the sole basis that it is possible to imagine it, involves several steps, none of which have any evidence to support them actually occurring. Thus, there is no reason to think it actually did.

Ah, the old ‘point out a lack of answers whilst opposing an investigation’ trick.  Oh course, we’d never have any answers if crimes were never investigated, especially those which necessitate a resultant cover-up.  Just because there are multiple possibilities to the ‘when, where, how’ does nothing to rule out a crime.  The ‘why’ is easily answered: to ensure success of the operation.  The real question is ‘if’.  This is where, in everyday life, procedures and checks are in place to deter and uncover fraud and crimes which may otherwise be committed.  This is the type of normal safeguard that on 9/11 became conspicuous by its absence.

Oh, and followed by the old ‘spy-novel-fiction’ line... even though exactly such an operation proposed has been planned and documented by highest levels of the U.S. military.  Figure that one out.  It’s a real possibility, you just don’t want to believe it.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 18 March 2013 - 10:36 PM, said:

View PostQ24, on 14 March 2013 - 01:38 PM, said:

Had the Northwoods plan gone ahead (specifically the plane switch element), what evidence would you demand to avoid falling victim to the deception?

If the Northwoods plan had gone ahead and the things actually occurred as specifically documented and the Northwoods document was then produced, yes, that gives us a reason to make sure we're not being deceived. In that case, I'd demand from the people who think we were deceived evidence that we were, I'd expect evidence that is really only explainable if there was deception involved.

Thank you for providing an answer to my question at last.  And it’s one heck of an admission.  One that means we should not be putting trust in you when it comes to 9/11, not in a month of Sundays.  Let me get this straight...

Had government statements and media reports emerged in 1962, that declared a Cuban fighter had shot down a U.S. civilian airliner, which resulted in a U.S. military operation against Cuba... you would have demanded no further evidence, fallen for the deception and accepted the situation.

Were the Northwoods documents subsequently produced, you would only then believe there is reason to make sure we are not being deceived but... would still think it responsibility of those who consider the possibility to provide direct evidence.

Can you tell me, at this point would you want to see an investigation along the lines of physical serial number identification?


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 18 March 2013 - 10:36 PM, said:

I don't consider things like not providing you an audit trail of to some arbitrary detail level nor proving to you that the serial numbers you demand to be checked have been checked to be 'information black holes'. The identification of this plane is not based solely on matching serial numbers nor does the idea that the passenger's remains were found in the Pentagon get rendered invalid because you didn't get to supervise the whole process and they were sent to a medical examiner at a military base (cue ominous music) before being sent to the DNA testing lab.

...

Confirm what audit process exactly? Specify exactly what must happen, how many people from how many different agencies must accompany these remains, especially if it has to be able to withstand, not actual counter evidence, but what could have happened? That's why I think this argument of yours as far as the remains is so ridiculous, you haven't provided any criteria by which 'deception' arguments can be countered, and I don't think it's possible without illustrating vividly how subjective the whole process is. It applies equally to the serial number matching, short of having you at the wreckage picking it all up, how is deception supposed to be controlled? I have no idea on what basis you are drawing the line at 'sufficient to record/confirm the process was carried out', if you suspect someone is lying or deceptive now about the remains why do you think this requirement of yours is at all a hindrance? You think that faking serial number matching is a big issue when compared with an unspecified operation involving switching planes?  Ha, and just to be clear, it's not that these processes haven't been carried out, it's just that it hasn't been shown to you that it hasn't been carried out?!  Unfortunately this doesn't really clear anything up, this provides no standard by which to measure when the possibility of deception is admissable and when it's not.

First, you seem to be under some illusion and/or empty hope that aircraft serial number identification may have been carried out.  Your confusion can be solved by reading the following FBI response to FOIA requests: -

http://911blogger.co...ication-records

There is no record, nor has there ever been, of serial number identification and therefore no reason to believe the process was carried out.  The FBI line is that identities of the four aircraft on 9/11 were never in doubt from the word go (through some undefined means which the FBI do not elaborate on) and therefore no physical identification was necessary.

The same is true of the FDR which has certainly never been identified through a serial number match to records.  This is confirmed through NTSB/FAA/FBI information in the following link: -

http://911blogger.com/node/16089

It is not so clear-cut about a potential audit/record of DNA identification.  In this case we only have confirmation that the agency responsible is withholding potentially responsive documents under FOIA exemptions: -

http://911blogger.com/node/22200

This is also what the FBI did – quote a FOIA exemption - in response to request for the debris/FDR serial number identification record, before confirming that no potentially responsive documents actually existed.

So we see there is no record and you are way out of bounds to claim, “Ha, and just to be clear, it's not that these processes haven't been carried out, it's just that it hasn't been shown to you that it hasn't been carried out?!”  No, that is not clear at all, actually it is misleading. The fact is that debris and FDR serial number identification has certainly not been carried out, with DNA audit appearing to follow the same line.

After that, I will reiterate my statement, “I’m not demanding to personally view the record of serial number identification and DNA audit (it would make me happier though I accept that it might be unreasonable). It would be sufficient simply for some agency or record to confirm the process had been carried out.”

What record or audit you ask?  It could be the paperwork which accompanies any investigation – a record of where remains were found, signed and dated by the recovering officer.  It could be a custody sheet signed by those in possession of the remains and debris.  It could be as simple as a short report of the FBI stating that serial numbers of debris and/or the FDR matched records of the aircraft (perhaps even a file containing photographs and Boeing records).  This is all very basic stuff which any competent government agency or business follows in normal course.

But when it comes to 9/11, there is nothing.  How can the NTSB not be in possession of FDR serial numbers as usually is the case?  It’s not supposed to be like that.  It’s not normal at all – terrorist attack or not, basic procedures have gone missing.  Why?

But that’s probably a pointless question to pose to someone who would admittedly be deceived by Northwoods.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 18 March 2013 - 10:36 PM, said:

How so? I have no expectation of a perfect investigation that meets your impossible standard of being able to refute every suspicion you have. I expect people to make mistakes, I expect people to not follow procedures that you presume have been set up for dealing with 'normal terrorist attacks', I expect established investigation procedures to not be efficient nor sufficient, and I have overly abundant precedent for all of that. Where's the unlikelihood? The theory that the plane is Flight 77 does not rely on proving to you that serial numbers were checked, nor do I see any possible way for you not to be able to invoke 'could be deception' willy-nilly anyway no matter what procedures were followed and even if the matching serial numbers documentation were provided to you.

I’m not expecting perfection either - only the minimum essential evidence; the normal/basic procedures that act to safeguard us in everyday life, mentioned above.  I don’t understand how you think this most minor of expectations is “impossible” or “willy-nilly”.

But it’s fine, I get the idea by now.  You think that no such record, audit, paperwork, evidence is at all necessary to forming your beliefs or conclusions.  And I do.  There’s not much more to be said.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 18 March 2013 - 10:36 PM, said:

'We see' no such thing. You mean there was some confusion with ATC as they attempted to get a handle on what would turn out to be the most chaotic day since that job title has existed, with hundreds of planes in the air? Do you happen to have a map of how much area these radar coverage gaps cover and how unusual they actually are?

Yes there was confusion leading ATC to locate and track an unidentified aircraft to the Pentagon. In the case of the alleged Flight 77, this was largely due to its passing through a radar coverage gap.  As you can see, radar coverage on the East coast is fairly comprehensive.  The gap where Flight 77 allegedly turned around is circled in red: -

Posted Image

Even this is really beside the point.  The fact is that the attack was carried out in such a way as to make a plane switch viable.  Any genuine hijackers would have done better to leave the transponders alone, leaving the planes visible to SSR so as not to alarm ATC to a problem sooner.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 18 March 2013 - 10:36 PM, said:

Really? It matches the results of poor communication very well also.

Yet the first fighters launched to the WTC were not sent in the wrong direction, only in case of the alleged Flight 77 did that occur.  Neither does your answer address that Vice President Dick Cheney had an order in place in regard to the alleged Flight 77 as he watched it approach and impact the Pentagon - an order which the 9/11 Commission found 'incompetent' enough, or whatever, to conceal in their final report.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 18 March 2013 - 10:36 PM, said:

I don't know what happened to my link I thought I had it bookmarked. I found the same pic on wiki:

http://www.911myths....bris_serial.jpg

The original article I had read said that the serial number on that piece I believe was matched to 77.

Well I’m calling it nonsense – I have seen zero evidence the serial number has been matched to the record of Flight 77.  Please find the original article you are referring to so we can settle it.  This could be groundbreaking.  But somehow I doubt it.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 18 March 2013 - 10:36 PM, said:

If you really think that the balance of what is true favors a false flag attack then why do you keep applying these different bars in the first place, when I've said countless times over months now that I'm not arguing about freaking consequences because they have no logical bearing?

Why shouldn’t we have high standards for the official story?  This whole line of discussion came about because I challenged you to OMG “prove” Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon (through normal/basic, everyday evidence of record/audit/paperwork)... at which point you began complaining about “goalposts” and too high “bars” and how unfair it all is.  I think that is a problem and very telling.

At the end of the day, the identity of the aircraft at the Pentagon is not at all integral to my overall theory.  Not so the official story.  I think you need to consider who needs the investigation/evidence more before pinning their hat on a conclusion.  I don’t have a nailed on conclusion – I’m aware that the lacking evidence means there are many possibilities – I claim that further investigation and evidence are necessary.  It’s you backing a lack of evidence that backs a story that backs a war.  You need to prove Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon to morally justify your argument much more than I do.

But I know, you want to forget all that and only determine a balance of what is true.  The problem is, without the investigation and evidence that my argument results in, it will always come down to speculation and/or faith, which is why we cannot agree.  So, when are you going to help us out and back a new investigation?  When will you begin to question the administration which put us in this position, and why it is so?


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 18 March 2013 - 10:36 PM, said:

You know what supports a further investigation? A decent case that there's a massive deception going on.

Wasn't it you talking about horses and carts?  The investigation forms the case.

I think the crime which occurred on 9/11 is enough to warrant a thorough and competent investigation.  That investigation should form the case about what exactly happened and who is responsible.  That is how it should work.

I do not agree that we should form the case first, speculating to fill in evidence holes, and declare it good enough until another case opposing that case is proven to who ever's satisfaction, all just to begin a thorough and competent investigation.  That is not how it should work.

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.

#1342    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 21 March 2013 - 06:47 PM

Very well done Q!

I submit to you that IF it's true that Ptech software was installed on so many government agency computers, including the FAA, then all that business about switching airplanes and such, radar holes included, becomes rather academic.  That is, if the radar displays were utterly spoofed, then it really doesn't matter, it is not necessary to physically switch airplanes, except for the possible need to deplane cooperating passengers.


#1343    regeneratia

regeneratia

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,959 posts
  • Joined:20 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:All my posts are my own views, my own perceptions. Will not be finding links for why I think the way I do.

  • It is time to put the big guns down now, Little Boys!

Posted 21 March 2013 - 07:31 PM

Obviously you are without the poutput of love if you live totally in the rational. That makes me sad, that love is not in your life.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 20 March 2013 - 10:51 PM, said:

Well we're not in disagreement on what you say here but it doesn't have much to do with what I said.  You said you don't determine what you believe to be true concerning 9/11 based on evidence, and I said that explains why you have the opinions that you do.  Since you arrive at conclusions and base your 'knowledge' concerning empirical questions on something besides evidence, it pretty much eliminates any possibility of discussion as it isn't possible to challenge, nor for you to defend, positions you've arrived at that are based on your feelings and intuition.  What am I going to challenge it with, non-evidence?



Ha, come to grips with what exactly?  What specifically has the US military accessed via the intuitive?



Sorry to break it to you, but this is plainly false.  I know that government involvement in 9/11 is merely a product of the wild imaginations of those people who are susceptible to the cognitive errors of conspiratorial thinking.  You clearly don't know that and must then be wrong.  Search your true feelings and listen to your intuition and you will know that you are wrong and I am correct.

Convinced yet?  I did what you suggested and made sure not to provide evidence and relied on my feelings and intuition.  Why do I think you're going to disagree with what I said there?  Doesn't that tell you something about this non-rational method of ascertaining the truth that you are proposing?  I'll grant that it certainly is an easier route to take, takes far less time, study, and effort compared to evaluating evidence rationally.


Truth is such a rare quality, a stranger so seldom met in this civilization of fraud, that it is never received freely, but must fight its way into the world
Professor Hilton Hotema
(quote from THE BIBLE FRAUD)

Robert Heinlein: SECRECY IS THE HALLMARK OF TYRANNY!

#1344    regeneratia

regeneratia

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,959 posts
  • Joined:20 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:All my posts are my own views, my own perceptions. Will not be finding links for why I think the way I do.

  • It is time to put the big guns down now, Little Boys!

Posted 21 March 2013 - 07:32 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 21 March 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

The Pentagon's 'wounds' were self-inflicted, on purpose.  Destruction of records was the goal, and protection of the guilty.

The digital cannot be destroyed.
However, the fire on Cheney's office in the old exec building was certainly very suspicious. I knew it at the time, and so did most of the rest of the country.

Truth is such a rare quality, a stranger so seldom met in this civilization of fraud, that it is never received freely, but must fight its way into the world
Professor Hilton Hotema
(quote from THE BIBLE FRAUD)

Robert Heinlein: SECRECY IS THE HALLMARK OF TYRANNY!

#1345    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,399 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 March 2013 - 09:21 PM

View Postpreacherman76, on 21 March 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

Who was the senior operational figure? 2010, was his name 0bama?

I think you are confused. Remember, it was Obama who got Osama.

Edited by skyeagle409, 21 March 2013 - 09:29 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1346    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,399 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 March 2013 - 09:28 PM

View PostQ24, on 21 March 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

The evidence I set out in my last post is highly fitting and suggestive that there could have been a plane switch –

That would have been impossible. You cannot switch airliners and not account for the original radar tracking data, maintenance and operational records of the original aircraft in addition to ACARS information, the original airframe and passengers and crew of each airliner. The conversion formulas provided for the FDR of American 77 pertained only to the airframe of American 77 and no other aircraft.

Remember, only a certain number of B-767-200 series and B-757-200 series were built. The 911 conspiracy claim concerning so-called switched airliners proves a lack of understanding of how things work in the real world of aviation and as I have mentioned before, it would taken me less than 30 minutes to exposed a switched aircraft and do so with no problem at all.

Quote

Why shouldn’t we have high standards for the official story?  This whole line of discussion came about because I challenged you to OMG “prove” Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon (through normal/basic, everyday evidence of record/audit/paperwork)... at which point you began complaining about “goalposts” and too high “bars” and how unfair it all is.  I think that is a problem and very telling.

You need to prove Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon to morally justify your argument much more than I do.

It is very simple? To what location did radar track American 77? Right to the location of the Pentagon.

Posted Image

What other means can be used to verify the flight track of American 77? And remember, contrary to conspiracist claims, turning off the transponder does not render an aircraft invisible to radar and neither the B-757 nor the B-767, are stealth aircraft, which is another hint conspiracist tend to overlook when concocting unwarranted conspiracies. BTW, what companies supplied conversion formulas of the FDR that pertained ONLY  to the airframe of American77?

I might add that the Wing commander of my former Wing at Travis AFB, CA. was in the Pentagon when American 77 crashed and he too, has confirmed the airliner as American 77 and I ran into another airman recently who was in the Pentagon when it was struck by American 77. They have trashed conspiracy claims that American 77 was a missile or was a switched aircraft.

Quote

The fact is that the attack was carried out in such a way as to make a plane switch viable.  Any genuine hijackers would have done better to leave the transponders alone, leaving the planes visible to SSR so as not to alarm ATC to a problem sooner

Tampering with the transponders or not, it would not have made any difference at all. Remember, the airliners were in controlled airspace so any unauthorized changes in heading or altitude is going to attention to the controllers, not to mention there are multiple means to track an aircraft.

Edited by skyeagle409, 21 March 2013 - 10:18 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1347    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,399 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 March 2013 - 09:30 PM

View Postregeneratia, on 21 March 2013 - 07:32 PM, said:

The digital cannot be destroyed. However, the fire on Cheney's office in the old exec building was certainly very suspicious.

Only to those who have no real understanding of how things work in the real world.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1348    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,399 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 March 2013 - 09:45 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 21 March 2013 - 06:47 PM, said:

Very well done Q!

Actually not! First of all, there was no way to switch a B-757-200 or a B-767-200 series because only a certain number of those aircraft were built and you cannot switch flight and maintenance records of those aircraft, which is another fact that conspiracist have overlooked.

Quote

submit to you that IF it's true that Ptech software was installed on so many government agency computers, including the FAA, then all that business about switching airplanes and such, radar holes included, becomes rather academic.

Did  you really think that American Airlines and United Airlines would have allowed unauthorized modifications under the nose of their maintenance personnel and inspectors? How are you going to modify the systems of the B-767 and the B-757 and not attract attention of maintenance and servicing personnel and pilots as they conduct their preflight system checks? Remember, they are not fly-by-wire aircraft, so in that regard, what does a pilot have to do in order to override a modified system on the B-767 or the B-757? The 911 conspiracist do not think of the little things, which is why they spew unwarranted conspiracy theories without doing any real homework.

Quote

  ...it is not necessary to physically switch airplanes, except for the possible need to deplane ooperating passengers.

How are you going to switch airliners and not account for the passengers and crew of those flights?

Edited by skyeagle409, 21 March 2013 - 10:09 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1349    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,620 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 21 March 2013 - 11:10 PM

View Postregeneratia, on 21 March 2013 - 07:31 PM, said:

Obviously you are without the poutput of love if you live totally in the rational. That makes me sad, that love is not in your life.

Did you forget that you already responded to this post yesterday, regen?  This response doesn't make any more sense than that last one and is just proving that there isn't much point in having a discussion with you since your responses are orthogonal (look it up) to anything I said.  They seem to largely be composed of your ruminations and delusions about me personally based only on comments on the internet, but I guess that's what happens when you disdain the concept of evidence in favor of the 'truths' derived from feelings and intuition.  These odd responses of yours may be exactly what you intend though based on your warnings concerning looking at everything purely rationally an robotically; you're doing an excellent job of making sure no one can accuse your posts of being too rational.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#1350    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,958 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Wayne, IN

Posted 22 March 2013 - 01:39 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 21 March 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

The Pentagon's 'wounds' were self-inflicted, on purpose.  Destruction of records was the goal, and protection of the guilty.

Because the military NEVER has computer backups!  :rolleyes:

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users