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

#1711    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,853 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 20 April 2013 - 05:04 PM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 20 April 2013 - 02:15 AM, said:

Sky ,Its like this Some people live on this rock and learn,some just walk around in a daze !

I heard that!! They don't bother to do their homework either.

It is amazing that 911 Truthers seem to think that it took extraordinary skill to do what Hani had done, but they need to understand that American 77 was already airborne when he took over the controls.  911 Truthers say that American 77 was a drone or missile that was flown by a professional pilot under remote control, but take a look at this flight path chart of American 77 and notice how sloppy the flight is flown after the autopilot is disconneted at "E" and "F."

There is no way that aircraft was being flown by a professional pilot each time the autopilot was disconnected after the takeover.



Posted Image



Edited by skyeagle409, 20 April 2013 - 05:21 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1712    poppet

poppet

    Ectoplasmic Residue

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

Posted 20 April 2013 - 05:51 PM

I wonder how many 9/11 debunkers have actually read the NIST report, which has never been peer reviewed incidentally, so as far as a scientific paper goes it’s just a theory! And I wonder how many debunkers have taken the time to read the 9/11 commission report overseen by Philip Zelikow.
These two publications are a complete joke with so many omissions and falsehoods that it boggles the mind why anyone would defend such utter nonsense, but I guess some people won’t stray out of their comfort zones to actually do a little research and find it far easier to defend the official conspiracy with a few childish retorts calling people “troothers or twoofers”
The number of people questioning 9/11 is in the millions from scientists, the military, members of governments from all over the world ex CIA and FBI ,medics ,first responders, pilots the list is endless and is growing every day and until there is an independent inquiry these numbers will keep growing .

President of Italy’s Supreme Court to Refer 9/11 Crimes To International Criminal Court
http://www.washingto...inal-court.html


#1713    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,853 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 20 April 2013 - 05:59 PM

View Postpoppet, on 20 April 2013 - 05:51 PM, said:

I wonder how many 9/11 debunkers have actually read the NIST report, which has never been peer reviewed incidentally, so as far as a scientific paper goes it’s just a theory! And I wonder how many debunkers have taken the time to read the 9/11 commission report overseen by Philip Zelikow.
These two publications are a complete joke with so many omissions and falsehoods that it boggles the mind why anyone would defend such utter nonsense, but I guess some people won’t stray out of their comfort zones to actually do a little research and find it far easier to defend the official conspiracy with a few childish retorts calling people “troothers or twoofers”
The number of people questioning 9/11 is in the millions from scientists, the military, members of governments from all over the world ex CIA and FBI ,medics ,first responders, pilots the list is endless and is growing every day and until there is an independent inquiry these numbers will keep growing .

President of Italy’s Supreme Court to Refer 9/11 Crimes To International Criminal Court
http://www.washingto...inal-court.html

That is false. The majority of architects, civil engineers, structural engineers, and demolition experts around the world support the official story. Let's do a review since you missed it.

Quote



Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

April 09, 2006

Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage
Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

http://www.debunking911.com/civil.htm


Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

THE COLLAPSE

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure. With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.


http://www.tms.org/p...eagar-0112.html




ARCHITECT Magazine
The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted Image


Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002


Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee. That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report
,
remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/


Civil and Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY “IMPLODE”?



No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually “laying out” in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site.


WHY DID THEY COLLAPSE?


Each 110-story tower contained a central steel core surrounded by open office space, with 18-inch steel tubes running vertically along the outside of the building. These structural elements provided the support for the building, and most experts agree that the planes impacting the buildings alone would not have caused them to collapse. The intense heat from the burning jet fuel, however, gradually softened the steel core and redistributed the weight to the outer tubes, which were slowly deformed by the added weight and the heat of the fire. Eventually, the integrity of these tubes was compromised to the point where they buckled under the weight of the higher floors, causing a gravitational chain reaction that continued until all of the floors were at ground level.


DID THE TERRORISTS PLANT ANY BOMBS IN THE BUILDINGS IN ADVANCE TO GUARANTEE THEIR DEMISE?


To our knowledge there is no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion. Analysis of video and photographs of both towers clearly shows that the initial structural failure occurred at or near the points where the planes impacted the buildings. Furthermore, there is no visible or audible indication that explosives or any other supplemental catalyst was used in the attack.


Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says

A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.
"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers' collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives.

Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion. Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.

My link



Edited by skyeagle409, 20 April 2013 - 06:16 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1714    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,853 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 20 April 2013 - 06:24 PM

DEBUNKING THE 9/11 MYTHS

http://www.popularme...ld-trade-center


What 911 Truthers were unaware of

http://www.dailymoti...ws#.UXLc6SqF9CY

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1715    poppet

poppet

    Ectoplasmic Residue

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

Posted 20 April 2013 - 06:35 PM

sky

you are kidding , maybe you should link to Bronners vanity fair piece as well,another piece of utter nonsense and as for you keep spamming threads with your pentagon debris photos i will be tackling that in the near future.

here is one to be getting on with.

Posted Image

as far as i was aware a Boeing has 2 engines ,they weigh 2 tons each ,they are made from titanium and on this particular day they were traveling at 530 mph.
so we have all seen a picture of one of the alleged engines , where is the other and where is the damage to the columns indicating its path of travel.


#1716    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,853 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 20 April 2013 - 06:42 PM

View Postpoppet, on 20 April 2013 - 06:35 PM, said:

sky

you are kidding , maybe you should link to Bronners vanity fair piece as well,another piece of utter nonsense and as for you keep spamming threads with your pentagon debris photos i will be tackling that in the near future.

here is one to be getting on with.

Posted Image

Thanks for posting that chart because it confirms the official story and debunks 911 Truthers who've claimed that American 77 passed north of the gas station.

Posted Image
If you are going to post something, at least understand what you are posting.

Quote

...as far as i was aware a Boeing has 2 engines ,they weigh 2 tons each ,they are made from titanium and on this particular day they were traveling at 530 mph.
so we have all seen a picture of one of the alleged engines , where is the other and where is the damage to the columns indicating its path of travel.

There are other photos of engine parts and I have posted them as well. The engine parts are spread within the Pentagon. We saw videos of two B-767s striking the WTC Towers, but how many engines were displayed at ground zero?

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 April 2013 - 07:04 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1717    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,635 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 20 April 2013 - 07:25 PM

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

This is a Work in Progress!

#1718    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 20 April 2013 - 09:38 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 11 April 2013 - 07:01 AM, said:

I must say I envy you not knowing who those people are.

My problem with the Truthers is they are hurting people who have already suffered. The faces I posted make claims such as these people are still alive, nobody was killed, it was all set up. Those who lost loved one's in this insanity do not deserve this. They have suffered enough. All they are doing is hurting people. They are not making any progress, they have not made one validated claim, like the Sandy Hook Truthers, I cannot see this bunch of loud mouthed red faced people making a difference, they are only causing more pain.

I do not see them like you, and I do not seem the accepting rational explanations at any time in the future.
I do not think you should put everyone in the same box as we are all individuals. The reason I do not follow any particular conspiracy theorist is that I like to think I can work out for myself which theories are possible and which ones aren't. As I've said previously, if the motivation is to get a new investigation, then that is what these truth movement groups should be concentrating on, not on which one of their pet theory is right or likely and arguing a toss about it with each other.

However, I do not like it when people say that truthers are hurting people that have suffered or disrespecting the victims of 9/11. You have to remember that some of those truthers such as the Jersey Girls do not believe in the official story either have lost loved ones. If you believe someone is lying or not telling the whole truth about what happened to those who died on 9/11, how can it be disrespectful to question it?  Surely it is more honourable than keeping quiet about it. I find comments like that are designed and used to shut down debate or dissenting voices.

While I agree there are some conspiracies theorist out there who are out of touch with reality, I also find the same with some debunkers. (Not you of course, but I'll mention no names! ;) )

View Postpsyche101, on 11 April 2013 - 07:01 AM, said:

I imagine that the AIA doesn't want to be associated with a conspiracy but honestly, I do not put much thought into this article which clearly has an agenda and is full of logical fallacies. There are obviously members of the AIA who have signed Gages petition but I understand why the group as a whole doesn't want to associate themselves with A&E 9/11.

View Postpsyche101, on 11 April 2013 - 07:01 AM, said:

I have not seen a claim that holds water. Hence the broad brush. The entire CT as far as I can tell comes from Governmental actions, and to be fair, I am not sure why so many people consider themselves tactical military experts.

Bee is our resident Lady who tends to float with flights of fancy. If an underdog claims any scientific nonsense, you can be sure Bee will be banging that drum. Hence the Lasar beams. No technology claim is too wild for our Bee. But it is heartwarming to see Sandy Point was too much for her. She went up a step in my book on that one.

The Thermite and Laser beams claims do not hold water, I already explained the poetic license used with the thermite theory, and Laser beams are just not at a point where we can destroy buildings with them yet. If they ever will be. It's not true skepticism, it's knowledge. There is no reason to even consider Laser beams. Thermite's at least had an argument, albeit an erroneous one.
I have seen many a CT which I think holds water, but that doesn't mean I automatically believe it to be true, just a possibility.

I do not think the laser beams theory makes any sense, but the thermite in my view makes perfect sense in that it can it's can be used to cut columns and can do it relatively silently in comparisons to traditional explosives. Hence the reason I suggest it as a possibility.

What doesn't make sense to me is that a 110 storey building which has less than 5% damage manages to collapse to the ground. Even after the NIST reports which explains the initiation of the collapse doesn't go into any of the same levels of details on the actual collapse itself. Even the FEMA reports of pancake collapse doesn't match the evidence which the NIST rejects.

So what are we left with?? One report by FEMA which explains the collapse which is rejected by the NIST but they do not state how it collapses other than a few paragraphs.

Is it any wonder why people are sceptical of both reports?

View Postpsyche101, on 11 April 2013 - 07:01 AM, said:

Not quite following you there, did I say something was set up to fail? I was surprised that the US would consider anything as not possible when it comes to war. Some cultures have very different values.

Lies can be hindsight too, and as far as I can tell, that seems to be the larger cause for any misleading information.
No, you didn't say something was set up to fail. :)

The 9/11 commissioners themselves who published the 9/11 commission report said they were set up to fail. Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton said that the government set up the commission to fail, they cite deception by various government agencies, funding, timescale to investigate and the denial of access to documentation and witnesses.

View Postpsyche101, on 11 April 2013 - 07:01 AM, said:

Are you referring to a specific incident, or the entire Bodine mess?
No, I was actually referring to Cheney and Bush being interviewed together by the commission the conditions that put on the commissioners. Such as no notes or recordings allowed, they were not under oath and the fact they insisted on being interviewed together.

View Postpsyche101, on 11 April 2013 - 07:01 AM, said:

In your own words, how do you think this could have been handled better?
Well for a start they could have not ignored the obvious warning signs that were coming in. The commission highlights some of the errors but I think that some of those errrors were intentional. Like sending fighters the wrong way. The commission give us 3 reason  o explain all the things that could have been done differently would require a long post and I want to try and shorten them...lol

View Postpsyche101, on 11 April 2013 - 07:01 AM, said:

Icke? I'd call him a liar, and many other things. Reptillian Governments?
Well I'm not a fan of Icke and I would call him many things, I think that Reptilian Governments are a push to far and that is where I part company with Icke. He was right about Savile though and called him out on it many years before his death and on the day he died. So he must have access to some information that we didn't, but not all the information he receives is going to be correct either, hence things like reptilian governments. lol

View Postpsyche101, on 11 April 2013 - 07:01 AM, said:

Does not seem to be the case. All media, people I speak to, I am yet to hear a sympathetic word.
There is no sympathy for him now because his crimes have been exposed. But at the time of this death, there was plenty of media coverage and public sympathy.

Have you heard Rolf Harris has been caught up in all of this too? There was a strange media blackout as the papers decided not to name in back in November. That could have been down to the Leveson Inquiry into press standards, but usually they wouldn't cut any celeb any slack if they were reporting facts.

View Postpsyche101, on 11 April 2013 - 07:01 AM, said:

I find the Truther movement unsettling. I am surprised that people would deny outright confessions and witnesses to come up with some anti government proposal, but that is true paranoid CT/FTB stuff. If people do not have an answer they used to say "It's God's Will" now they say "The Government stuffed it" And whilst they have made some tremendous stuff ups, I would expect that. If you have a look at some f the Ground Zero Lounge crapola, you might be able to see what I mean. Drunks with attitude seems be the driving force behind Trutherism.
I find the opposite unsettling to be fair. The problem is that even with the criticisms of the official story, there are those who are willing to ignore those and pretend like they do not exist. It almost like a fear that agreeing with a CT even on the obvious problems of the 9/11 reports, might lead to a downward spiral. I find it amazing that people are scared of thoughts, because at the end of the day, that is all they are, thoughts. Unless there is some truth behind them...lol

Whats FTB stuff? I'm not clued on conspiracies, honestly. :)

I would hardly say that drunks seem to be the driving force behind trutherism, I think what is behind it is that the official story doesn't add up to be honest. I'm sure there are drunks and druggies taking all kinds of stuff to come out laser beams, lol I have seen some good debunking of some conspiracy theories but there are some which are just as drunk and drug induced as the stuff from the other side called panto debunking.

Look at this way, imagine there is a CT hierarchy with your Gages/Jones Griffins at the top and your tin foil believe any hold crap and probably sleeps with his cousins is at the lower end. Panto debunking is the latter end of the debunking hierarchy..lol

Cheers

Stundie :)

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1719    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,853 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 April 2013 - 02:13 AM

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

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

Four aircraft, (two B-767s and two B-757s), which have been written off by American Airlines, and United Airlines, and no longer on the registration books of the FAA because they are no longer in service and the reason why they are no longer in service is because all four airliners were destroyed on 9/11/2001. That is a good indication why those aircraft no longer exist and yet we are being led to believe those aircraft landed somewhere else. I might add that radar, ACARS, and communication position reports depicted no such thing.

Add to the fact that remains of the passengers and crew of those aircraft have been recovered and identified and their families have been notified, which is another indication the official story is supported by facts and evidence. I should also add that only a certain number of B-767-200 and B-757-200 series aircraft were built.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1720    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,448 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 21 April 2013 - 01:44 PM

....and it's a well-established fact, Sky, that american corporations never lie and never deceive and never play along with government schemes. :innocent:


#1721    Reann

Reann

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,128 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012

Posted 21 April 2013 - 02:53 PM

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


#1722    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,853 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 April 2013 - 04:49 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 21 April 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

....and it's a well-established fact, Sky, that american corporations never lie and never deceive and never play along with government schemes. :innocent:

The overwhelming majority of architects, civil engineers, and demolition experts agree with the official story and  let's remember that facts and evidence support the official story as well .

Let's also remember when many 911 Truthers accepted as fact a hoaxed video of WTC7 despite all the warnings that the video was a reversed and doctored image of WTC7, and look what happened when the perpetrator came forward and lectured on video how it was done.

Edited by skyeagle409, 21 April 2013 - 04:55 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1723    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,635 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 21 April 2013 - 05:07 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 21 April 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

....and it's a well-established fact, Sky, that american corporations never lie and never deceive and never play along with government schemes. :innocent:
The matter of the Thread Is You say It was not Airliners with people that died that day? WHere do you get your information from Babe?

This is a Work in Progress!

#1724    shrooma

shrooma

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

  • Member
  • 3,562 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leeds, UK.

  • Live.
    Sin.
    Die.

Posted 21 April 2013 - 05:33 PM

View PostReann, on 21 April 2013 - 02:53 PM, said:

Maybe commercial planes ought to  have an remote auto pilot control system set up with the airforce , where as, if ever someone did try to take one over , they would not be able to do so,  like an airforce personal would be able to operate full conrol of the plane,  dismantle any attempt for the plane to be flown by highjakers.
.
that technology has been around for 30yrs.
civil aviation authorities have been remotely flying large passenger aircraft since the 80's, mainly with the intention of crashing them, to better understand the mechanics of plane disasters, but NASA/Dryden have also tested systems to take-off, fly, and land passenger aircraft too, to see if the technology was feasable, with a 100% success rate on a dozen flights, so your idea may yet come about reann!

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

#1725    SurgeTechnologies

SurgeTechnologies

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,276 posts
  • Joined:21 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Not disclosed

  • "Why not take what seems to me the only chance of escaping what is otherwise the sure destruction"

Posted 21 April 2013 - 05:48 PM

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

" Technology has exceeded our humanity. "




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users