Talking Turkey

[Q24]

Q

I must say, for a guy who understands that it was a false flag, you do not seem to be aware of the full range of criminality involved. That is, it seems you're completely oblivious to some of the other obvious angles and goals of the operation.

I know, sorry, I don’t buy into the range of criminality that you do. I believe that the extensive depth of conspiracy that it inherently promotes is neither convincing in evidence or sustainable in logic.

When we delve into so many issues, such as the ‘missing’ $2.3 trillion and ONI (which I’m sure is the last in a series of my disagreements that has prompted your objection above), it is not a fitting, and certainly not a necessary, bolt-on to the false flag operation – there was no ‘missing’ $2.3 trillion to begin, but a lack of audit control which is not such an uncommon experience in monolithic ‘not-so-well-integrated’ government systems, most of which has since been accounted for and the rest of which could not be erased from existence through hitting the ONI. You know, if the government wanted to siphon off so many trillion for black ops over time, there are better and apparently more legitimate ways of going about it. I think the most that can be said is that perhaps Rumsfeld scheduled his announcement of the ‘missing’ $2.3 trillion on the day before 9/11 where he knew that bad news would be forgotten amidst the attack. Though to be fair, it was no secret even before that. So tying any of this intrinsically to 9/11 does not make sense and is unnecessary.

I’m afraid to say it only gets worse from there. Didn’t you request I review a link not so long ago that the twin towers were also hit in specific locations to destroy financial records (see above for my view on that)? And on this thread you posted a link suggesting that inside companies had some extensive control over the air defense reaction (not at all necessary given timing of the attacks in my opinion). Then you believe there was no airliner impact/crash at either Shanksville or the Pentagon, which itself drags in a whole other level of conspirators, from whole branches of law enforcement to the ASCE to eyewitnesses to the cell who must be fabricating video and photographic evidence of the airliners and debris. All for what? Nothing. It was already proven that airliners could be used at the WTC. I find it almost distasteful when you point to the likes of Wally Miller, Lloyd England, ‘paid-off’ air passengers or numerous others, who all appear quite innocent individuals caught up in events, as liars, without in my opinion due cause, and a part of the conspiracy and cover-up. With all of these additional people and agencies involved, it’s like you think the conspirators’ power is so all-consuming so as to control every facet of events and information down to every detail.

It is theories like that with so many unnecessary extensions, finding conspiracy at every turn, that lead some to rightly question and disbelieve that the hundreds or thousands of people necessarily involved could remain silent. It’s a huge stumbling block and peeve of mine that ‘debunkers’ raise as I’m certain that a drawn back, minimal essentials operation, though still large-scale false flag, could be achieved through less than two dozen in the U.S. system and around fifty agents of foreign intelligence; a rather more acceptable and tight ship.

To me, it seems you have an acute distrust of general government and a belief in their iron-grip which borders on paranoia. Whilst I believe that is going too far and in part leads to our disagreement about the range of criminality involved on 9/11, I must say it is still the safer option than those who have gone the opposite way and now somehow believe the exact reversal to that which founders of the U.S. set out, that the people should serve their government. So whilst I criticise above, I don’t think it is you who is dangerous.

[Babe Ruth]

I know, sorry, I don’t buy into the range of criminality that you do. I believe that the extensive depth of conspiracy that it inherently promotes is neither convincing in evidence or sustainable in logic.

When we delve into so many issues, such as the ‘missing’ $2.3 trillion and ONI (which I’m sure is the last in a series of my disagreements that has prompted your objection above), it is not a fitting, and certainly not a necessary, bolt-on to the false flag operation – there was no ‘missing’ $2.3 trillion to begin, but a lack of audit control which is not such an uncommon experience in monolithic ‘not-so-well-integrated’ government systems, most of which has since been accounted for and the rest of which could not be erased from existence through hitting the ONI. You know, if the government wanted to siphon off so many trillion for black ops over time, there are better and apparently more legitimate ways of going about it. I think the most that can be said is that perhaps Rumsfeld scheduled his announcement of the ‘missing’ $2.3 trillion on the day before 9/11 where he knew that bad news would be forgotten amidst the attack. Though to be fair, it was no secret even before that. So tying any of this intrinsically to 9/11 does not make sense and is unnecessary.

I’m afraid to say it only gets worse from there. Didn’t you request I review a link not so long ago that the twin towers were also hit in specific locations to destroy financial records (see above for my view on that)? And on this thread you posted a link suggesting that inside companies had some extensive control over the air defense reaction (not at all necessary given timing of the attacks in my opinion). Then you believe there was no airliner impact/crash at either Shanksville or the Pentagon, which itself drags in a whole other level of conspirators, from whole branches of law enforcement to the ASCE to eyewitnesses to the cell who must be fabricating video and photographic evidence of the airliners and debris. All for what? Nothing. It was already proven that airliners could be used at the WTC. I find it almost distasteful when you point to the likes of Wally Miller, Lloyd England, ‘paid-off’ air passengers or numerous others, who all appear quite innocent individuals caught up in events, as liars, without in my opinion due cause, and a part of the conspiracy and cover-up. With all of these additional people and agencies involved, it’s like you think the conspirators’ power is so all-consuming so as to control every facet of events and information down to every detail.

It is theories like that with so many unnecessary extensions, finding conspiracy at every turn, that lead some to rightly question and disbelieve that the hundreds or thousands of people necessarily involved could remain silent. It’s a huge stumbling block and peeve of mine that ‘debunkers’ raise as I’m certain that a drawn back, minimal essentials operation, though still large-scale false flag, could be achieved through less than two dozen in the U.S. system and around fifty agents of foreign intelligence; a rather more acceptable and tight ship.

To me, it seems you have an acute distrust of general government and a belief in their iron-grip which borders on paranoia. Whilst I believe that is going too far and in part leads to our disagreement about the range of criminality involved on 9/11, I must say it is still the safer option than those who have gone the opposite way and now somehow believe the exact reversal to that which founders of the U.S. set out, that the people should serve their government. So whilst I criticise above, I don’t think it is you who is dangerous.

At some point in the investigative or analytical process, one must learn to think like a criminal. Perhaps I am better at that than you are? How do you know what is "fitting" and what is not? Don't you find the invocation by SEC of emergency rules to be indicative of the type of coincidence you chide LG for not being able to recognize?

If there was no missing funds, then why had congress been investigating it since before Bush took office? Why had ONI investigated these irregularities?

You may find my speculation distasteful, and I'm sorry your sensibilities have been offended, but it seems the very idea that a FF would be employed against the american people--a theory you seem to embrace--is far more offensive and distasteful.

As for Wally Miller, recent information discovered in the reading of Christopher Bollyn's work has finally explained what happened there. Bollyn eventually managed to interview Miller at his funeral home in a very amicable setting. Further, I now understand why the 2 different locations for the crash site, something that had puzzled me for years.

It seems the other crash site was in the woods, some 1800 feet separated from the crash site we were all shown on TV. That, according to Jim Svonavec, the owner of the reclaimed mine that was the site shown on TV, who loaned certain heavy equipment to the FBI to "recover debris" at the "actual" crash site, hidden in the woods nearby. As the property owner and loaner of heavy equipment to the feds, neither Mr. Svonavec nor his employees, nor anybody else, were allowed at the site in the woods.

The feds screwed up, and did not arrive on the scene until AFTER Wally Miller had spilled the beans to the media. Wally was an innocent and honest man, and thus his and his assistants' statements to the media. The feds nicely asked Wally to "be a team player", and he did. The end result was that he as the county coroner to comply with his duties under PA law, had a provisional morgue set up at Seven Springs Mountain Resort, six miles away from the 2 crash sites. That was reported in the PPG October 15, 2001. In the end, Wally ended up signing death certificates for bodies that he never saw. He did see various tissue samples and DNA samples, but not any bodies.

But being the 'team player', he did what he was told.

That you see no particular significance to the location of the strikes at WTC puzzles me, for one able to perceive the clear FF evidence. That covert US securities were cleared the next day under first time ever emergency provisions has some sort of sinister significance.

Yeah, I guess I have much more of a criminal mind than you do Q.

[Q24]

At some point in the investigative or analytical process, one must learn to think like a criminal. Perhaps I am better at that than you are?

That depends, are you aiming for Dick Cheney or... Dr. Evil?

Dr. Evil: Scott, I want you to meet daddy’s nemesis, Austin Powers.

Scott: What? Are you feeding him? Why don’t you just kill him?

Dr. Evil: No Scott, I have an even better idea: I’m going to place him in an easily escapable situation involving an overly elaborate and exotic death.

...

Ok, compose yourself Q, back to business...

How do you know what is "fitting" and what is not?

Through the standard of evidence, and logic. I know that the missing $2.3 trillion is not fitting evidence of a false flag because, as I thought I’d explained, there is no evidence of a ‘missing’ $2.3 trillion in the first place, and even if there was, it could not be covered-up by crashing planes into some offices. I find the occurrence of an unaccounted $2.3 trillion to be quite believable. Without giving too much away... I have worked closely with government finances and have witnessed many unaccounted for transactions and untracked assets – it happens consistently and over time can add up to large amounts. Is it remarkable that Congress asked where the $2.3 trillion was spent and the DoD turned around and said ‘we don’t know right now’? And since have been attempting to reconcile that amount with large success (though, I’d bet, losing track in other areas, ha)? Not at all in my experience. So how is this unremarkable occurrence “fitting” any indication of a false flag?

Don't you find the invocation by SEC of emergency rules to be indicative of the type of coincidence you chide LG for not being able to recognize?

I don’t think the motive to invoke those rules is strong enough to enact a false flag. Was the continued global pre-eminence of America thought to be dependent on introduction of those rules? No, so I do not think this a good indicator that a false flag took place or reason to enact such an attack, therefore is of no value in demonstrating the case. It is quite possible that some non-conspirator of the SEC may have later made use of the attack to their advantage, but that’s very different to complicity in the attack. Alternatively, did invocation of the rules potentially assist success of the attack or the overall bearing in any way? No, I do not find this at all similar to the type of coincidence I’m discussing with LG. If you read our previous few posts and apply the ‘three questions’ test to each coincidence then you will know why.

You may find my speculation distasteful, and I'm sorry your sensibilities have been offended, but it seems the very idea that a FF would be employed against the american people--a theory you seem to embrace--is far more offensive and distasteful.

Well, I said “almost” distasteful – I wouldn’t oppose freedom of speech to make accusations at who you wish. The difference between my theory and yours so far as accusations, is that I point the finger only at a very high and limited cadre of politicians and intelligence agents who already have a strong motive and precedent for deception, propaganda and lies on record – I think anyone taking a history lesson on Cheney, Rumsfeld, the Mossad and co. would understand where the initial distrust comes from. In contrast, your extended theory necessarily points the finger at an ever greater number of regular citizens that permeate the U.S. at a more ground level. I don’t like that for the implications it bears on U.S. citizens and the number of people it involves. Take Wally Miller and Lloyd England for example, regular U.S. citizens, not involved in planning of the attacks, but who, you say, know a setup took place yet have been coerced to facilitate the cover-up of which they are aware. If either actually said anything that indicated a false flag and could not be reconciled with an innocent comment, then I’d understand, but the fact is that neither do. The same as a great many individuals and agencies according to your theory. As well as finding it “almost” distasteful, it is a nonsense – one of the hundreds or thousands involved is going to spill the beans.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Q24

[skyeagle409]

If there was no missing funds, then why had congress been investigating it since before Bush took office? Why had ONI investigated these irregularities?

It has been brought to your attention by others, the money was not missing. Government waste is no secret, which was evident when I noticed the cost of an 1/2" X 1/2" X 2 " piece of aluminum extrusion, which was part of a TCTO. The cost of that 2-inch piece was $250.00.

The next time you go into a home improvement store, price an 8-foot section of aluminum extrusion and then calculate how many 2-inch pieces you can cut and sell at $250.00 each. That will give you an indication of government waste.

Edited December 21, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

Q, too many times, life can be unpleasant, especially regarding what government agents do and don't do to citizens. I don't make the rules, I just try to abide the rules, if they're just.

I have no doubt whatsoever about the veracity of your statements regarding untracked assets and such. Your experience in that regard is superior to mine. The thing is, that I happened to watch some minutes on CSPAN of Rummy being deposed by Cynthia McKinney from Georgia. Watched my share of Perry Mason and been involved in a few trials myself over the years, and I have never seen as uncooperative a witness as Rummy. And his female assistant. In a perverse sort of way it was downright comical, they way he played with McKinney, he the cat and she the mouse, though it should have been reversed.

I wonder if you have ever enacted a FF, since you are offering judgement of theirs? If you have not enacted a FF, then you and I are equal in assessing one. As for me, I think they did a brilliant job. After 11 years, some of the tactical errors are becoming apparent, but there were no strategic errors at all. Win, win, win.

[Q24]

I wonder if you have ever enacted a FF, since you are offering judgement of theirs? If you have not enacted a FF, then you and I are equal in assessing one. As for me, I think they did a brilliant job. After 11 years, some of the tactical errors are becoming apparent, but there were no strategic errors at all. Win, win, win.

Now see, if you really thought like one of these criminals, you wouldn’t ask such an unfair question. How could anyone ever answer in the affirmative? ‘Have you ever enacted a false flag?’ ‘Oh yes, certainly, want me to tell you all about it too?’ No I have not enacted a false flag. I just think that perhaps units can be a law unto themselves, that rules are not always adhered, that decisions and resultant actions are not always recorded, that some questions are not for asking, and that events as presented to the public, media and wider defence department may not always be what they appear and/or truth. I think that would put anyone in reasonable position to judge elements that were behind the false flag that occurred on 9/11. The first rule is that the deception must remain ‘in house’. We must control information on a strict 'need to know' basis, otherwise we can forget it. Once we include all of the agencies and individuals and go to the lengths of coercion and cover-up that you would like to enact this extensive conspiracy, it’s over. I don’t like to give ‘debunkers’ the chance to use that as an excuse so must adhere to the minimum essentials required, which a considerable amount of the time involves disagreeing with your theories.

Anyhow... Merry Christmas everyone!

[skyeagle409]

I think that would put anyone in reasonable position to judge elements that were behind the false flag that occurred on 9/11.

Fantasy and speculation are not considered hard evidence. Your false flag logic holds as much water as a bottomless bucket and to underliine that point, you have failed to provide supporting evidence.

Edited December 23, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

Q

I guess my point is that if indeed there was a false flag--military elements on a training exercise to achieve deception and other goals--how is anybody on the outside to know how many branches or leaves there are on the tree of deception?

That there was a FF is the point. What all the various goals might have been, you and I can only speculate about.

You offer some suggestion that what you see as restraining conditions or limits would necessarily have been evaluated the same way by the actual perps.

I say the field is wide open--any number of goals might have been involved.

[skyeagle409]

Q

I guess my point is that if indeed there was a false flag--military elements on a training exercise to achieve deception and other goals--how is anybody on the outside to know how many branches or leaves there are on the tree of deception?

Please present the evidence, and remember, no evidence, no case.

Looking at the picture as a whole, the 9/11 attack did not display the hallmarks of a false flag operation.

[Q24]

Q

I guess my point is that if indeed there was a false flag--military elements on a training exercise to achieve deception and other goals--how is anybody on the outside to know how many branches or leaves there are on the tree of deception?

That there was a FF is the point. What all the various goals might have been, you and I can only speculate about.

You offer some suggestion that what you see as restraining conditions or limits would necessarily have been evaluated the same way by the actual perps.

I say the field is wide open--any number of goals might have been involved.

Well, I think that’s the circle complete – please refer up the page to my post #876 regarding, “extensive depth of conspiracy”.

[skyeagle409]

It was already proven that airliners could be used at the WTC.

If used under remote control, please spell out the details of how that can be done in regards to the 9/11 attacks.

Edited December 26, 2012 by skyeagle409

[RaptorBites]

If there was no missing funds, then why had congress been investigating it since before Bush took office? Why had ONI investigated these irregularities?

The untracked funds where reported back in 1999. In 2/20/2002, the DoD reported that most of the funds have been tracked through the database of 600 storage files on 50 different databases that did not communicate with each other without proper translation software.

By 2/20/2002 the DoD reported only $700 billion were still in the process of being tracked.

The "missing $2.3 trillion" argument has no steam behind it. Just because a plan hit the Pentagon where some of those financial records are kept does not mean that the DoD is never going to be held accountable for the untracked funds.

Evidence of nothing is not considered evidence of a coverup when it comes to the $2.3 trillion dollars Rumsfeld was talking about.

[Babe Ruth]

Thanks Raptor, and welcome back. And Happy Holidays too.

As I've told you before, I happened to watch on CSPAN the deposition of Rumsfeld, in which I had the luxury of body language in addiction to words.

I'm old enough to know when a witness is stonewalling the questions and frustrating the process. That was Rummy in spades.

You might not get it, but Eastman, Flocco, Durham and Schwarz DO get it. So do many thousands of others.

Was Santa Claus good to you?

[skyeagle409]

As I've told you before, I happened to watch on CSPAN the deposition of Rumsfeld, in which I had the luxury of body language in addiction to words.

You don't seem to understand the Pentagon was unable to track the $2 trillion.

[Babe Ruth]

What I understand Sky, is that our government was hijacked by the bad guys a long time ago. They won, and they are in control. I understand it too well.

[skyeagle409]

What I understand Sky, is that our government was hijacked by the bad guys a long time ago. They won, and they are in control. I understand it too well.

That has nothing to do with the Pentagon's $2 trillion.

[skyeagle409]

CBS Reports Pentagon

"'According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions,' Rumsfeld admitted.

-- CBS, 1/29/02

"We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible."

[Q24]

If used under remote control, please spell out the details of how that can be done in regards to the 9/11 attacks.

Well we all know that these airliners can practically fly themselves through the onboard computer - it's just a case of inputting the correct details to the system. I won't go further than that because, no matter what I say, you’d only come back with some unfocussed ‘rebutal’ that we have been over already, like, “AA and UAL would not allow their airliners to be modified” or “drone airliners are not permitted without approval”, neither of which are essential to presence of a drone aircraft. Had anyone else not been able to figure it out and made the request then I’d likely answer more thoroughly... but not for you skyeagle, it’d largely be a waste of time.

[skyeagle409]

Well we all know that these airliners can practically fly themselves through the onboard computer - it's just a case of inputting the correct details to the system.

There is no way you can carry out such modifications without drawing a lot of attention from the crew during their preflight system checks, mechanics, inspectors, and from the affected airlines. The data and flight profiles relating to the aircraft are not indicative of aircraft that are flown under remote control nor even flown by professional pilots.

I won't go further than that because, no matter what I say, you’d only come back with some unfocussed ‘rebutal’ that we have been over already, like, “AA and UAL would not allow their airliners to be modified” or “drone airliners are not permitted without approval”, neither of which are essential to presence of a drone aircraft. Had anyone else not been able to figure it out and made the request then I’d likely answer more thoroughly... but not for you skyeagle, it’d largely be a waste of time.

Regarding aircraft modifications, I should know what I am talking about because modifying airframes of all types, including helicopters, has been my job for decades. In addition, I have held airframe maintenance and modification positions such as supervisor, inspector, and technician in the Air Force and during employment with defense contractors and that while flying as an C-5, DCC. I have invented and developed components for aircraft and support equipment used in airframe maintenance and modifications and as a pilot of over 40 years, I know what I am talking about concerning flight performances and profiles.

I have visited a few 9/11 conspiracy websites and I have seen so much disinformation and misinformation relating to the 9/11 aircraft, that I have lost count. In other words, those CT people have no understanding what they have presented and I am sorry to say that they have been very successful duping many people as well as themselves.

Edited December 31, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

There is no way you can carry out such modifications without drawing a lot of attention from the crew during their preflight system checks, mechanics, inspectors, and from the affected airlines.

Your concerns are invalid; there is no crew, inspection or affected airline when it comes to the drone aircraft. The necessary modifications can be carried out privately by the same individuals responsible for the operation.

The data and flight profiles relating to the aircraft are not indicative of aircraft that are flown under remote control nor even flown by professional pilots.

It’s all very well making statements of opinion but you need to back it up. How or why is the flight profile not indicative of remote control? The final approach of Flight 77 at the Pentagon matches the WAAS descending turn used to line up for landings and the profile of some missile guided systems. It is even possible that the drone flights could additionally be controlled using a simulator linked to a camera aboard the aircraft – this could produce any manner of manoeuvre possible of a manual, onboard pilot. So bearing all this in mind (which I know you won’t, but hey) there can be no founded objection to remote controlled aircraft.

[skyeagle409]

Your concerns are invalid; there is no crew, inspection or affected airline when it comes to the drone aircraft. The necessary modifications can be carried out privately by the same individuals responsible for the operation.

Privately by whom? Do you realize what is involved in engineering, manufacturing, preparing and installing modifications on large aircraft? No airline is not going to allow its aircraft down time for months for the purpose of illegal modifications and it is very clear that you do not know how things work in the real world of aviation, especially modifications of large aircraft. We are not talking Hollywood fantasies.

It’s all very well making statements of opinion but you need to back it up.

It was all very simple from the links I've posted. Why do you think the FAA deregistered the tail numbers of the 9/11 aircraft? I've posted the fleet history of American Airlines but it seems that you are not knowledgeable enough to understand the significance of the message regarding the fleet histories of American Airlines and United Airlines because you have no experience in the field of aviation to understand what I have posted.

How or why is the flight profile not indicative of remote control?

Look at the altitude data pertaining to the aircraft whenever the autopilot was tuned off.

Look at the sloppiness of those altitude profiles after the aircraft were hijacked! Those are not profiles of professionally flown aircraft and the data should have told you the aircraft were not flown under remote control by professional pilots nor indicative of flight profiles of drones.

Secondly, there were no need for a remote controlled aircraft to fly a circling maneuver in order to strike a building. Look at the flight path of United 175 and American 77.

Flight path of United 175

I want to add that 9/11 conspiracist claimed the aircraft was modified for the purpose of increasing its airspeed and that didn't make any sense because United 175 was flown into a headwind which decreased its groundspeed.

The final approach of Flight 77 at the Pentagon matches the WAAS descending turn used to line up for landings and the profile of some missile guided systems.

A sesending turn to line up for landings?! That doesn't make any sense becasue the correct profile would have been a direct approach and diving attack upon the Pentagon, so why waste time with a circling maneuver?

It is even possible that the drone flights could additionally be controlled using a simulator linked to a camera aboard the aircraft –....

Another magic word; "camera." What camera? How can you install a camera and integrate that camera into the systems of a B-767 and B-757 without drawing attention from the airline's mechanics and inspectors? Once again,

...this could produce any manner of manoeuvre possible of a manual, onboard pilot. So bearing all this in mind (which I know you won’t, but hey) there can be no founded objection to remote controlled aircraft.

Once again, refer to the altitude and flight path data charts. The profiles are not indicative of aircraft flown under remote control by professional pilots. In addition, it was very clear the pilots were killed instantly. Question is, was there enough time for the pilots to switch to the hijack code on the their transponders? Think about it.

9/11 conspiracist have enveloped themselves within Hollywood fantasies, which does not reflect on the way we do things in the real world of aviation.

Edited January 4, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Your concerns are invalid; there is no crew, inspection or affected airline when it comes to the drone aircraft.

Look at the B-757 and B-767 fleet history of American Airlines and tell us how many of its B-757-200 and B-767-200 series aircraft were written off and please provide the reasons why they were written off and provide the dates they crashed.

American Airlines Fleet History

http://www.planespot...erican-Airlines

American 77

http://www.planespot...an-Airlines.php

American 11

http://www.planespot...an-Airlines.php

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

United Airlines Fleet History

http://www.planespotters.net/Airline/United-Airlines

United 175

http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Boeing/767/21873,N612UA-United-Airlines.php

United 93

http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Boeing/757/28142,N591UA-United-Airlines.php

Edited January 4, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

Privately by whom? Do you realize what is involved in engineering, manufacturing, preparing and installing modifications on large aircraft? No airline is not going to allow its aircraft down time for months for the purpose of illegal modifications and it is very clear that you do not know how things work in the real world of aviation, especially modifications of large aircraft. We are not talking Hollywood fantasies.

I’m not referring to AA or UAL or any regular/commercial airline (though by the way, such mainstream aircraft do sometimes have months of downtime in storage). However, anyone with the money can own a Boeing aircraft. The heads of state of Argentina, Azerbaijan, Brunei, Chile, China, Iraq, Mexico and Mongola all use these aircraft as private transports. Even private millionaires such as the owner of Chelsea Football Club, Google and others have their own 767s. Private companies such as Blackwater military contractors (now known as Academi) own 767s. Even intelligence services have been known to posses their own subsidiary airlines which operate Boeing aircraft. It’s not like the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff didn’t see it as a possibility before through a CIA subsidiary airline (reference: not ‘Hollywood’ but the very real ‘Operation Northwoods’ document). With the many options, and without physical identification of the aircraft, we cannot know who was responsible for drone aircraft potentially used on 9/11, only that the possibility exists.

It was all very simple from the links I've posted. Why do you think the FAA deregistered the tail numbers of the 9/11 aircraft? I've posted the fleet history of American Airlines but it seems that you are not knowledgeable enough to understand the significance of the message regarding the fleet histories of American Airlines and United Airlines because you have no experience in the field of aviation to understand what I have posted.

Due to the covert nature of the aircraft switch, either in the air or on the ground, the FAA along with AA and UAL all legitimately believe the original aircraft were destroyed. Though without physical identification of the crashed airliners’ debris, this has never been confirmed.

Look at the altitude data pertaining to the aircraft whenever the autopilot was tuned off.

Look at the sloppiness of those altitude profiles after the aircraft were hijacked! Those are not profiles of professionally flown aircraft and the data should have told you the aircraft were not flown under remote control by professional pilots nor indicative of flight profiles of drones.

Why? Professional pilots can’t fly up and down? Drone aircraft can’t adjust altitude? Even if the very intention is to give appearance of a hijacking?

Secondly, there were no need for a remote controlled aircraft to fly a circling maneuver in order to strike a building. Look at the flight path of United 175 and American 77.

...

A sesending turn to line up for landings?! That doesn't make any sense becasue the correct profile would have been a direct approach and diving attack upon the Pentagon, so why waste time with a circling maneuver?

Ok, you realise there is a height difference between WTC2 and the Pentagon of approximately 1,285ft? It would look pretty darn suspicious for a number of reasons had Flight 77 arrowed straight into the Pentagon from some altitude and distance out – Hani just took on a whole new level of skill and accuracy there! Obviously the aim is to make the drone flight and approach look somewhat believable. Thus the descending turn as used to line up for landings, to hit a target not far off the ground, was necessary.

Another magic word; "camera." What camera? How can you install a camera and integrate that camera into the systems of a B-767 and B-757 without drawing attention from the airline's mechanics and inspectors? Once again,

The same type of camera and control link that is used for UAVs, which rather than ‘magic’ is quite mundane technology today – it’s like the pilot is in the cockpit, but they aren’t. I’m sure that one day in the not too distant future, fighter pilots in the cockpit will be a thing of the past. Also refer to the above – the necessary modifications are made in-house – we do not need to avoid AA or UAL mechanics or inspectors (you might get this point one day... though probably not).

[Q24]

Look at the B-757 and B-767 fleet history of American Airlines and tell us how many of its B-757-200 and B-767-200 series aircraft were written off by American Airlines and please provide the reasons why they were written off and provide the dates they crashed.

See previous response. The aircraft in question were assumed to be crashed and written-off on 9/11 though without physical identification of the aircraft that remains unconfirmed. 9/11 skeptics are not prepared to accept such assumptions here, we are looking for proof as confirmation.

[skyeagle409]

I’m not referring to AA or UAL or any regular/commercial airline (though by the way, such mainstream aircraft do sometimes have months of downtime in storage).

That won't work either because even in storage, there are records as well and I might add that I also worked in an aircraft storage yard at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona.

However, anyone with the money can own a Boeing aircraft.

And in doing so, you will create a number of records that will result in a traceable paper trail.

It’s not like the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff didn’t see it as a possibility before through a CIA subsidiary airline (reference: not ‘Hollywood’ but the very real ‘Operation Northwoods’ document). With the many options, and without physical identification of the aircraft, we cannot know who was responsible for drone aircraft potentially used on 9/11, only that the possibility exists.

Once again, I was attached to MASDC, Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ, and here to tell that acquiring any large aircraft will leave behind a long and traceable paper trail. In fact, it took me less than 5 minutes to trace the first aircraft I have ever flown and traced that aircraft to the State of Washington.

Due to the covert nature of the aircraft switch, either in the air or on the ground, the FAA along with AA and UAL all legitimately believe the original aircraft were destroyed. Though without physical identification of the crashed airliners’ debris, this has never been confirmed.

As I mentioned before, there are tons of evidence and the reason why you said there is no evidence because you are not familiar of how aircraft are tracked or identified.

Why? Professional pilots can’t fly up and down?

Not in that manner, and it is very obvious the terrrorist were having difficulty maintaining proper altitude.

...Drone aircraft can’t adjust altitude?

Look at the flight profiles again. They are having great difficulty maintaining altitude control without autopilot.

... Even if the very intention is to give appearance of a hijacking?

That doesn't work either because the aircraft were tracked from takeoff on radar and in communications with ATC before they were hijacked so we know the aircraft in question were not drones.

Ok, you realise there is a height difference between WTC2 and the Pentagon of approximately 1,285ft?

What is the point?

...It would look pretty darn suspicious for a number of reasons had Flight 77 arrowed straight into the Pentagon from some altitude and distance out – Hani just took on a whole new level of skill and accuracy there!

Thank you for confirming that Hani was in control of American 77, which underlines the point that American 77 was not flown under remote control nor a drone and explains the sloppy flight profile of American 77.

Obviously the aim is to make the drone flight and approach look somewhat believable. Thus the descending turn as used to line up for landings, to hit a target not far off the ground, was necessary.

You don't seem to understand that the flight path of American 77 was traced right back to the airport from where it embarked, which clearly indicates that aircraft was not a drone.

The same type of camera and control link that is used for UAVs, which rather than ‘magic’ is quite mundane technology today – it’s like the pilot is in the cockpit, but they aren’t.

How are you going to integrate a camera into the systems of a B-757 or a B-767 and not draw attention from the pilots during their external preflight inspections and systems checks as well as from servicing and maintenance personnel? Did the pilots of those aircraft indicate that something was wrong?

...I’m sure that one day in the not too distant future, fighter pilots in the cockpit will be a thing of the past. Also refer to the above – the necessary modifications are made in-house – we do not need to avoid AA or UAL mechanics or inspectors (you might get this point one day... though probably not).

How are you going to acquire such large aircraft and not leave a traceable paper trail? This is not Hollywood.

Edited January 4, 2013 by skyeagle409