See other 9/11 Articles
Title: 9/11: PENTAGON AIRCRAFT HIJACK IMPOSSIBLE (FLIGHT DECK DOOR CLOSED FOR ENTIRE FLIGHT)
Source:
pilotsfor911truth.org
URL Source: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/american_77_hijack_impossible.html
Published: Nov 27, 2009
Author: unk
Post Date: 2009-11-27 21:43:30 by rack42
Keywords: 911, pentagon, flight 77
Views: 1688
Comments: 118
(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Newly decoded data provided by an independent researcher and computer programmer from Australia exposes alarming evidence that the reported hijacking aboard American Airlines Flight 77 was impossible to have existed. A data parameter labeled "FLT DECK DOOR", cross checks with previously decoded data obtained by Pilots For 9/11 Truth from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) through the Freedom Of Information Act. On the morning of September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 77 departed Dulles International Airport bound for Los Angeles at 8:20 am Eastern Time. According to reports and data, a hijacking took place between 08:50:54 and 08:54:11[1] in which the hijackers allegedly crashed the aircraft into the Pentagon at 09:37:45. Reported by CNN, according to Ted Olson, wife Barbara Olson had called him from the reported flight stating, "...all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers..."[2]. However, according to Flight Data provided by the NTSB, the Flight Deck Door was never opened in flight. How were the hijackers able to gain access to the cockpit, remove the pilots, and navigate the aircraft to the Pentagon if the Flight Deck Door remained closed?[3] Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has analyzed Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack, the events in Shanksville, PA and the World Trade Center attack. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials along with Mainstream Media refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow. == [3] Right click and save target as here to download csv file with "FLT DECK DOOR" parameter.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: rack42 (#0)
No need to read further.
So, how should I interpret that statement? And why don't you say what you mean? [edit] And why not make plain what you mean.
...with the power of conviction, there is no sacrifice.
"Newly decoded data provided by an independent researcher and computer programmer from Australia exposes alarming evidence " Opening statement is self explanatory.
Opening statement is self explanatory. So, here we go again. You base your opinion on what? Is an "independent researcher and computer programmer" from Australia somehow deficient in determining that the program used by the glowber warmers is a fraud? And, no, the opening statement is only self-explanatory to you.
...with the power of conviction, there is no sacrifice.
Opinion???? Show me where I stated an opinion. You posted something about a "researcher" and a "programmer", no names, no credentials, nothing, there fore, no need to read any further.
Know what, you got your responces crossed (as did I). This thread is about flight 77.
...with the power of conviction, there is no sacrifice.
Nope. Didnt bother to read any further.
Well, thanks for not bothering to look at the data. It would have confounded you and who knows what you would have said then. Jeez.
...with the power of conviction, there is no sacrifice.
Recorder info: two files, one "original," one showing just Door data http://www.warrenstutt.com/AAL77FDRDecoder/OutputFiles/FinalFlightComplete.csv http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XX44XLUH caveat: door data updated every 4 seconds so if Hani Hanjour got really lucky he could get into the cockpit without the data recorder noting the opening of the door.
...with the power of conviction, there is no sacrifice.
Go away loser.
God is always good!
Be glad to read anything bearing the names and credential of people that would be given credibility by those of known expertise in any such manner.
And you are qualified in what manner to decide this????
Didn't I tell you to go away? Why are you still here? Enough, you are bozoed loser.
God is always good!
Only those afflicted with a sense of inferiority are so inclined.
Just bozo the .gov loser so we can discuss this damning evidence against the damn Jews who did 9/11.
God is always good!
What I would like to know is what took them so long to form such an organization? I know the Scholars for 9/11 truth are disinfo artists working for the damn Jews, so I am highly suspect of this group too. You don't ever here much about the nation and people that benefited the most form 9/11. NOOOO, that is kept under the rug while fingers are pointed at Bush, the brainless wonder, and his side kick Cheney. No more evidence is needed really to conclude 9/11 was a Mossad/CIA operation. The CIA doesn't work for the USA, nope, they work for the owners of the Federal Reserve, mostly the damn Jews. The real question is... I think you know.
God is always good!
Yes. Correct.
Here is the webpage of the Aussie programmer: http://www.warrenstutt.com/AAL77FDRDecoder/index.html His name is Warren Stutt. The webpage contains links to the binary and source of the program that he used to make it convienent to review the data of the flight recorder of AA77. Here is the data of AA77 from NTSB: http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf Note that the file is from the NTSB website.
...with the power of conviction, there is no sacrifice.
Most interesting post on http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php? showtopic=18405 by a poster named Rob Balsamo. Some things to chew on for skeptics. And we should all be skeptical whatever our orientation in regard to this topic. I took a stroll around the net to see the excuses made by a select few who blindy follow anything the govt tells them. I'll address them here for now. Claim - How can anyone trust data from some anonymous guy in Australia? A. We agree, but he is not really anonymous. He does give his name, but we werent able to ask him if he wanted his name used in the article. That is why we cross checked it with our own data we received from the NTSB. You can also get your own directly from the NTSB as we did. Visit ntsb.gov and fill out their FOIA request form online. Claim - Does the cockpit door show open for the pilots to get in? A. No, it shows closed for entire flight. The FDR starts recording when the engines are started. Clearly the pilots would be in their seats and cabin/flight deck secure during this phase of flight. Claim - Does the FDR record if the door is open or closed? A. Clearly it does. It says closed for the entire flight and was confirmed by the Data Frame Layout provided by the NTSB and a pilot who has flight time in this exact 757 at American Airlines. Claim - The sensor must have failed. A. Speculation, but if the sensor failed, it would "ding" the FDR that a sensor has failed during self-diagnosis. If the FDR is inoperative, the airplane is not allowed to take-off. The sensor was operative. People who make this claim, would also have to prove the sensor fails in the closed position. Claim - The hijackers kicked in the door and jammed the sensor in the closed position. A. Again, pure speculation based on incredulity. But the fact remains, the data shows the door as closed, the altitude too high to hit the Pentagon, Vertical speed too great for level off as seen in DoD 5 frames video, the list goes on. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment on such blatant conflict with the govt story. Claim - The bird strike which took out the Flight Data Recorder prior to impact also took out the door sensor 30 mins prior to impact. A. Not really a claim made by "duhbunkers" at this point in time, but give it a few days. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
There is something I would like to make quite clear. My personal beliefs... AT THE VERY LEAST, some members of the government were aware prior to 9/11. This means that no matter what is discussed, I ACCEPT THAT "GOVERNMENT WAS INVOLVED.... Whomever the person was that originated the first idea, we will never know. From the opposite view, it is beyond ludicrous when any attempt or discussion tries to weave into this web, hundreds of people far and wide, that were somehow complicit in carrying out 9/11. Do I believe the government??? Of course not. But after all these years it is time we focused our efforts on finding the ...ORIGINATORS OF 9/11 AND THEIR FEW MINIONS THAT CARRIED IT OUT... Whomever they were and are, they surely are laughing at the endless arguments of totally meaningless ideas.
The very reason I refuse to take part in discussions that are nothing more than a waste of time.
The person that conceived this foul deed did not get his hands dirty in any way. Then he enlisted a very tight and small group to "manage" the operation. At that point anyone else added to the operation was merely a drone that knew ONLY his own little part, nothing more.
My observations agree with your's in totality.
I would imagine that each one was convinced that they were doing "God's Work". Lot of that going around.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" The person that conceived this foul deed did not get his hands dirty in any way. In an operation of this scale, that probably goes without saying. Then he enlisted a very tight and small group to "manage" the operation. At that point anyone else added to the operation was merely a drone that knew ONLY his own little part, nothing more. When the government releases the tapes from the boarding gates monitoring access to the flights in question, I will continue to question who the "drones" were and whom they were working for.
randge... No drone will EVER lead us up the ladder. Consigning countless people as "conspirators" will never unravel this thing.
No drone will EVER lead us up the ladder. Consigning countless people as "conspirators" will never unravel this thing. So what's wrong with a thread that speculates?
well articulated, Cyni
i don't think there's anything wrong with it. i enjoy speculating/conversation on a number of topics, but i can see where others may think it's a waste of their time. we will never know what really happened on 9/11 just as with the kennedy assassination. both government tales are ludricous.
I agree. I consider these sites like the benches outside the old small town grocery stores or barbershops where the old timers used to meet to discuss the issues of the day. Not a lot got settled but life is just a learning process anyway.
Tom... Possible but unlikely. There was a great deal of sloppiness involved in 9/11, all by the lower drones, pilots, that were to carry out the act. They were flying flags in this country that screamed for attention. Of the lot, only one was caught before the deed and the FBI had to be coaxed into acting on that one. That does not make the FBI co-conspirators.
Both events defy logic and demand that the viewer put aside all standards of normalcy and common sense in order to believe them. The fact that they came out with explanations immediately following the events said volumes. In eras without the one hour criminal TV dramas we ALL would have immediately been suspicious. Well it does attest to the inability of government bureacrats to create scenarios that MAKE SENSE with a logical time line.
This one is worth rereading. Prevost lives locally and has never spoken of the affair, to anyone. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/24/moussaoui.reward/index.html
There was a great deal of sloppiness involved in 9/11, all by the lower drones, pilots, that were to carry out the act. They were flying flags in this country that screamed for attention. Of the lot, only one was caught before the deed and the FBI had to be coaxed into acting on that one. Six of the purported "drones" that were said to have piloted those planes are still alive. (Note that the networks have long ceased posting the pictures of the "nineteen hijackers" in their reports. Why?) I am far from convinced that the Arabs said to have flown those planes were indeed on them at all. That does not make the FBI co-conspirators. You can call them what you like, Cyni, but they and their alphabet-soup agency brethren are withholding a massive amount of evidence concerning what went on that day based on "national security." I doesn't wash in my book. Those that cover the tracks are as culpable as the perps.
And some of us will NEVER forget.
Let me see if I get the reasoning right. That the data was read and decoded by an independent researcher makes it unworthy of notice" No one not in the government, or under a government contract, is a credible researcher - particularly independent researchers? Therefore there is no possibility that the data could be correct? Makes sense to me. The source of the data does not agree with my prejudices so throw it out without any further examination or cross checking. After all we all know that 911 was perpetrated my "19ARABSWHOHATEUSCUZWE'REFREE" directed by a madman with his magic cell phone hidden in a secret cave in Tora Bora. You know - the super sophisticated one that was in the Snoozeweak piece on Osama Ben Forgotten's high tech Deathstar Fortress. Can we say conclusion without examination? Sure we can. Wasn't that easy?
"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France
You can call them what you like, Cyni, I was referencing the local FBI and Zacarias Moussaoui. The drones were advertising they were up to something to anyone that was paying attention. Prevost saw it early on and the FBI paid no attention. " Prevost testified that he approached his managers, and recalled telling them, "We don't know anything about this guy, and we're teaching him how to throw the switches on a 747." Don't Miss * FindLaw: Moussaoui's case history But he said his managers at first told him Moussaoui had paid his money and they didn't care. Prevost testified that he told his bosses, "We'll care when there's a hijacking and the lawsuits come in." He testified Moussaoui's stated goal of learning to fly from Heathrow Airport in London to New York's John F. Kennedy Airport was unusual from the beginning, because Moussaoui had 50-odd hours of flight time on a single-engine propeller plane and no pilot's license. Prevost testified he usually had students with more than 600 hours of flight time, and that they are usually professional pilots looking to upgrade their skills and fly bigger jets for a higher salary. But Moussaoui, he testified, "had no frame of reference whatsoever with a commercial airliner. After 15 minutes I said, 'Let's get lunch.' " Prevost said he was worried that if Moussaoui completed the three four-hour 747 simulator sessions he had booked, he would know how to operate a real 747. He testified that he let Moussaoui sit in on another student's simulator session, but he never got any of his own sessions. A day after Prevost went to his bosses with his concerns, two Pan Am program managers called the FBI, leading to Moussaoui's arrest on an immigration violation. Moussaoui had stayed in the United States past his allowed 90 days on his French passport. In November, the Air Line Pilots Association, International, presented Prevost with its 2007 Presidential Citation Award for his efforts to alert authorities to Moussaoui, according to an ALPA "
Conclusion without examination is what the narratives are written for. Gleiwitz. The Reichstag. The Gulf of Tonkin. Remember the Maine. Those that do not learn from history . . . you all know the rest of that well worn aphorism.
I would just like to know if the results could be replicated. Have persons say like myself, totally unfamiliar with piloting an aircraft, go to one of those flight schools, receive the exact same training and then from a desert base such as Edwards simulate the commandeering with 3 cohorts of similiar planes setup in pre911 mode. And fly them to a specific point using routes similiar to those three planes....to say a high unused cell phone tower.
Actually, I would beg to differ. We do know what happened on 911. We cannot nail down all the details and specifics but know in rough outline form what occurred. Yes, the government's Official Fairy Tale® is ludicrous. The problem is, as with the Kennedy Assassination, is that the criminals who perpetrated the crime are in control of the official investigative apparatus and the prosecution. So, we can say with certainty that they are not going to hang themselves. No honest and complete examination will come from the current criminals running our government. Nor will any prosecutions - no Attorney General not a "made man" will ever be appointed by them. However, the contradictions and crimes pile up. As more people are made aware of them in a coherent fashion the idea spreads. Nothing is more powerful than an idea or the truth. That is why they fear it and us. That is why our enemies spend so much time and money to reinforce and keep the lies in place. And each lie has ended up requiring further lies to support it. So, the entire rickety affair is teetering, but not yet toppling. I think we will at some point, but not soon, get a true resolution. Of course I am an incurable optimist too.
"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France
The problem of course is that the teaching of history, the curriculum, is ultimately set by those who wish to obscure their own foul deeds. That is why the few of us who do care passionately about the truth have set out to discover it anew for ourselves. And even worse from our would-be masters point of view - we share it. And thus it goes viral and the contradictions mount. Like cornered rats they will fight the revelation of the truth but I think the tsunami is mounting and soon they may find themselves awash.
"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France
I use some posters here as barometers. If they poo poo something, it means it's worth a second look.
I'm not naming names, Turtle, but I concur.
"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France
That one is well named.
We cannot nail down all the details and specifics but know in rough outline form what occurred. yes, that's what i meant and like you said, there will never be an uncontrolled investigation. afterall, the exposure would mean the PTB's demise. regardless, i am an unabashed truther.
Top Ten Ways To Post Like A Conspiracy Lunatic 10. Have no sense of humor, irony or whimsy. 9. The fact that an "official" investigation shows there was no conspiracy is not evidence that the conspiracy does not exist; rather, it is evidence that the conspiracy does exist. Otherwise, why would they deny it? 8. Use "quotation" marks, *highlighting*, CAPITAL LETTERS and exclamation points!!!! indiscriminately. Example: All the "official" photographs of the Roswell "debris" are clearly photographs of weather balloon material, *proving* CONCLUSIVELY that the "government" *removed* the REAL remains and substituted the balloon parts in a vain attempt at a COVERUP!!!!!!! 7.Follow up every non-sequitor with "COINCIDENCE?" Example: NASA, the same organization that says the face on Mars is *not* a sign of intelligent life, also used Tang on its early missions. Tang is a product of General Foods, which owns the candy bar manufacturer Mars, Inc. COINCIDENCE? 6. The most tenuous of connections between a person who debunks your theory and the alleged conspirators is cause to disregard the debunker. Example: Dr. Levin P. Stacy of Michigan State University, a "journalism" professor, argues that the Roswell "phenomena" is merely an example of millinerian "hysteria," and that no coverup exists. However, STACY WORKS AT A PUBLICLY FUNDED UNIVERSITY, WHICH RELIES HEAVILY ON GOVERNMENT GRANTS!!!! 5. Insert examples of how your personal life has been wrecked because the conspirators know you are on to them. If your significant other has left you, it's not because of the tinfoil hat you've taken to wearing, it's because "they" got to him or her. 4. Always put commonly accepted descriptions in quotation marks. Examples: "British" Royal Family, press "commentator," "progressive" thinker. Also, make sure you never report anyone as "saying" anything, they always "claim" it. 3. Insist that the experts know nothing, and that all you need is, the Constitution, Black's Law Dictionary and Alex Jones to prove your point. 2. Make it up as you go along. And the Number One Way to Post Like a Conspiracy Lunatic: 1. You're not cleared for that, whininggold!
I'm not happy until you're not happy!
Whatchdoin' over here yuk? Won't war's mom let him out to play witcha today?
We cannot nail down all the details and specifics but know in rough outline form what occurred. yes, that's what i meant and like you said, there will never be an uncontrolled investigation. afterall, the exposure would mean the PTB's demise. regardless, i am an unabashed truther. Yet, regardless of their strong control of government and the major media they have not been able to stem the tide of truth. True, we do not have control, nor the power (as yet), to demand and get an honest accounting, but they are getting a bit worried. Thus the constant need to continually downplay each and every revelation that escapes their control. That they have not yet established total control is a positive sign. The plans they were putting into motion, and following the 911 PsyOp (and that was its true purpose - a gigantic numbing shock to allow imposition of more of their control grid) I think they expected to progress much more quickly to their total slave state. The problem is that too many people are aware now of what they are up to. While the tide has not yet turned its rush has been slowed. The longer we can stretch it out the better our chances. Psychotics are not very good on any long term follow-through except as regards destruction. That is their level of causation - destruction. They can destroy but they cannot build. The biggest risk I see at this point is a descent into complete chaos. That is why open armed revolt is not wise - it gives them a pretext for a clamp down and greatly increases the risk that the entire society will fall apart. Of course they likely would not survive it, but civilization would end with billions dead and a descent into a new dark age. History and culture operate with the inexorable forces of human nature and the only way out is up and through.
"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France
I just knew you would need printed posting guidelines. Does mommy have you on restriction now? Eight posts a day used up already? WTC7 was investigated? Who knew? Maybe you should notify Bush and while you are at it, PS a post to byeltsin about your guidelines! LOLAY!
OI... The most egregious attempt to confuse an already confused affair was the eye witness accounts of the aircraft going into the Pentagon. The government took statements and testimony from 52 people at the scene that saw an aircraft. Twelve of whom identified it as an American airlines plane. They were people unknown to each other and many from foreign countries. Yet toms have been written about an aircraft NOT hitting the Pentagon. One has to strain mightily to envision getting all of them to lie, all to be there at a precise moment that no one knew. Such as that detracts from all efforts to name the people at the top.
12 out of 52 ain't bad. That's almost 24 percent. Others saw aircraft from other airlines. Still others saw different kinds of aircraft. Got no idea what flew into the Pentagon. Kinda makes me wonder though.
OI... The most egregious attempt to confuse an already confused affair was the eye witness accounts of the aircraft going into the Pentagon. The government took statements and testimony from 52 people at the scene that saw an aircraft. Twelve of whom identified it as an American airlines plane. They were people unknown to each other and many from foreign countries. Yet toms have been written about an aircraft NOT hitting the Pentagon. One has to strain mightily to envision getting all of them to lie, all to be there at a precise moment that no one knew. Such as that detracts from all efforts to name the people at the top. So, one piece of planted disinformation overrules every other piece of information contradicting the Official Fairy Tale®? Without getting off into specific anomalies on the Pentagram strike I will say I do believe something struck the Pentagram. Now whether the airliner or whether the airliner was used as an optical diversion is open as there are too many valid scientific/engineering based arguments - notably that an airliner of that size and wing type would have been unstable at the reported speed and altitude; so unstable that, even assuming it was the airliner, the plane was NOT piloted by a flight school wash-out. Between the lift, and the wingtip vortices formed at that altitude it would have required a Master Pilot to hit THAT target with THAT aircraft. However, the available data is not enough to resolve the question, and the FBI insured that it would not be by collecting every videotape in the area that could have filmed the approach and strike (32 of them) the afternoon of 911. NONE of which have released or returned to their rightful owners years after the event. My mind is boggled at the reasoning involved, and I don't mean to be insulting, but I simply find it absurd that you would dismiss every other piece of data contrary to the Official Conspiracy Theory©® because of one piece of planted disinformation. There is little I can say in the face of that because it logically amounts to: My mind is made up now don't confuse me with the facts.
"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France
At the scene of an accident, cops have to be careful of whom they accept as a "witness". Six people witness the accident, they give at least three scenarios that do not match. Criminal justice often teaches by example, someone bursts into the classroom, screams something, smacks the professor and takes off. The students are then asked to write down everything they saw and heard. Four or five will get it basically the same, with the others in variation. Then they are asked to fill out a questionnaire concerning the intrusion. Some of the questions are loaded, inferring something that was not there. Question...What was approximate age of the woman holding the door open for the perp to what color hair did the perp have. (bald headed) After the fact and insertion of unseen information, their answers are all over the board.
The researcher's name is Warren Stutt.
We know what happened. We can't prove, in court, who did it.
Thank you, you just made my point for me. Because an airliner was observed in the close vicinity of the Pentagram does not prove that airliner is what HIT the Pentagram. Not that I am a bug on the issue as there are too many other datums of a much more clear cut nature such as: "An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France
Going over 9/11, and all of the years, and all of the hundreds of credible doubts espoused by honest people, not ONE fact has been retracted, not one statement by the witnesses has changed. Not one iota. True or false the government account still stands. I would love to see them eat crow over just one small part of 9/11, but so far that is not happened. Many well intentioned good people have tried. I am not an expert in anything, being such, I try to take a look at the overall picture and do not involve myself with technical items that are beyond my pay grade.
sure one could, thing is those controlling the courts aren't open for the truth.
recall I said there were 52 people taken as witesses???? I cannot recall how many were turned away for one of two reasons, they were in general agreement with the majority, or they were so far out of agreement, the investigators passed on their credibility.
Not true. No theory is valid unless it accounts for ALL of the data. Conversely if it does not account for all the data then it is not valid. There are literally hundreds of outpoints many of which are not in dispute, but merely ignored and avoided. There are in fact so many outpoints and flat contradictions that as much as I have read on the subject it is difficult to remember the details of each and every one - and I have a very good memory. 1. No proven mechanism has ever been given in the Official Conspiracy theory to account for the collapse of WTC 7. The last was so risible that it was laughed at 'round the world. Everywhere except in the controlled Amurkin' Media. 2. No mechanism has ever been proposed, in the Official Conspiracy Theory®, to account for the recovery of molten metal as much as 8 weeks after the collapse of the towers. 3. No credible explanation has ever been given, in the Official Conspiracy Theory®, to account for the stand down of the most sophisticated air defense system on the planet i.e., NORAD. No one in the Military Chain of Command has ever been charged, prosecuted, or in any way condemned or reprimanded for this failure. The lame excuse was given that they had turned off the transponders (which known incompetent pilots would first have to find and know how to shut them down) but that would not take them off Radar. It would merely eliminate the transmission of their identification. I've operated Radar, am a trained electronics technician, and I can tell you with absolutely certainty that, that explanation is complete and utter bullshit. 4. All pilots are taught a 4 digit emergency hijack code. It takes about 3 seconds to send it. Not one of the 4 aircraft transmitted that code. 5. Multiple Cell Phone Calls were alleged to have been made by low wattage cell phones, through signal attenauting skin of the aircraft, at ten thousand feet, doing 500 miles per hour. The technology to do that was not available at that time. The story has since morphed to "they used the plane's phone" to cover up that impossibility. 6. None of the hijackers was a qualified pilot. In fact they were known incompetents one of which was denied rental of a single engine Cessna because the guy checking him out did not trust his ability to competently handle the plane. 7. How did the FBI know where every video camera that could photograph the approach of the Pentagon Plane? How did they know it quickly enough to have confiscated all 32 tapes by late afternoon on the day of 911? 8. Several of the hijackers were trained at U.S. Military bases. ??? I could go on, but there seems no point. You have a conclusion which no amount of fact will sway.
"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France
OI... I see none of the points that are pertinent. Number 5 is the most obvious. Most every day I place calls from inside my auto, to a tower that is NOT LOS. (Line of sight).
At ten thousand feet? You drive your car at ten thousand feet with no windows and at 500 mph? Fast enough to not make the necessary handshake to establish the connection before you are out of range of the tower? The experiment has been run using a light plane traveling less than 200 mph and using the technology extant at the time it cannot be duplicated. And you may not see the tower but it IS there. They've gotten pretty good at camouflaging them because people start objecting when they learn about the increased cancer rates near cell towers.
"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France
That is of no consequence. Way back when I was a pup in the Air force, we carried hand held VHF radios as part of our survival gear. They worked very well. Altitude was of no consequence nor was speed. All of that is irrelevant and totally misleading.
OI: I flew many miles prior to 9/11 and did a heluva lot of calling on my cell phone. Rarely did I find I could NOT call ... Therefore, I have to assume that the technology available at the time allowed for "low wattage cell phones, through signal attenuating skin of the aircraft, at ten thousand feet, doing 500 miles per hour". I am not an expert in any of this, but am able to use common sense when all else fails! (Which, with age, is occurring more and more on a daily basis!)
I just talked a pilot friend of mine, one who believes attack was a missile. He thinks this is a non issue being used to give truthers a black eye. He says: So I looked up the default. The default if a parameter is not used is 0 So not only is this a static parameter, it shows closed for more than 50 continuous flight hours over the previous 12 flights. In 1997 model of the 757, this parameter was finally implemented 1991 - 757-1,2 model airframe, 1997 757-3 model where this is a valid parameter there are many parameters that produce no change of binary states or produce any data. The FDAU(box that collects all the data and streams it to the FDR) has the capability to collects hundreds, even thousands of parameters in new versions; the FAA mandates 70. All this will do is give people who know that 9/11 was staged a black eye "The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy."
Well thanks for your opinion and that of others.
...with the power of conviction, there is no sacrifice.
It all comes down to this: the data shows that nobody entered the cockpit of AA77. What is so difficult to uderstand about that? Does someone what to bitch that the NTSB faked the recordings? Because, I'm more inclined to that proposition. Why? Because I can't entertain how an airplane of the size of the AA77 can "destruct" into practicaly nothing, yet there is DNA available. Doesn't make sense.
...with the power of conviction, there is no sacrifice.
I'm all ears.
...with the power of conviction, there is no sacrifice.
You are correct. Your comment is irrelevant and totally misleading. VHF operates in a totally different and much lower frequency band that carries much further and at higher power. Your handheld's output was probably in the range of 2 or 3 watss. The Cell Phone technology in use on 911 has an output measured in milliwatts. Cell Phones operate in the microwave range (much higher frequency) which is strictly short range (a few miles) which is why towers have to be positioned all over the place. {FYI - the bands go VHF (Very High Frequency - AM Radio), UHF (Ultra High Frequency - FM Radio), and then you enter the Microwave Band} Again you are using a Strawman Argument and committing an additional logical fallzcy known as the False Analogy. I could dissect it and refute on other points, such as the need to make the electronic handshake, as well but don't wish to hurt my head any more. Bzzzzzzzzzzt! Play Again?
"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France
Our handhelds were VHF/UHF. All at VHF and above are LOS communications. If you can see them, you can communicate. This altitude and speed thing is totally erroneous.
OI: I flew many miles prior to 9/11 and did a heluva lot of calling on my cell phone. Rarely did I find I could NOT call ... Therefore, I have to assume that the technology available at the time allowed for "low wattage cell phones, through signal attenuating skin of the aircraft, at ten thousand feet, doing 500 miles per hour". I am not an expert in any of this, but am able to use common sense when all else fails! (Which, with age, is occurring more and more on a daily basis!) Here I have to rely on the work of others so there is margin for error. In the experimental data I saw the point was not that it could not be done at all but that the liklihood of making a connection was low and that the connection if made would be unreliable. I don't know what kind of phone you were using, it's power output, nor the exact circumstances of your call(s), but the point is that there were multiple calls for several minutes and the technology at that time did not support those kinds of calls. However, this is one of those points upon which we could go round and round for some time which is why I suspect Cyni fixed on it because it was the only point where he could create a cloud of confusion.
"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France
Uhhhhhhhhh.
Again, you compare apples and oranges. The technology is NOT the same, and operates with a different set of parameters and restrictions. However, I am through trying to educate you on the technology. Suffice to say you have made clear you do not understand how a cell phone operates or the protocols required for a call to connect and go through. Even the goobermunt has tried changing their story to say it was done on the Plane's Phone so I don't see what your are quibbling about. If you believe the goobermunt's hurdy gurdy you should be correcting me by telling me it was done on the Plane Phone - despite all prior claims in the Official Conspiracy Theory®.
"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France
The technology of radio/tv has never changed. Never. Equipment available changes basic tech never does. Air speed and altitude are examples of misinformation leading to confusion.
He is wise to be wary as there have been multiple threads of planted disinfo to obscure and create confusion. And also to get people to bite on a false line to then later set up a "gotcha". I don't know what hit the Pentagram, whether a Cruise Missle or a smaller jet painted to look like an AA plane from a distance, all I do know is that the actual physical evidence is incompatible with the official Cover Legend.
"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France
And neither has the physics. The higher the frequency, the shorter the range, and the more line of sight it becomes. (Hint - think Inverse Cube Law). However, you do not understand the protocols of how a cell phone connects with a cell tower. Radio is only analogous up to a point. To make a connection with a cell tower to complete a call the phone transmits a coded signal which is then received by the cell tower, which then transmits back a validating signal establishing a connection. It is more analogous to the way a modem operates rather than an omnidirectional radio transmission, at a much lower frequecy and much higher power, which you tried using for an analogy. Again you talking apples and oranges.
"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France
Cynicom is a paid dis-info artist. His style and questions are just like all of the rest of the .gov losers trying to cover for the CIA/Mossad false flag event of 9/11. Don't believe him for a second when he tries to claim otherwise. I have seen many like him on many different forums to not know when I am dealing with one of their ilk. Not worth wasting breath or type on. He is here for one reason only, disinfo.
God is always good!
I don't think so.
I actually tried this on take-off once. The output of a cell phone is so weak - I think it's less than a quarter of a watt - you loss signal at about 500 feet. After the aircraft reaches 1500 feet or so, forget about it. Your phone doesn't have the strength to manage the handoff from cell to cell which it manages to do in an automobile traveling along the surface, but not aloft at any appreciable altitude. You might be able to maintain service flying an ultralight, but not as a passenger on an airliner.
Hello? Have all forgot that this started with "Hari H. NEVER OPENED THE COCKPIT DOOR" evidence from the NTSB? Someone please explain that, OK? And if Hanjour didn't pilot AA77 into the Pentagon, then who did?
...with the power of conviction, there is no sacrifice.
The very reason I refuse to take part in discussions that are nothing more than a waste of time. We can't find the originators until we get the power to have a REAL investigation of the event. We can't get that power until we can adequately convince enough Americans that 9/11 was indeed an inside and or mossad job. In order to bring people over to our side, we need strong evidence supporting our position, therefore discussing stuff like this is vital. This is another strong piece of evidence that the official fairy tale is just that, a fairy tale.
Obama's health care plan shall be written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who smokes and has no birth certificate, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is overweight and financed by a country that is nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong? - buckeroo Then he enlisted a very tight and small group to "manage" the operation. At that point anyone else added to the operation was merely a drone that knew ONLY his own little part, nothing more. Exactly. In fact, the drones may not even have known anything about their own little part.
Obama's health care plan shall be written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who smokes and has no birth certificate, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is overweight and financed by a country that is nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong? - buckeroo Of course they have.
#1 If you suspect the government of wrongdoing, and Yukon calls you a lunatic, a conspiracy definitely exists.
Obama's health care plan shall be written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who smokes and has no birth certificate, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is overweight and financed by a country that is nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong? - buckeroo Thanks bluegrass. I almost lost track myself.
...with the power of conviction, there is no sacrifice.
It's hard to keep track. That's why do much disinfo is pumped out like bilge water day after day after day....
I'll let this go till 10:00 am EST. After that I have obligations. But I'm willing to "pick it up" after 7:00pm Jeez. How is it that so many on this forum don't "get it?" Makes me want to cry.
...with the power of conviction, there is no sacrifice.
rack, did the plane fly into the pentagon or what do you think happened ? for me, the other evidence is much more credible and important...plz tell
It's not just this forum. It's the human way. By and large, most people would rather believe what they think they know rather than think at all.
The witnesses say the plane was over here and not over there where the poles were knocked down. Some say the airliner rose away from the pentagon after the explosion.
Someone please explain that, OK? And if Hanjour didn't pilot AA77 into the Pentagon, then who did? If AA77 hit the Pentagon we would have seen the video of it by now. It didn't happen. As far as this new evidence goes, could be disinfo considering it is put out by pilots for 9/11 truth and a government agency. The government would never knowingly release data that would indicate they are responsible for 9/11. If they had a video of AA77 hitting the Pentagon we would have seen it by now. They have a video of the time period it was suppose to have hit, but no 757 hit the Pentagon in that time, that's for sure.
God is always good!
i have an earlier post that shows it is. i'll find it.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy."
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy."
Thanks! Well, many of these **** for 9/11 truth groups seem to be tainted now by putting out disinfo. These groups were never needed. You don't need any professional group anywhere to see 9/11 was an inside job. Just learn basic physics and watch the towers come down. It's just that simple!
God is always good!
Well, that is very interesting and disconcerning. *sigh*
...with the power of conviction, there is no sacrifice.
Bummer. It makes sense though. Keep on kicking the fake info out until some of us just drift away in disinterest or confusion.
blue... Excellent... You are the first to express something that needed saying, and paying attention to. My very first post to this thread was posted under that very belief. We have been subjected for years to many blind alleys by "experts", both real and imagined that have led nowhere. Every time some "new" evidence surfaces, too many are too willing to accept it as the gospel. So far all are for naught. I believe it was an inside job just as you and most other people, however I will not waste my time fishing in rain barrels.
This is why I stick to what I *KNOW* and can intelligently educate people about. And there's PLENTY of that...I like now to start with Barry Jennings' eyewitness account of what happened in WTC7 (Barry was Arkancided shortly after going public).
Yep. I've gotten to the point that if the source is some kind ex-military brass, ex-intelligence officer or someone else with a deep vested interest in the System, I ignore them. I'll always leave an open mind if I see a special case, but overall I'm just running on common sense and the intuition that the good Lord gave me. I have no more appetite for dead ends.
Amen... If you read this entire thread, I was bozoed by someone because I refused to read a no name no credential piece of "new evidence"... Open minds are a blessing.
Open mind and a closed mouth...too bad I've spent most of my life doing just the opposite.
I wouldnt agree to that. I was taught while young, by my Father..."Keep your mouth closed, your ears open and you MIGHT learn something". He had his doubts. hehehehe
Agreed.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy."
for me, the other evidence is much more credible and important...plz tell I don't know whether it was a plane or something else. From what I've been able to gather, and given the FBI's reluctance to release videos, from the "impossible" "folding" of wings with engines that should have detached at sudden decceleration (as in Airbus 300 incident). But the engines didn't detach in the Pentagon crash eventhough the 3-point attachment should have sheared. I've found that the engines weigh about 3500 lbs. When I worked at Pratt & Whitney I was told that the engines weighed about 8000 lbs. Reguadless, I'll repeat myself: how do engine attachments that were designed to decouple from wings to prevent wings detaching (which did work well for Airbus 300, but not for AA77) fail when AA77 hit the Pentagon? There should be some evidence that the engines detached on decelleration when the plane struck the Pentagon, and that should have resulted is some impact evidence many feet from the impact hole. In other words, there should have been two engines lying on the Petagon lawn, or there should have been at least two impact marks of the detached engines. Perhaps the laws of physics were suspened. Or the engineers of the plane and engines made mistakes by a factor past 10. What to believe. Pardon my spelling mistakes. I did some math. If the the plane was traveling at 400MPH and the engines weigh 3500lbs, the momentum of the engines was over 2.5 million lbs/ second. Imagine stopping 2.5 million pounds within one second. However, you'd have to stop that at the point at which the engines contacted the Pentagon walls; much less than one second. Therefore, much more kinetic energy applied to the wall. Of course, this would be spread through about 8 feet for the rim of the inlet at first, then the fiberglass nose attached to the front blades, but then would come the bulk of the engine. So, the figure would drop from 2.5 million to something less. I don't know what that would be. I don't recall what each previous mentioned item weighed; It's been nearly 40 years.
...with the power of conviction, there is no sacrifice.
that's the thing with this one, the size of the hole doesn't match the size of the plane.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy."
I did a bit of math and updated my response. We are in agreement on this. Some (in particular some guy named Cynicom) don't understand and never will.
...with the power of conviction, there is no sacrifice.
I forwarded your post to my pilot friend from earlier. Course he thinks it was a missile as do I. You have to question why they would use a missile for the Pentagon while using planes for the other buildings. Makes me think getting a plane to do what they claim it did is impossible.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy."
Yes, that ties with my post about Hanjour and the "door that wasn't opened" post.
...with the power of conviction, there is no sacrifice.
The speed of alleged plane, on the alleged flight path couldn't have impacted the Pentagon. Why? Because there is a phenomenon named "ground effect." At the claimed speed of the crash, the plane couldn't approach the Pentagon. It would have necessarily have approached at a much more severe angle. But then, the laws of physics were suspended (as per Cyincom).
...with the power of conviction, there is no sacrifice.
Exactly what I had heard. Did you see my post on the open door thingy? I think it was post 67.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy."
Yes, I did. That was partly why I went into the physics tingy. The "folding wings" theory doesn't reflect reality nor design parameters. As above, does any thinking person believe that an object traveling at over 400mph would "fold back?" not to you: Hay, idiots, have you seen automobile crashes at 60mph? Do you understand the energy involved in those crashes? Think what a crash at 400mph would involve. I'm thinking that I'm wasting my time (not your fault farmfriend).
...with the power of conviction, there is no sacrifice.
well there's yer problem.
Being singled out from this lineup has definitely made me proud. As I doubt there was ever a state that Yukon didn't want to defend or have for his nanny.
Well even if it did it doesn't account for the engines as you clearly pointed out. Most people don't realize just how big those engines are. My grandfather worked at the American Airlines plant in Tulsa. I remember him taking us on a tour through the facility. I was clueless until I saw the engines up close. As an aside, on that tour I went through a 747 for the first time. It was in a hanger. It was scheduled to be stripped as it had been sold to NASA. It was the 747 they used to fly the shuttle.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy."
My dad was in the Army Air Corps as a plane mechanic during WWII. He just shook his head when he saw the pictures of the Pentagon and said no comment.
which really says a lot.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy."
Newly decoded data provided by an independent researcher and computer programmer from Australia exposes
#2. To: Cynicom (#1)
(Edited)
No need to read further.
#3. To: rack42 (#2)
So, how should I interpret that statement?
#4. To: Cynicom (#3)
"Newly decoded data provided by an independent researcher and computer programmer from Australia exposes alarming evidence "
#5. To: rack42 (#4)
You base your opinion on what?
#6. To: Cynicom (#5)
#7. To: rack42 (#6)
#8. To: Cynicom (#7)
Nope. Didnt bother to read any further.
#9. To: All (#8)
#10. To: Cynicom (#1)
#11. To: rack42 (#8)
Well, thanks for not bothering to look at the data.
#12. To: RickyJ (#10)
Go away loser.
#13. To: Cynicom (#12)
#14. To: RickyJ (#13)
Enough, you are bozoed loser.
#15. To: rack42 (#0)
#16. To: rack42 (#0)
Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth
#17. To: RickyJ, all (#15)
Just bozo the .gov loser so we can discuss this damning evidence against the damn Jews who did 9/11.
#18. To: rack42, *9-11* (#0)
"The trouble with people is not that they don't know but that they know so much that ain't so." ~ Josh Billings
#19. To: Cynicom (#11)
#20. To: rack42, Cynicom, RickyJ, All (#8)
Wow, this article is going viral. Over 1000 people logged onto this thread alone at this time. We're setting records today.
#21. To: rack42, randge (#19)
#22. To: Cynicom (#21)
Do I believe the government??? Of course not. But after all these years it is time we focused our efforts on finding the ...ORIGINATORS OF 9/11 AND THEIR FEW MINIONS THAT CARRIED IT OUT...
#23. To: Phant2000 (#22)
The very reason I refuse to take part in discussions that are nothing more than a waste of time.
#24. To: Cynicom (#23)
#25. To: Cynicom (#23)
(Edited)
At that point anyone else added to the operation was merely a drone that knew ONLY his own little part, nothing more.
#26. To: Cynicom (#23)
#27. To: randge (#26)
When the government releases the tapes from the boarding gates monitoring access to the flights in question, I will continue to question who the "drones" were and whom they were working for
#28. To: Cynicom (#27)
randge...
#29. To: Cynicom (#21)
#30. To: mininggold (#28)
#31. To: christine (#30)
i don't think there's anything wrong with it. i enjoy speculating/conversation on a number of topics, but i can see where others may think it's a waste of their time. we will never know what really happened on 9/11 just as with the kennedy assassination. both government tales are ludricous.
#32. To: tom007 (#25)
I would imagine that each one was convinced that they were doing "God's Work".
#33. To: christine (#30)
but i can see where others may think it's a waste of their time. we will never know what really happened on 9/11 just as with the kennedy assassination. both government tales are ludricous.
#34. To: mininggold, christine, randge, All (#33)
#35. To: rack42 (#0)
"The trouble with people is not that they don't know but that they know so much that ain't so." ~ Josh Billings
#36. To: Cynicom (#32)
#37. To: christine (#30)
we will never know
#38. To: Cynicom, rack42 (#3)
"Newly decoded data provided by an independent researcher and computer programmer from Australia exposes alarming evidence "
#39. To: randge (#36)
That does not make the FBI co-conspirators.
#40. To: Original_Intent (#38)
After all we all know that 911 was perpetrated my "19ARABSWHOHATEUSCUZWE'REFREE" directed by a madman with his magic cell phone hidden in a secret cave in Tora Bora. You know - the super sophisticated one that was in the Snoozeweak piece on Osama Ben Forgotten's high tech Deathstar Fortress.
#41. To: randge (#36)
Six of the purported "drones" that were said to have piloted those planes are still alive. (Note that the networks have long ceased posting the pictures of the "nineteen hijackers" in their reports. Why?) I am far from convinced that the Arabs said to have flown those planes were indeed on them at all.
#42. To: christine (#30)
i don't think there's anything wrong with it. i enjoy speculating/conversation on a number of topics, but i can see where others may think it's a waste of their time. we will never know what really happened on 9/11 just as with the kennedy assassination. both government tales are ludricous.
#43. To: randge (#40)
Those that do not learn from history . . . you all know the rest of that well worn aphorism.
#44. To: Original_Intent (#43)
Like cornered rats they will fight the revelation of the truth but I think the tsunami is mounting and soon they may find themselves awash.
#45. To: mininggold (#44)
#46. To: Original_Intent (#45)
(Edited)
I'm not naming names, Turtle, but I concur.
#47. To: Original_Intent (#42)
We do know what happened on 911.
#48. To: mininggold (#44)
#49. To: yukon (#48)
#50. To: christine (#47)
We do know what happened on 911.
#51. To: yukon (#48)
(Edited)
. You're not cleared for that, whininggold!
#52. To: Original_Intent (#38)
Wasn't that easy?
#53. To: Cynicom (#52)
#54. To: Cynicom, christine, TwentyTwelve, Wudidiz, CadetD, Jethro Tull, IndieTX, bluegrass, HOUNDDAWG, Kamala, farmfriend, all (#52)
(Edited)
Wasn't that easy?
#55. To: randge (#53)
#56. To: Cynicom (#1)
#57. To: christine (#30)
we will never know what really happened on 9/11 just as with the kennedy assassination.
#58. To: Cynicom (#55)
(Edited)
Six people witness the accident, they give at least three scenarios that do not match.
What kind of plane hit WTC 7?
Why did the BBC give a filmed report, with a STANDING WTC 7 in the background, saying it had already collapsed - 25 minutes before it did collapse?
#59. To: Original_Intent (#54)
My mind is boggled at the reasoning involved, and I don't mean to be insulting, but I simply find it absurd that you would dismiss every other piece of data contrary to the Official Conspiracy Theory©® because of one piece of planted disinformation.
#60. To: bluegrass (#57)
We know what happened. We can't prove, in court, who did it.
The best gun to have, is the gun you have, when you need a gun.
#61. To: Original_Intent (#58)
Thank you, you just made my point for me.
#62. To: Cynicom (#59)
Not one iota. True or false the government account still stands.
#63. To: Original_Intent (#62)
5. Multiple Cell Phone Calls were alleged to have been made by low wattage cell phones, through signal attenauting skin of the aircraft, at ten thousand feet, doing 500 miles per hour. The technology to do that was not available at that time. The story has since morphed to "they used the plane's phone" to cover up that impossibility.
#64. To: Cynicom (#63)
Most every day I place calls from inside my auto, to a tower that is NOT LOS. (Line of sight).
Strawman Argument
#65. To: Original_Intent (#64)
At ten thousand feet?
#66. To: Original_Intent (#62)
5. Multiple Cell Phone Calls were alleged to have been made by low wattage cell phones, through signal attenauting skin of the aircraft, at ten thousand feet, doing 500 miles per hour. The technology to do that was not available at that time. The story has since morphed to "they used the plane's phone" to cover up that impossibility.
#67. To: Cynicom, rack42, Original_Intent, Lod, christine, twentytwelve, anyone else you guys can think of (#1)
THis parameter was not used for the 1991 model of the 757. There are thousands of parameters designed for a CRV but many are not used do to plane variations. Looking back at the raw data, this number has stayed zero for the previous 40 flights as well. That is impossible.
#68. To: Phant2000 (#24)
My observations agree with your's in totality.
#69. To: All (#68)
#70. To: Cynicom (#21)
But after all these years it is time we focused our efforts on finding the ...ORIGINATORS OF 9/11 AND THEIR FEW MINIONS THAT CARRIED IT OUT...
#71. To: Cynicom (#65)
Way back when I was a pup in the Air force, we carried hand held VHF radios as part of our survival gear. They worked very well. Altitude was of no consequence nor was speed. All of that is irrelevant and totally misleading.
#72. To: Original_Intent (#71)
VHF operates in a totally different and much lower frequency
#73. To: Phant2000, Cynicom (#66)
5. Multiple Cell Phone Calls were alleged to have been made by low wattage cell phones, through signal attenauting skin of the aircraft, at ten thousand feet, doing 500 miles per hour. The technology to do that was not available at that time. The story has since morphed to "they used the plane's phone" to cover up that impossibility.
#74. To: Original_Intent, Phant2000 (#73)
Here I have to rely on the work of others so there is margin for error
#75. To: Cynicom (#72)
#76. To: Original_Intent (#75)
The technology is NOT the same,
#77. To: farmfriend (#67)
I just talked a pilot friend of mine, one who believes attack was a missile. He thinks this is a non issue being used to give truthers a black eye.
#78. To: Cynicom (#76)
The technology of radio/tv has never changed. Never.
#79. To: randge (#36)
#80. To: RickyJ (#79)
"The trouble with people is not that they don't know but that they know so much that ain't so." ~ Josh Billings
#81. To: Cynicom (#76)
#82. To: all (#81)
#83. To: Phant2000, Cynicom (#22)
Do I believe the government??? Of course not. But after all these years it is time we focused our efforts on finding the ...ORIGINATORS OF 9/11 AND THEIR FEW MINIONS THAT CARRIED IT OUT...
Let me get this straight.
#84. To: Cynicom (#23)
The person that conceived this foul deed did not get his hands dirty in any way.
Let me get this straight.
#85. To: rack42 (#82)
Have all forgot that this started with "Hari H. NEVER OPENED THE COCKPIT DOOR" evidence from the NTSB?
#86. To: yukon (#48)
Top One Way to Be Sure a Government Conspiracy Exists
Let me get this straight.
#87. To: bluegrass (#85)
#88. To: rack42 (#87)
#89. To: bluegrass (#88)
#90. To: rack42 (#89)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams 
#91. To: rack42 (#89)
How is it that so many on this forum don't "get it?"
#92. To: Rotara (#90)
#93. To: rack42 (#82)
(Edited)
Hello? Have all forgot that this started with "Hari H. NEVER OPENED THE COCKPIT DOOR" evidence from the NTSB?
#94. To: RickyJ, rotara (#93)
As far as this new evidence goes, could be disinfo
#95. To: RickyJ, rotara, rack42 (#93)
#96. To: farmfriend (#95)
(Edited)
#97. To: farmfriend (#95)
post#67
#98. To: rack42, farmfriend (#97)
#99. To: bluegrass (#98)
It makes sense though. Keep on kicking the fake info out until some of us just drift away in disinterest or confusion.
#100. To: farmfriend (#67)
All this will do is give people who know that 9/11 was staged a black eye
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#101. To: Cynicom (#99)
Every time some "new" evidence surfaces, too many are too willing to accept it as the gospel. So far all are for naught.
#102. To: bluegrass (#101)
but overall I'm just running on common sense and the intuition that the good Lord gave me.
#103. To: Cynicom (#102)
#104. To: bluegrass (#103)
.too bad I've spent most of my life doing just the opposite.
#105. To: Rotara (#100)
I like now to start with Barry Jennings' eyewitness account of what happened in WTC7 (Barry was Arkancided shortly after going public).
#106. To: Rotara (#90)
(Edited)
rack, did the plane fly into the pentagon or what do you think happened ?
#107. To: rack42 (#106)
#108. To: farmfriend (#107)
#109. To: rack42 (#108)
#110. To: farmfriend (#109)
#111. To: farmfriend (#109)
(Edited)
getting a plane to do what they claim it did is impossible.
#112. To: rack42 (#111)
The speed of alleged plane, on the alleged flight path couldn't have impacted the Pentagon. Why? Because the is a phenomenon named "ground effect."
#113. To: farmfriend (#112)
Did you see my post on the open door thingy?
#114. To: Cynicom (#65)
in the Air force
The best gun to have, is the gun you have, when you need a gun.
#115. To: Critter (#86)
#1 If you suspect the government of wrongdoing, and Yukon calls you a lunatic, a conspiracy definitely exists.
#116. To: rack42 (#113)
The "folding wings" theory doesn't reflect reality nor design parameters.
#117. To: farmfriend (#116)
#118. To: mininggold (#117)
and said no comment.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest