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: 1860
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
Comments (1-38) not displayed.
.
.
.
#39. To: randge (#36)
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
Comments (79 - 118) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThat 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.
.
.
.