See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Former senator, engineers offer ‘proof’ of 9/11 controlled demolitions
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/ ... rs-911-controlled-demolitions/
Published: Sep 10, 2010
Author: Raw Story
Post Date: 2010-09-10 10:43:08 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 14867
Comments: 259
The nine-year-old body of 9/11 conspiracy theories includes many improbable (and sometimes contradictory) claims, everything from remote-controlled planes flying into the World Trade Center, to a missile hitting the Pentagon, to mass kidnappings of air passengers. But a group of more than 1,200 architects and engineers is building what it hopes is a scientifically sound argument about one 9/11 claim: That the World Trade Center buildings were destroyed not by fires caused by the airplane collisions, but by a controlled demolition. At a press conference in Washington DC, Thursday, the group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth offered evidence "that all three WTC skyscrapers on September 11, 2001, in NYC were destroyed by explosive controlled demolition." The third building the group referred to was World Trade Center 7, a skyscraper that collapsed about eight hours after the main WTC towers fell. For many 9/11 "truthers," WTC7's collapse despite not being hit by a plane is the "smoking gun" proving that something other than airplanes brought down the towers. The WTC7 collapse was not addressed in the official 9/11 Commission report. "That building fell completely into its own footprint," blogger Andrew Steele told WKTV in Utica. "You can watch on YouTube yourself and use your own common sense. Even if you don't have a scientific background ... if you have two eyes, you can see that fire alone did not bring down that building." His claims, and those of the 1,270 architects and engineers who have signed on to the effort, were bolstered by the support of former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel, who said in a press release that "critically important evidence has come forward after the original government building reports were completed." Gravel has been concerned with the events of September 11, 2001, for some time now. He has called for an independent investigation into 9/11. "Unlike the first investigation, this commission should be granted subpoena power and full access to all governmental files and personnel," Gravel wrote. "George Bush should be forced to testify ALONE." San Francisco architect Richard Gage said the way the towers collapsed was consistent with a controlled demolition, not a chaotic structural collapse. "The official FEMA and NIST reports provide insufficient, contradictory, and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers' destruction," Gage said. "We are therefore calling for a grand jury investigation of NIST officials." But Gage added that "government investigators at the NIST have been forced to acknowledge the free-fall descent, an indicting fact, after being presented with analysis by AE911Truth petition signers." On its Web site, the architects' and engineers' group lists facts that suggest explosives were used to take down the towers. -- Rapid onset of "collapse" -- Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a second before the building's destruction -- Symmetrical "structural failure" -- through the path of greatest resistance -- at free-fall acceleration -- Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds -- Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional -- FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e. -- Slow onset with large visible deformations -- Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires) -- High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never "collapsed". Debunking9/11, a Web site devoted to disproving the claims of 9/11 "truthers," argues that no aircraft was needed to bring down WTC7, because "while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7." "Truthers" and debunkers have been arguing for years over whether the scant photographic evidence of WTC7's south side after the main towers' collapse shows enough damage to justify the building's collapse. "All the buildings just as far away from both towers as WTC7 were hit," Debunking9/11 asserts. "The others were either very short buildings which didn't have to support a massive load above or had no fire. Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above them." "Justice for all." What's wrong with calling for a transparent, internationally-supported investigation? I want to know what happened that day to all of those buildings, and I want the chain of events that happened up to their collapse. Don't care how ugly the truth is, I just want to know. Why is asking for an independent investigation so bad? I'm not an engineering expert, but ALL of the buildings collapsing (WTC 1, 2, 7) look just like every other controlled demolition video I've seen from around the world. The pieces of the day's events (NORAD, Bin Laden's family being sent out, etc) don't fit together right. It just smells fishy. Who got fired for not doing their job? Who went to jail for criminal negligence? People of authority responding "nothing to see here, move along" aren't helping convince me that what we're being told is the truth. I just want to see Justice. Isn't wanting "Justice for all" patriotic?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-104) not displayed.
.
.
.
#105. To: FormerLurker (#104)
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Problem with that theory is several fold. First off, the NTSB reports that the autopilot was turned off as Flight 77 approached Washington DC. Secondly, it is not obvious HOW to enable or disable autopilot, it is a function of the flight management computer. Hani Hanjour, the alleged "pilot", never trained on a 757 simulator, nor was he even capable of flying a Cessna, let alone a multi-engine jumbo jet. Finally, not even a highly trained professional pilot can negate the laws of physics and aerodynamics, and not only did the plane fly too low at too high of a speed to be able to hit the Pentagon nose first and flying level, but there is no evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon since the windows aren't broken where the wings would have struck at 500+ mph. My hypothesis includes the following theories; a) The crews and passengers of all "hijacked" aircraft were subdued and/or neutralized with chemical agents such as nerve gas pumped into the ventilation systems. b) The planes were taken over by remote control, as you suggest. c) Regardless of whether the actual "hijacked" planes struck the World Trade Center towers, or some other specially equipped aircraft made to LOOK like those hijacked planes, they weren't being flown by "angry arabs", some of whom are still alive to this day. d) Whatever struck the Pentagon was NOT a 757, thus NOT Flight 77. What it comes down to is that the "official" story is pure BS, and the media as well as the government are complicit in the ONGOING coverup.
If you can accept that premise, then what follows is a step into "truther" land, whether you want to take that step or not. There is the philosophical difference. I require evidence to accept these theories, some of which are ludicrous. Some of the rest of you simply say the offered explanation is ludicrous therefore you can just make up shit, however ridiculous. You have to have a standard for evidence, for falsifiability. If you abandon that, you end up with a cause but no science to back. This happens over and over in fields like anthropology or sociology or climatology (global hotting) or evolution. If your beliefs cannot be falsified or proven by evidence, you have a religion, not science. I recommend reading the science philosopher, Karl Popper, who makes it quite clear what is and is not science based on the sound standard of empirical falsifiability. If you don't understand the difference, you can never convince intelligent modern people that your ideas are valid. This is one reason why the global hotting scammers failed. Fundamentally flawed and unfalsifiable "science". You have to have replicable evidence, plausibility, elimination of alternative explanations, etc. And most of all, you must discard theories once they are proven false (a key sign of scamming). Otherwise, you end up with something like a religious belief, not science. Hell, you guys should love Popper, brilliant man who was the son of ex-Jewish Christian parents.
I admit ONLY to having a lot of fun with wud and the others that have a sense of humor. If he complains to Christine I will be banned and a tin can tied to my tail.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Now there is the usefulness of that event. One more step to getting the people to accept the yoke, all in the name of security.
That was never an "official" video. It was not obtained through the FOIA, it was supposedly "leaked". It is obvious that it's a CGI animation, in that there is no debris being scattered into the air such as a real impact would have caused. Also, the video from those cameras which WOULD have captured the actual approach of the aircraft have never been released. Here's the viewpoint THOSE cameras would have had... The autopilot or another hackable system could be hacked for this. But he could have held the stick while the autopilot and one or more flight control computers were reprogrammed. These devices undoubtedly use solid-state memory for their OS (flashable memory) like your computer or cellphone do. But a reprogrammed autopilot could certainly do so. These planes have exceptionally sophisticated autopilot systems and the flight characteristics of these aircraft are extremely well-documented. Again, some of this would require access to internal data from the aircraft manufacturer but much of it could be computed manually or drawn from sources at maintenance depots. I have considered this (or just causing the cabin pressure and emergency air supply to fail, smothering the crew and passengers and possibly even the hijackers as well. The problem is that you probably want the terrorist with minimal piloting skills to remain alive to the last moment so he could re-target the aircraft to a very large and impressive target if he realized the hacked autopilot could not hit the target accurately. And then you would have to fake the cell phone calls from the passengers and so on. No, it gets too complicated, not plausible. Not remotely. Hacked with a portable kit, maybe in a cellphone or iPod, carried onboard by the terrorists. Prove it. Produce these terrorists. Not vague rumors or scanty and unsubstantiated reports from goofball newspapers in the Third World. I require evidence when you make these claims. And since you guys have already discredited yourselves with these claims so many times already, don't post 20 of your crappy homemade YouTubes and then get mad because I won't give you hours of my life just to view the same bilge you've tried to pawn off for years. I believe the evidence supports that it was Flight 77. I've read all these objections that it wasn't a 757 and I find them ridiculous. Moreover, you ignore that these airliners could be autopiloted with high reliability so why would you send a missile that you would have to risk wouldn't pass muster as a fake airliner when you could just send the airliner? You'd have to kill or disappear the passengers or crew anyway and you'd have to take a chance that even if flying under radar, some pilot or bystander would notice you flying or landing that 757 at an airbase or crashing it into a lake or whatever and you'd still have to obliterate the evidence. It makes no sense at all, not that that bothers most Truthers a bit. Some of you don't realize that when you mix plausible or possible explanations and alternative theories with wild conspiracy theories that make no sense, it discredits even the questions raised that are valid. This is the kind of thing where you can be your own worst enemy when it comes to convincing people of your theories in numbers large enough to make a difference. BTW, I believe that some of the Truther celebs and leaders are con-men and are likely in the pay of FBI/CIA/etc. simply to discredit the entire Truther movement. Classic agentes provocateurs, FBI style. Very useful and flexible tactics to use against unsophisticated opponents.
I sought of doubt that. I can see the tin can part, but I don't think you'd get banned...
If these guys were such experts, they wouldn't need to even physically be on those aircraft.
I will say for the thousandth time, WTC 7 is the weak point. Very few non-Truthers, exposed to what happened, will fail to doubt the gooberment acount. Knock down that domino and the rest may fall, in much the way the global hottists collapsed once their "data" was exposed as cooked and fraudulent. Naturally, you have to discard old theories once evidence disproves them. However, we can see that that does not actually happen with Truthing. It reminds me of how often evolution or Marxist economic and historical theory were put to the evideniary test, failed utterly, and they just fluffed the theory around the edges and then pretended that now they had corrected their model. No, you have to have empirical falsifiability. You have to be able to test your theory against the evidence and abide by it. This is how real science works. I don't either. WTC 7 wasn't hit, didn't get hit by the other buildings, no credible evidence that enough flaming debris hit it, no video to show serious fires, etc. But the failure of their evidence still doesn't help us prove our own theory. Still, if you can convince enough people that the explanation is utterly ludicrous, you might force a real independent investigation into it, assuming that the real evidence has not already been destroyed.
More than likely the FMS (Flight Management Computer) is servicable from an access panel, but needs special cables tied into a test set in order to set it to maintenance mode in order to reflash the EPROMS. I highly doubt the scenario, since I don't think it's possible to reset the FMS or reprogram it while in flight.
No, an aircraft of the size and wingspan of a large airliner most certainly COULD NOT fly that low to the ground at that high of a speed and DESCEND. It would CLIMB, not DESCEND.
They wouldn't be experts or hackers. They would be carrying a preprogrammed hacking device (laptop, cellphone, calculator, iPod or even a small unclad circuit board). You could always suborn ground crew at the originating terminals to hack the flight computer and autopilot at the airport before departure. I tend to think that you would want a jihadi with very rudimentary piloting skills to steer to a really large alternative target if the hacked autopilot couldn't get the job done. This is important because you would know that security would get much tighter following an attack and you would not get such an easy chance at such an attack ever again.
No need to do so if the actual planes struck their targets, since everything could be done by remote control. It's possible however that certain assets onboard the aircraft donned masks on cue, and flew the aircraft to remote locations, disposing of the passengers, if OTHER aircraft actually hit those targets.
I'm talking about the people behind the attacks. Why bother with crazy arabs if you can do it with a chip? The level of sophistation required is well beyond simple hacking of a iPod or other such device. In order to hack something, you need the real thing available in order to even attempt to find a way to hack it. I doubt they had 757's sitting on the ground at their disposal, well, not those 19 "angry arabs" at least.
Strangely enough, I believe that airliners fly that close to the ground every day. As we write, I expect a dozen or more airliners around the world are flying exactly that close to the ground without climbing. This is commonly known as "landing the aircraft". Somehow we really see this in fundamentally different ways. I believe that aircraft actually land on a routine basis. You guys do know that we gave up fly-by-wire a while back, that these are all electronic computerized systems that control the flight surfaces? Hell, even your car has computer controlled braking systems and your car throttle is a computer system. Fly-by-wire is getting to be a dated concept even in $20,000 cars.
Is the UK the "third world"?
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
This is commonly known as "landing the aircraft". Strangely enough, airliners don't land at 500 mph (which is their cruising speed at 35,000 feet). They land at about 150 to 185 mph.
The US government (or factions thereof) doesn't need physical bodies onboard an aircraft in order to fly it remotely, as can be witnessed by the existance of drones.
There IS no evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon. Did the wings disappear by magic? Did "Allah" make them disappear, and make the fuel disappear as well since there were no external fires where the fuel would have splattered all over the Pentagon walls?
You need a rudimentary backup in case your hacking and programming proves inadequate in practice because you'll never again get such a good chance to attack this easily. I would be very surprised if you had 1024-bit (or greater) encryption methods and hardware protection of these systems. Industrial systems are never as state of the art as even a PS3 or Xbox or some cellphones. This is why members of Congress routinely refer to the dangers of computer systems being hacked, because these systems are often wide open. They are hackable. No box can be built that is unhackable. Period. When we start doing location-based quantum encryption, maybe we can get away from that but at present no system is totally secure. There is only "more secure" and "less secure". The rest is just applying enough brainpower and resources. It wouldn't even be very expensive to do this actually. You wouldn't need anything like that. You would only need to take an autopilot or have complete specs of it and a copy of the OS and a compatible hardware system to test it on. You'd have to fake up a set of programmable sensor inputs and such for testing the rig. Then it's just programming. If you could obtain circuit boards that were replaced by an incrementally newer version, you could easily use that as a basis for formulating an electronic attack on a new system. These kinds of industrial systems are very rarely rebuilt from the ground up; they are incrementally revised and they use fairly standard parts. Even if they use the security features in certain microcontrollers to hide their code and such, there are well-known methods using ordinary electron microscopes and lab equipment to strip away the outside of chips and read the chips' internal circuitry directly, leading to discovery of vulnerabilities, many of which are unknown to the designers of the system. Unless you make the security of the system your first and foremost and obsessive objective, you cannot hope to withstand attacks by bright engineers and hackers with equipment easily obtained for less than $25 million (I include that number for a nice high-end lab equipped for complete reverse-engineering). And, yes, you could easily build it in a cave. Recruiting the talent for such a project is probably more challenging than building the lab or getting access to specs and software for the flight systems.
True. But those cellphone conversations would be hard to fake and are a vital part of the propaganda attack on the citizens, aren't they? They could have brought a small diathermy generator onboard to jam all the cellphones. Not that hard to do and not even illegal. Yet they did not. You have to conclude that They considered it irrelevant or that they actually desired to have those cellphone calls made on the record to help maximize the propaganda value. Terrorism always has a purpose. You have to change the way people think, how they react, perhaps most important: alter their first response in the future. You should never overlook the element of mind control in terrorism. You have to condition the mental and emotional responses of the target population. This is the fundamental political objective. And this is true whether you think that "They" are 1) Mossad, 2) CIA, 3) Arab terrorists. The goal of terrorism must be constant.
You need to understand the architecture, and have intimate knowledge of the control systems. It's not something a guy living in a cave would be able to do.
The "autopilot" is essentially the heart of the Flight Management System and ties navigational inputs and flight data systems into a sophisticated AI program which sends digital and analog outputs to control systems throughout the aircraft. It's certainly not an iPod, and well beyond anything someone could hack in their cave or even their well equipped garage.
Even the FBI admitted that the cell phone calls to Solicitor Olson never occured. There was one connection attempt, with a call duration of 0 seconds. Even IF some of those calls were actually made, it is quite easy these days for a particular person's voice to be synthesized from somebody else's. It's also possible that those making the calls, the actual passengers involved, were part of the plot. It's also possible that those REPORTING the calls are lying. Fact is, cellphone calls made from an aircraft at cruising altitude back then were virtually impossible. The factors include the confusion between towers as to which one should handle the call (since an aircraft at altitude would reach more than one from the same relative distance), and the very quick transition from one tower's coverage into another's.
You have to look at who benefits, and who doesn't. It's not hard to see who DID benefit, and they certainly weren't Afghani tribesmen living off goat milk and poppies.
If your angle of descent is programmed and you have full control of air control surfaces via computer and can respond in milliseconds to the instruments, yes, you can hit the ground exactly that way. The flight control program would use GPS and a programmed descent path so that the aircraft hit the ground and the building. If you are coming in at 500mph at even a modest incline, the ground effects cannot force you back up into the air because of inertia. I find this particular item of Truth especially annoying. Believe me, you cannot simply pose arguments that end up along the lines of irresistable-force-meets-immovable-object. It really doesn't work that way in the real world; ask any engineer. If the plane is in a basic approach pattern but programmed to touch down exactly at the outside edge of the building, the speed and inertia of that huge-ass aircraft would overcome the ground effect that would try to rebuff the plane back up further from the ground. So it might rebuff the aircraft except that it hit and devastated the Pentagon before the ground effect could force it back into the air. This argument does overcome the need for a human pilot to fly an airliner below treetop level for a mile or more at 500mph. I would expect an autopilot controlling the flight would make much more sense since no pilot training program would ever try to teach even airline pilots how to fly such a big plane so fast so near the ground. You would almost have to have it under computer control or have an insanely expert and daring pilot. Ah, well, maybe I do have my own cranky little Truth going here, eh? I'm gonna go slumming for election news elsewhere. Enough Truth for one day.
I find the evidence for those calls lacking and his own accounts kept shifting, making me think he was an incredibly overrated attorney or he would grasp the importance of a credible and unvarying account. I think he made it up for whatever reason, most likely vanity. I never liked or trusted him at all, even prior to 9/11. And his recent gay-marriage case just confirms how dishonest I consider him to be. I'm willing to accept some of the calls were made on the NYC planes. I don't find the cellphone calls make or break the case for or against the gooberment account of 9/11. As I said, there is a distinct propaganda value to be achieved by allowing this kind of personalized account, something that grips people emotionally. It is, for instance, far more psychologically effective than just blowing up a building with explosives. It creates a much more dramatic and participative drama for the target population. You have to think about what They (whoever they are) were trying to accomplish, what terrorism will always seek to accomplish if it is rationally conceived as a political tactic.
If your angle of descent is programmed and you have full control of air control surfaces via computer and can respond in milliseconds to the instruments, yes, you can hit the ground exactly that way. Prove it. Show me the math and the physics. Why go through this elaborate side show with Hanjour at various flight schools, pretending he could fly a plane? The fact is, you apparently fail to understand the complexity of programming such a feat for ONE aircraft, never mind FIVE separate aircraft. If anything, the most sophistication involved was a complete takeover of the flight systems by a remote operations center, with a human pilot actually flying the aircraft remotely, as is currently done with drones. Cruise missiles CAN be programmed to hit their targets on their own, but their flight systems are a LOT less complicated than that of an airliner's. What it involves is a 3D map of the actual terrain, and the required altitude and course to fly to hit that target. The 9/11 aircraft did not hug the ground as a cruise missle would have to do, they flew like normal aircraft till they approached their desinations, THEN flew relatively low to the ground (the Pentagon aircraft flew at treetop level on it's approach). Do you seriously believe "terrorists" using boxcutters to subdue the crew and passengers would have that degree of sophistication, where the actual flight was controlled by hacked software at a level of complexity equal to or beyond that of which is available to the US government?
Thing is, for the plane to descend it would have to lose airspeed, yet it increased airspeed at the beginning of the approach while maintaining the same relative altitude, then somehow descended without losing airspeed or pointing the nose down. That's pretty much impossible for an airliner, but not impossible for a cruise missile painted to LOOK like an airliner.
What if you have suborned some Muzzie aircraft technicians, computer science whizzes and a few aerospace engineers? No, nothing is unhackable. I could, for instance, describe to you the integrated operation of some ordinary security interlock systems for routine satellite reception, something that has to resist serious hacking attempts. One that I was familiar with was the old dual-tuner Dtivo units. These had a PowerPC CPU, two independent programmable (and hackable) tuner chips, and a programmable MPEG decoder chip. These interlocked with the control card (HU series) which was a reflashable CPU which included features to fuse certain parts of the circuitry permanently if they desired to defeat attacks on it. Yet, I assure you this system was utterly hacked over and over. I myself worked on finding the ZKT check code from the PowerPC chip and disabling it. Ultimately, we never fully penetrated it and never did discover the Magic Number (commonly a prime number thousands of digits long, an expensive proprietary number which was embedded in the security card at the circuit level). Yet we all knew that the security system could be utterly defeated and every secret found if we ever got that number. And we knew how to do it but no one had the lab for it. Still, the unit was hacked to death despite its fundamental security remaining locked. In the original Xbox, you had signed code and an encrypted BIOS with 1024-bit encryption. Much as with the recent PS3 attacks, you simply find ways to seize control of the bus and induce buffer overruns at boot time. Once you have seized control, you can generally allow all the security mechanisms to keep running but since you are already in control, you can neuter them pretty easily. There is no such thing as unhackable. I tend to believe that anything that can ever be built can and will be hacked. But that is an article of faith, not something I can prove. It's not generally recognized but these security systems actually train people for all kinds of hacking. The list of hacked and hackable devices is quite long. As hundreds of thousands of people become technically familiar with how to hack an iPhone or a PS3 or an Xbox360, these techniques can be readily applied by competent technicians to attack almost any system, probably up to an including nuclear weapons safety interlock devices. No black box is safe from a curious persistent mind with some decent equipment.
You can keep repeating this but I don't believe you can prove it. Tell me, if you have an airliner at 20,000 feet and your pilot points the nose downward at the ground, you will hit the ground, won't you? Let's say you pin the plane into a nosedive. We can agree that you will hit the ground, there once you are below a certain altitude, say 4000-5000 feet, there is no chance you can pull out because the inertia is too great. So would it work the same if you only aimed at the ground with a 45-degree approach angle. Yes. But you could pull out of the dive a little longer. Same applies at 20-degree angle. Or 10 or 5. The real problem I have with this is that denying an airliner can hit a building in this way relies on the removal of inertia as a factor. And I do demand that Truthers aren't allowed to repeal the fundamental laws of physics. Next thing you know, they'll toss entropy on the bonfire and the whole universe will go poof. LOL. Now I am going to go follow the elections. So don't leave me 5,000 posts to catch up with.
No real election coverage yet except an unprecedented GOP turnout in Delaware. Normally, a GOP election in DE is about 20 depressed Republicans who turn out to determine who gets to lose to the Democrat (a moron like Biden). The huge turnout may indicate Dems who registered GOP to vote O'Donnell or may represent Republicans fed up with the state GOP or Republicans determined to get rid of Castle. Or all of the above. They have to stop the scammers and con-men and attention whores (and, likely, agentes provocateurs) from discrediting them with the public.
That is another piece that doesn't fit. Silverstein was bright enough, and savvy enough, as a real estate investor to not take on those two White Elephants to begin with. While he may not have been exactly in the know he was likely directed to buy the leases. Probably because he is a Sayanim. And a couple billion in insurance money buys a lot of silence. Having Silverstein take it over gets the government employees out of there and his people in. This provides easier access and people who are easier to shut up, and won't be as noticeable if they have to be given a complete "shut up".
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Where's that tin can?
FormerLurker: There IS no evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon. Did the wings disappear by magic? Did "Allah" make them disappear, and make the fuel disappear as well since there were no external fires where the fuel would have splattered all over the Pentagon walls? I'm going to guess that the wings folded up to shield the nose of the aircraft prior to impact there. This theory is based on my firsthand experience as a pretend plane from time to time during childhood, even though I wasn't powered by jet fuel and not much concerned about ground effects unless I ran into something in my flightpath unexpectedly. If I was going to dive backwards onto the sofa (not the Status Of Forces Agreement kind of SOFA, but the couch) such as the alleged plane at Shanksville, my "wings"/arms might fold down and in towards my side but if I was going to land face-first like the alleged plane at the Pentagon, I would be more apt to move them forward and up to cover my nose and eyes. While this is a true story, I am of course not seriously suggesting that real planes would act so. This short detour should in no way reflect negatively on other Truthers. I just figured if TooCon could go to such lengths to spell out remote control as PS3 and XBox and cellphones and X numbers of alleged Muzzie aircraft technicians without so much as addressing counter remote control measures available to our Military like F-16s and AWACS and EMP devices, why not use Game Theory to try to explain the wing anomaly at the Pentagon somehow. I thought it sounded funner than waiting much longer for TC to get to the F-16/AWACS/EMP type complexities of remote control counter- measure risks to the alleged hijackers of the Official spin.
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
i've grown rather fond of the olde man. i'm stuck with him or he's stuck with me. ;P
Don't confuse us with the Official Conspiracy crowd. They're the ones who have been trying to repeal the fundamental laws of physics. Quick, tell us your theory of why WTC 7 fell. We're not getting any younger and neither is the universe just because you want to keep us all in suspense about that.
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Comments (145 - 259) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#106. To: TooConservative (#103)
Not that I want to discuss it in detail but I've long mused that it would be quite possible for a single aircraft electronics technician familiar with the autopilot-GPS systems to hack out a program that could be uploaded into the aircraft systems by a terrorist in only a few moments (while an unskilled pilot held the stick steady in flight while safely thousands of feet in the air) and you could program the aircraft to fly quite precisely to its target, no expert human terminal guidance would be required. None.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#107. To: ghostdogtxn (#95)
The collapse of WTC7 itself is evidence. It was filmed from several angles, and it makes no sense at all that it fell from fire or airplane parts.
#108. To: FormerLurker (#104)
So do you at least admit the official story is a lie?
#109. To: TooConservative (#107)
#110. To: ghostdogtxn (#109)
Unfortunately, since the official myth of that day has been used to justify all kinds of shit, from me being frisked/fondled at the airport to the predator droning of some poor-ass thirteen year old bedouin shepherd on some mountain in some stan or another
#111. To: TooConservative (#103)
You could program it the autopilot to guide the plane into the Pentagon only a few feet off the ground, just as the video tapes (obtained by FOIA requests in 2006) showed the plane hitting the building.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#112. To: FormerLurker (#106)
First off, the NTSB reports that the autopilot was turned off as Flight 77 approached Washington DC.
Secondly, it is not obvious HOW to enable or disable autopilot, it is a function of the flight management computer. Hani Hanjour, the alleged "pilot", never trained on a 757 simulator, nor was he even capable of flying a Cessna, let alone a multi-engine jumbo jet.
Finally, not even a highly trained professional pilot can negate the laws of physics and aerodynamics, and not only did the plane fly too low at too high of a speed to be able to hit the Pentagon nose first and flying level, but there is no evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon since the windows aren't broken where the wings would have struck at 500+ mph.
a) The crews and passengers of all "hijacked" aircraft were subdued and/or neutralized with chemical agents such as nerve gas pumped into the ventilation systems.
b) The planes were taken over by remote control, as you suggest.
c) Regardless of whether the actual "hijacked" planes struck the World Trade Center towers, or some other specially equipped aircraft made to LOOK like those hijacked planes, they weren't being flown by "angry arabs", some of whom are still alive to this day.
d) Whatever struck the Pentagon was NOT a 757, thus NOT Flight 77.
#113. To: Cynicom (#108)
If he complains to Christine I will be banned and a tin can tied to my tail.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#114. To: TooConservative (#112)
The autopilot or another hackable system could be hacked for this.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#115. To: ghostdogtxn (#109)
The problem I have is that the official mythology is essentially proved false by the way WTC7 fell. It doesn't work, and no amount of bullshit thrown at the problem makes it work.
Which means something else happened than what we are told happened. I don't "know" what that something else was. But a rational person, once he finds that one hypothesis is disproved by evidence, does not cling to that hypothesis. The choice is to formulate a new hypothesis or abandon the inquiry.
but I don't accept the collapse of WTC7 from debris and fire
#116. To: TooConservative (#112)
But he could have held the stick while the autopilot and one or more flight control computers were reprogrammed. These devices undoubtedly use solid-state memory for their OS (flashable memory) like your computer or cellphone do.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#117. To: TooConservative (#112)
But a reprogrammed autopilot could certainly do so. These planes have exceptionally sophisticated autopilot systems and the flight characteristics of these aircraft are extremely well-documented.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#118. To: FormerLurker (#114)
If these guys were such experts, they wouldn't need to even physically be on those aircraft.
#119. To: TooConservative (#112)
The problem is that you probably want the terrorist with minimal piloting skills to remain alive to the last moment so he could re-target the aircraft to a very large and impressive target if he realized the hacked autopilot could not hit the target accurately.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#120. To: TooConservative (#118)
They wouldn't be experts or hackers. They would be carrying a preprogrammed hacking device (laptop, cellphone, calculator, iPod or even a small unclad circuit board).
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#121. To: FormerLurker (#117)
No, an aircraft of the size and wingspan of a large airliner most certainly COULD NOT fly that low to the ground at that high of a speed and DESCEND. It would CLIMB, not DESCEND.
#122. To: TooConservative (#112)
Prove it. Produce these terrorists. Not vague rumors or scanty and unsubstantiated reports from goofball newspapers in the Third World.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#123. To: TooConservative (#115)
#124. To: TooConservative (#121)
Strangely enough, I believe that airliners fly that close to the ground every day. As we write, I expect a dozen or more airliners around the world are flying exactly that close to the ground without climbing.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#125. To: TooConservative (#112)
Not remotely. Hacked with a portable kit, maybe in a cellphone or iPod, carried onboard by the terrorists.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#126. To: TooConservative (#112)
I believe the evidence supports that it was Flight 77.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#127. To: FormerLurker (#120)
I'm talking about the people behind the attacks. Why bother with crazy arabs if you can do it with a chip?
The level of sophistation required is well beyond simple hacking of a iPod or other such device. In order to hack something, you need the real thing available in order to even attempt to find a way to hack it.
I doubt they had 757's sitting on the ground at their disposal, well, not those 19 "angry arabs" at least.
#128. To: FormerLurker (#125)
The US government (or factions thereof) doesn't need physical bodies onboard an aircraft in order to fly it remotely, as can be witnessed by the existance of drones.
#129. To: TooConservative (#127)
I would be very surprised if you had 1024-bit (or greater) encryption methods and hardware protection of these systems. Industrial systems are never as state of the art as even a PS3 or Xbox or some cellphones. This is why members of Congress routinely refer to the dangers of computer systems being hacked, because these systems are often wide open.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#130. To: TooConservative (#127)
You would only need to take an autopilot or have complete specs of it and a copy of the OS and a compatible hardware system to test it on. You'd have to fake up a set of programmable sensor inputs and such for testing the rig. Then it's just programming.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#131. To: TooConservative (#128)
True. But those cellphone conversations would be hard to fake and are a vital part of the propaganda attack on the citizens, aren't they?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#132. To: TooConservative (#128)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#133. To: FormerLurker (#124)
Strangely enough, airliners don't land at 500 mph (which is their cruising speed at 35,000 feet).
#134. To: FormerLurker (#131)
Even the FBI admitted that the cell phone calls to Solicitor Olson never occured.
Even IF some of those calls were actually made, it is quite easy these days for a particular person's voice to be synthesized from somebody else's. It's also possible that those making the calls, the actual passengers involved, were part of the plot.
#135. To: TooConservative (#133)
(Edited)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#136. To: TooConservative (#133)
Believe me, you cannot simply pose arguments that end up along the lines of irresistable-force-meets-immovable-object. It really doesn't work that way in the real world; ask any engineer. If the plane is in a basic approach pattern but programmed to touch down exactly at the outside edge of the building, the speed and inertia of that huge-ass aircraft would overcome the ground effect that would try to rebuff the plane back up further from the ground. So it might rebuff the aircraft except that it hit and devastated the Pentagon before the ground effect could force it back into the air.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#137. To: FormerLurker (#130)
The "autopilot" is essentially the heart of the Flight Management System and ties navigational inputs and flight data systems into a sophisticated AI program which sends digital and analog outputs to control systems throughout the aircraft.
#138. To: FormerLurker (#136)
Thing is, for the plane to descend it would have to lose airspeed, yet it increased airspeed at the beginning of the approach while maintaining the same relative altitude, then somehow descended without losing airspeed or pointing the nose down.
#139. To: ghostdogtxn (#123)
It is the great leaps into conspiratorial theories that aren't at all supported by the evidence, when what should be done is a baby-step by baby-step serious inquiry.
I do see among Truther activists more recently a much greater seriousness about pursuing their goal in a narrower and single-minded way and with a much more disciplined message as a group.
#140. To: FormerLurker, Red Jones (#82)
(Edited)
Silverstein was looking for a way out of the WTC as the towers were loaded with asbestos and were loosing money, and to strip them of the asbestos would have cost more money than they were worth.
#141. To: christine, Cynicom, FormerLurker (#108)
#142. To: FormerLurker (#126)
TooConservative: I believe the evidence supports that it was Flight 77.
#143. To: wudidiz, Cynicom (#141)
#144. To: TooConservative (#138)
I do demand that Truthers aren't allowed to repeal the fundamental laws of physics. Next thing you know, they'll toss entropy on the bonfire and the whole universe will go poof. LOL.
.
.
.