See other 9/11 Articles
Title: How 9/11 Was Done
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://physics911.net/how-911-was-done/
Published: Sep 3, 2012
Author: http://physics911.net/how-911-was-done/
Post Date: 2012-09-03 14:09:24 by tom007
Keywords: None
Views: 18896
Comments: 674
How 9/11 Was Done For additional notes see the accompanying blog 911notes.blogspot.com. Prologue Read the following two screens of text to learn what happened at 9/11. 9/11 was a master plot, concocted by a handfull of Israelis and dual passport Americans and carried out by the resources of the Mossad. Larry Silverstein leases a nearly worthless dinosaur WTC building complex (worthless due to the asbestos the buildings were stuffed with and needed to be cleaned up, the cost of which may have rivaled the value of the buildings themselves) weeks before 9/11, makes sure it is over insured against terrorist acts and hires an Israeli security firm. From that moment on the coast is clear to let a team of demolition experts from the Israeli army led by Peer Segalovitz into the WTC buildings. These charges plus detonators had been prepared at the premises of the Urban Moving Systems company, a Mossad front. During the weeks before 9/11 these prepared charges were loaded into vans, driven into the basements of WTC Twin Towers next to the elevator shaft, unloaded into the elevator, and lifted onto the roof of the elevator through the opening in the elevator ceiling. Next the elevator moved from floor to floor while charges where being attached to the columns as displayed in this video from 0:22 onwards. The detonators of these charges were radiographic controlled and finally detonated from WTC7 on the day of 9/11. Fast backward, Hamburg 54 Marienstrasse, july 2000, 22:40. Mohamed Atta, Al Shehhi and Jarrah (who were later blamed of being the pilots of flight 11, 175 and 93 respectively), who share the apartment hear the ringing of the door bell. Jarrah opens the door, 5 masked men make their way into the apartment with drawn pistols. The 3 Arabs are forced to lay on the ground. Their passports are confiscated, next the 3 men are made unconscious with some liquid and strangled to death afterwards. The bodies are carried out of the apartment into a van and driven off towards a desolate spot at the boarding of the Elbe river outside Hamburg, 1 kilometer north of Borstel and disposed of into the river with a bag filled with stones tied to their feet. The 3 passports are now in the possession of the agents of the Mossad, who carried out the raid on the apartment and 3 Arabs have vanished without anybody knowing that they are dead. Not long after the raid the 3 passports are given to 3 Israeli agents who were selected on having some resemblance with the 3 Arabs just killed. They make for America soon afterwards in the summer of 2000 and start laying a trail at flight schools, posing with the stolen identities from the 3 Arabs killed. Years earlier the israeli Michael Goff working for PTech, an Arab owned software company that develops key enterprise software for many government institutions like NORAD and FAA, using his secure channel with another israeli Amit Yoran, somehow manages to give Israeli army computer programmers access to this critical computer code. It was due to this manipulation that the hijackings on 9/11 remained unnoticed by the flight controller of NORAD. Once this was in place the planes could be taken over by remote control and flown into the World Trade Center. The hijacking of airliners by remote control had been tested as a dress rehearsal for 9/11 on the Egypt Air flight 990 that crashed into the Atlantic on October 31, 1999. Now everything was in place to commit the crime of the century. On the day of 9/11 the Israeli stand-ins for the ‘Arab hijackers’ showed up at the predestined departure airports to make sure they were captured on surveillance camera’s. The crucial point here is that the security at both the departure airports was in hands of an Israeli firm Huntleigh-USA, a subsidiary of the Dutch based but Israeli owned ICTS led by a fellow named Menahem Atzmon. And this is crucial: Atzmon used to be a colleague of Olmert in 1998. So there you have the link between the 9/11 operative level (an airport security firm) and the highest level of Israeli politics. What happened on the morning of 9/11 was that after the Israeli stand-ins were captured on camera, they left the airport via a side entrance and the show could begin. Minutes after the planes became air born somebody somehow was able to send a signal to the planes, causing the control panels to be disabled and the flight destination altered. What happened was that an anti-hijack system was activated (code word ‘home run’) and the regular pilot was put out of control. This pilot will probably have tried frantically to regain control of his aircraft. It is not very likely he will have told his passengers about the new situation since that would only cause panic. The passengers probably suspected nothing and hence had no reason to make any phone calls to their relatives (which were not possible anyway). And while the 9/11 passengers unsuspecting travel towards their immanent deaths, on the ground from a war room Israeli agents carry out phone calls to relatives of the passengers that were still in the air, using voice morphing technology and caller-ID spoofing and thus planted the Arabs-did-it-deception in the public consciousness. The sound samples necessary to carry out the fake telephone calls had been obtained via the israeli infiltration of American telephone networks by Israeli firms like Amdocs and Verint. By the time that the passengers were puzzled as they discerned the New York sky line it was already too late. Meanwhile on the other side of the Hudson river the members of the Israeli team that planted the demolition charges were waiting for things to happen. And while the rest of New York experienced in horror the events that were unfolding that day, the demolition experts were celebrating and high-fiving. The plot had worked out magnificently. *** Please save this page to your local hard drive *** This blog is the verbal expression of an adaptive learning process. Please come back regularly. Core Argument Ok, I admit. Some elements in this story are speculative. I do not know for instance if Atta was killed in Germany or in America. But the story is an coherent educated speculation. It is an attempt to reconstruct the events of 9/11. Myriads of web sites exist that expose the inconsistencies in the official story, that obviously is a fraud. This story offers an integral explanation of what could have happened and in all likelihood more or less did happen at 9/11 as there can be hardly any doubt about who was behind 9/11 if one rejects the official story. Some elements remain vague, like what happened exactly to WTC7, flight77, flight93 or Mohamed Atta. But these questions are of academic interest only. It’s clear who was behind 9/11 and what happened in detail with WTC-1/2 and the planes. That is enough. Here’s where most people got killed. The rest of the plot can be uncovered by a tribunal. In order to prevent that you get swallowed up by yet another 10 meters of screen text here is the core of the argument. The story is based on 2 broadly accepted postulates: 1) WTC was brought down by controlled demolition 2) The ‘dancing Israelis’ on the morning of 9/11 had foreknowledge of things to come These 2 premises are enough to put the Official Conspiracy Theory (Arabs did it) out of business. Premise 2 leads to the preliminary conclusion that the Israelis had foreknowledge because they organized the attacks themselves. Since Israelis are not known to commit suicide attacks we have to assume that the airplanes that crashed into their destinations were remote controlled. If one accepts this as a working hypothesis than there is a lot, I mean really a lot, of material that supports this Israeli Conspiracy Theory that replaces the official Arab Conspiracy Theory. We have the dedicated Zionist Silverstein who leases the WTC complex and over insures it against terrorism (leading to a hansom profit); we know that security at all departure airports and ‘arrival airports’ (WTC) was in Israeli hands (Huntleigh-USA and Kroll Associates, resp.); we know that the owner of Huntleigh-USA, Menachem Atzmon, a convicted criminal, had strong ties to Ehud Olmert, that is the highest level of Israeli politics; we also know that the Israeli secret service can eavesdrop on virtually everybody in the USA via Israeli owned companies like Amdocs and Verint which gave the Mossad the possibility to obtain sound samples of future 9/11 passengers to apply voice morphing to in order to make the fake phone calls on 9/11. And of course there is Dov Zakheim, the real mastermind of 9/11 who was CEO of SPC for 4 years prior to 9/11, a company that produces systems for remote control of airplanes. The same Zakheim that was a member of the Zionist dominated PNAC group, that more or less plotted for a global American empire, and suggested that a ‘New Pearl Harbor‘ (page 51) could speed things up a bit; and finally the same Zakheim that 6 months before 9/11 became supervisor of a group of Pentagon comptrollers that had to sort out what had happened to the 2.3 trillion dollars that were missing from the Pentagon books; many of these comptrollers conveniently got killed on 9/11 and much of the financial data went with them. This is the core of the story. Note: I am not claiming that 9/11 is solved. Of this however we can be certain: WTC controlled demolition, Israelis carried out the operation, no Arab hijackers, mastermind Zakheim, motive PNAC & Clean Break and remote control. I do not care about flight77 or 93, those are details to be solved by crime investigators. The most pressing question is that of remote control: how was that done? Were the original flights 11 and 175 remote controlled themselves or was there a plane swap as some have suggested, including Bollyn? Disclaimer: nobody is guilty until convicted by a court of law. This blog’s intent is to stimulate thinking about 9/11 from a different angle than the official one. From day one the blame has been put at bin Laden and his people without real evidence. Today bin Laden is no longer persecuted for 9/11 according to the FBI website. The theory proposed here might be true or false or contain some truth. In the end it must be an official investigation that determines who is guilty and who is not. This blog is dedicated to Italian ex-president Cossiga who is the highest ranking statesman to date who has openly stated that it was the Mossad who has carried out the 9/11 attacks.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 257.
#1. To: tom007 (#0)
Uhhhh, nahhhhhhh.
Uhhh, yeahhhh. Have you never heard of drones or UAVs? The technology DOES in fact exist (and did prior to 9/11/2001) to fly an airliner remotely. Here's a Boing 720 being flown remotely 17 years before 9/11/2001. Here's a bit more on the Dov Zakheim connection... My hypothesis is that the real planes were hijacked by remotely activated gas cannisters releasing knock out gas (or nerve gas) during flight, disabling or killing passengers and crew. Once the crew was disabled, the plane could be flown to wherever needed, possibily swapped in midair with those which would in fact fly into the towers and the Pentagon. In a swap scenario, a live pilot carrying a gas mask could have been a passenger on the original flight, putting the mask on a precise time. A gas mask may have been stashed under a seat by a ground crew member perhaps. Then the pilot could have flown the plane to a secure location, while the "terror" plane would have been flown to its target remotely. That would explain how those planes acquired that "pod" shown in the above video.
9/11 was flown by human hands.
9/11 was flown by human hands. And the proof of this assertion is? Because the Nightly Nooze said so? Because the White House Spokesliar said so? The U.S. Government has never provided one iota of solid information tying the 19 magickal Ayerabs nor Osama Bin Dead since 2001 to the events of 9/11/2001. None, nada, zeeeeeeeero. It has all been done by assertion and pronouncement repeated over and over and over. BUT, where's the beef?
Point of interest... In testimony by FAA radar controllers who were watching the aircraft on radar, they stated they considered the aircraft to being flown by someone of superior piloting skill because of the maneuvers executed. (humor) Of course the aircraft could have been flown by the American Captain, who was not aboard but rather sitting in a casino in Las Vegas, with a remote joy stick.) Hey, anything is possible, right????
There was no plane.
wud... If someone offers expert proof that there was NO Pentagon involved, I will give up. This is interesting as the government doles out disinformation to con the troops. "Ever since this "no-plane" theory has been planted on the 9-11 truth movement, the corporate media inevitably seizes on it as a means to ridicule those who do not accept the official story of 9-11. One obvious example is the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics, which used the "no-plane" theory to summarily dismiss any and all doubters of the official story as a munch of nuts that all correct-thinking loyal Americans should ever listen to. Which is what the no-plane hoax is intended to do".
That would all be true if.... There was a plane. There was no plane.
There were planes wud, just not the ones they were claimed to have been. In the case of the Pentagon, it more than likely was a cruise missile painted as an American Airlines 757.
freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/re...ArtNum=148199&Disp=64#C64
I didn't see one.
Did you ever personally see China wud? Just because YOU didn't see it doesn't mean it wasn't or isn't there.
Noone saw it. Except on tv.
You are in denial wud. It wasn't just captured on video by MANY news agencies, people in New York actually saw it happen live. That, and the witnesses in Washington saw SOME type of aircraft approaching the Pentagon.
You have what evidence that they "actually" saw it live? I guess a missle might have hit the pentagon, but there's little, if any, evidence of it.
I guess a missle might have hit the pentagon, but there's little, if any, evidence of it. Wud, I know you mean well. Please don't take it as an insult, but if you bothered doing any sort of research into 9/11 you'd know that it's 99.8% likely that planes hit the WTC towers, and some sort of cruise missile hit the Pentagon. If you contemplate the fact that those who are involved with the actual events of that day are actively covering up this information that we are talking about here with false paths, you'd consider the strong possibililty that the "no planes" idea is flat out improbable, unlikely, and more than likely one of those false leads. There is enough 100% pure scientific data to crucify the perps without jumping to questionable theories with little or no collaborating evidence. Sure, IF there were no planes well that'd be one hell of an exercise in deceipt on the part of hundreds of witnesses and news crews. But there is enough tangible evidence to demonstrate that the events of that day were in no way related to 19 Arab "terrorists", but were in fact part of a large scale military/espionage operation played out by the Israeli Mossad, Pakistani ISI, and the highest levels of the US government. There is no need to follow bizarre stories which do not follow logic or probability, and which have no basis in scientific reality.
Well said, but what evidence do you have that planes hit the wtc?
Do you have any bonafide evidence that all of the witnesses are lying and that all of the impact videos are faked? There is ample evidence indicating planes hit the towers. Eyewitnesses and video for starters. Entrance holes in the towers and exterior jet fuel explosions are next on the list.
There is ample evidence indicating planes hit the towers. Eyewitnesses and video for starters. Entrance holes in the towers and exterior jet fuel explosions are next on the list. Is it actually news to you that there is ample evidence online of alleged 9/11- witnesses lying, FL? That's a topic that's been discussed here before with evidence presented, I'm fairly sure, and I think it was also pointed out that none of them were under oath. Many were MSM, guv and Military employees (groups that are generally not viewed so unskeptically by the politically savvy as impeccable sources across-the-board in matters other than 9/11). Many were only ever "seen" or "heard from" in the form of printed words and could very possibly have been complete fabrications (so as to enhance the official storyline or for purposes of insurance fraud, for instance). Do you have any bonafide evidence that they are all actual persons who can be fully trusted and none are invented characters? Tania Head is one fake-witness person that even the MSM has aknowledged was fraudulent. Fake impact video, fake entrance holes in buildings that explode inward, exterior fuel explosions -- stuff of the film FX industry for many, many years that's like elementary to them. How about the WTC Towers and their bizarrely non-stick, teflon-pan-like surfaces?: No molten metal adhering to the building as it supposedly poured from windows. No significant damage to the side of the Tower that was closest to high- velocity projectiles and debris being propelled in its direction profusely from the adjacent one that went down first. Yet, we're told to believe that other buildings farther away in the WTC-complex vicinity were burned and destroyed from such. Why do Planes-believers typically hopscotch over simple observations of anomalies like that for more than decade, as if they can't see it or can just dismiss it out of hand by insistently asserting high-tech, glitch-free, remote control implementation or caveman-directed hijackers?
Is it news to you that there are limits to what is probable and what isn't? Do you think a significant part of the population of New York city would collectively lie about what they saw on 9/11? Were the fireballs faked too in your mind? How about the people jumping out of the towers, were they fake?
Do you think a significant part of the population of New York city would collectively lie about what they saw on 9/11? Yep, simple logic says if there were no planes then there would have been many, not just a few, but many people proclaiming that they saw and heard no planes. Where are these people? No planers are not thinking about the illogical points in their positions. Nuts. Even if somehow the government and media managed to pretend there were planes and keep people quite about it, I see no benefit to it to accomplish their plans. It would be much easier to just crash the planes into the buildings.
Exactly. It's one thing to suggest the videos MAY have been manipulated, but to state unequivocally that "no plane" hit the towers, with no real evidence of such a claim, is beyond reason. It ignores the fact that EVERY camera crew had to have known that what they were capturing on video was not what was being broadcast, and the reporters had to know they were fabricating a story out of thin air so to speak. There would have been a large number of people in the vicinity of the towers, looking up, who would have stated that they didn't see a plane but only an explosion in the 2nd tower. In reality, more than a few people witnessed the plane as it approached the tower, and a good number actually saw it impact. I am not aware of ANY actual witness who claims they saw the entrance hole appear for no reason, ie. nothing hit the tower. I HAVE read that survivors in the WTC actually saw the 2nd plane approach. Again, for the "no-plane" story to have any basis in fact, ALL of the news media on the scene would had to have been in on the scheme and executed their deception flawlessly, before, during, and after the event. It is MUCH easier to take control of an aircraft remotely and fly it into a tower, than to pull off such a large scale act of deception, where the world believes jet airliners hit the towers, yet in reality they were created in a studio and broadcast to the world in unison at the exact proper time, in league with every news crew and witness in the City of New York.
It's not really easier than CGI. Your main evidence of remote control seems to be that Zakheim is involved in it but he would have benefited from drone war contracts anyway without wasting expensive planes. The fact that the technology exists isn't evidence that it was used. You need to prove first that planes were used before asserting they were remote controlled. Alleged Flt. 93 suggests that it wasn't used in that scenario or was able to be over-ridden somehow.
You need to first prove planes were NOT involved, as that is what was reported, witnessed, and recorded on video. You would also need to prove a massive conspiracy involving the witnesses, news crews, and the networks where they prerecorded the WTC and superimposed the aircraft and the fireballs, along with the smoke, and have it match what was happening in real time on 9/11/2001. I don't think the technology exists even today to pull that off live, clean as a whistle with no signs of tampering.
You would also need to prove a massive conspiracy involving the witnesses, news crews, and the networks where they prerecorded the WTC and superimposed the aircraft and the fireballs, along with the smoke, and have it match what was happening in real time on 9/11/2001. I don't think the technology exists even today to pull that off live, clean as a whistle with no signs of tampering. The burden of proof isn't really on No Planes researchers to prove a negative 4 times. Nevertheless, that nearly impossible mathematical feat has already been demonstrated many times, here and elsewhere, for those willing to review the technical analysis of Videographers as well as that of Architects and Engineers, etc. Perhaps you're under your mistaken impression because of G.W. Bush's ploy to invade Iraq by demanding evidence of non-existent WMDs there. The burden of proof about planes is on those making the assertions of planes -- the government and those like you who extrapolate from it.
For starters, for your "idea" to be feasible, ALL network news stations, foreign news crews, and any bystander who happened to be looking at the towers would ALL had to have decided beforehand that they were going to hoodwink the world and produce the biggest fraudulent story of all time. You can start by telling me how these "news guys" had control of the population of New York City in order for everyone and anyone who witnessed the events to fall in line with their bogus video. You can also tell me HOW honest news reporters and camera men could be made to go along with such a lie. Incredible claims require incredibile evidence. It is not an incredible claim to state planes hit the towers, because that is what people saw, and what news cameras recorded. It IS an incredible claim to state that nothing like that actually happened, that is was all faked. Care to explain how those external fireballs were created, or were those "fake" too? How about the entrance holes, were they ALSO faked? Was the smoke faked? Were there even any explosives used, or were those fake too? Maybe the towers simply fell on their own, right? And BTW, care to post anything from Architects and Engineers for Truth which states there were no aircraft involved in the 9/11 attacks? One more thing. Your little GIF file tells a lie, in that the outer shell of the WTC towers was made of ALUMINUM, NOT STEEL. From World Trade Center Construction So are you willing to admit that the person who created that GIF file is lying and misleading his audience, and that you shouldn't try to use that as "evidence" of what it is you're selling here?
From World Trade Center Construction So are you willing to admit that the person who created that GIF file is lying and misleading his audience, and that you shouldn't try to use that as "evidence" of what it is you're selling here? Are you joking? The WTC buildings were made of steel by the tons. Are you insinuating that a thin, aluminum veneer means they weren't steel structures?; or that anodized aluminum would make it so an aluminum plane could possibly melt through the steely structure like the ABC "Butter Plane"? I hope not.
The CORE was steel, the FLOORS were concrete supported by steel, but the exterior skin was made of ALUMINUM and glass. Got a problem with that? Sure there were steel columns, but between those column was ALUMINUM. What it comes down to is that the outer walls were NOT solid steel. As far as an object travelling at high velocity, have you ever shot a gun? Lead is softer than steel, yet a high power rifle bullet such as a .308 will slice through steel as if it were butter. So no, it's not physically impossible for a high speed massive object to slice through glass, aluminum, and SOME steel columns.
Also this is incorrect. If it were correct, bullet proof vests would be useless and DU rounds would of never been engineered. Maybe if it is a wafer thin sheet of steel, maybe then it might rip through like butter....
Oh and BTW, DU rounds were invented in order to penetrate through heavily armored vehicles such as tanks.
As good as of a digression as that is I would still point out that all the planes in the news footage lack any discernible wake.... Which is not possible. Leaving the only other option no mater how unlikely... If their is no wake then their is no plane.... and that is to say nothing of the dare devil helicopter pilots that can fly through the fire smoke with out blowing the smoke everywhere..... Amazing that last part....
What do you mean "wake"? Boats leave wakes, not planes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake_turbulence or http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryd...acts/TF-2004-14-DFRC.html or www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Wake_Vortex_Turbulence Did you tell someone else here to learn physics buster? ALSO when you say B) Yes it IS possible to "lose" radar contact if the transponder is turned off. There are blind spots in the radar grid, where if the plane is not chirping its transponder, and it is flying through a radar blind spot, it will not appear on FAA screens. You have not really done enough 911 research... US commercial craft are radar reflective, their are no blind spots on the east coast (never mind the rest of the US) and when A plane turns off it's transponder, the computer reading that transpondence tells every Air traffic controller monitoring the pertaining air space of the blip... so instead of the one jockey watching his plane EVERY jockey now gets to watch the plane. The system was set up to be full proof for a reason. You should get more intimate with it before shooting off at the hip. Alas..... You seem to have a closed made up mind and choose to exist here for the soul sake of argument against that which challenges your made up mind. I mean if it did not challenge you it would not bother you... wouldn't be worth a response.... so it is a challenge I suppose.... You .... been incorrect, a few times... which means your willing to go at this conversation from an emotional place of passion rather than logic. And you don't seem to be willing to pay attention to the details of anybodys postings in this thread beyond refuting them or ignoring them ...... the attempt at understanding is not being made on your part. Sad that.
So you're trying to say that the hijacked aircraft were NOT lost on radar at anytime during their flights, and that FAA controllers knew exactly where they were at all times, eh?
Did you know how silly that reads before you posted it? I mean you just tried to put SO MANY words into my mouth that I did not write. Total conversation manipulation to twist a weaker mind into confusion and abandonment.... but I ain't the type to walk away. No, I am not saying any of the sillyness you posted. I will say this though... if the planes were real and if each one really turned off its transponders then each one would of been lit up on everyones screen.... IT'S CALLED A FAIL SAFE and if you had looked more into the procedures of Air Traffic Control then you would know this already. Come on man you! You talk like you think you have done some 911 research but you can't even talk to me about typical air traffic control procedure? You just wanna spout about hijacker this everyone is in on it that... real sarcastic moon bat shit, Is that all you really wanna do today?
#261. To: titorite (#257)
Come on man you! You talk like you think you have done some 911 research but you can't even talk to me about typical air traffic control procedure? You just wanna spout about hijacker this everyone is in on it that... real sarcastic moon bat shit, So you continue to insist that FAA radar is flawless and that there is ZERO possibility of losing an aircraft at all, even for the slightest moment, correct?
From Secondary surveillance radar [Note: pay close attention to the section on Syncronous Garble] A number of problems are described in an ICAO publication of 1983 entitled Secondary Surveillance Radar Mode S Advisory Circular. [8] Although 4,096 different identity codes available in a mode A reply may seem enough, but once particular codes have been reserved for emergency and other purposes, the number is significantly reduced. Ideally an aircraft would keep the same code from take-off until landing even when crossing international boundaries, as it is used at the air traffic control centre to display the aircraft's callsign using a process known as code/callsign conversion. Clearly the same mode A code should not be given to two aircraft at the same time as the controller on the ground could be given the wrong callsign with which to communicate with the aircraft.[6] The mode C reply provides height increments of 100 feet, which was initially adequate for monitoring aircraft separated by at least 1000 feet. However, as airspace became increasingly congested, it became important to monitor whether aircraft were not moving out of their assigned flight level. A slight change of a few feet could cross a threshold and be indicated as the next increment up and a change of 100 feet. Smaller increments were desirable.[citation needed] Since all aircraft reply on the same frequency of 1090 MHz, a ground station will also receive aircraft replies originating from responses to other ground stations. These unwanted replies are known as FRUIT (False Replies Unsynchronized with Interrogator Transmissions or alternatively False Replies Unsynchronized In Time). Several successive fruit replies could combine and appear to indicate an aircraft which does not exists. As air transport expands and more aircraft occupy the airspace, the amount of fruit generated will also increase.[8] Fruit replies can overlap with wanted replies at a ground receiver, thus causing errors in extracting the included data. A solution is to increase the interrogation rate so as to receive more replies, in the hope that some would be clear of interference. The process is self defeating as increasing the reply rate only increases the interference to other users and vice versa.[8] If two aircraft paths cross within about two miles slant range from the ground interrogator, their replies will overlap and the interference caused will make their detection difficult. Typically the controller will lose the longer range, and later to reply, aircraft just when the former may be most interested in monitoring them closely.[8] While an aircraft is replying to one ground interrogation it is unable to respond to another interrogation, reducing detection efficiency. For a Mode A or C interrogation the transponder reply may take up to 120 µs before it can reply to a further interrogation.[8] The ground antenna has a typical horizontal 3 dB beamwidth of 2.5° which limits the accuracy in determining the bearing of the aircraft. Accuracy can be improved by making many interrogations as the antenna beam scans an aircraft and a better estimate can be obtained by noting where the replies started and where stopped and taking the centre of the replies as the direction of the aircraft. This is known as a sliding window process.[1] The early system used an antenna known as a hogtrough. This has a large horizontal dimension to produce a narrow horizontal beam and a small vertical dimension to provide cover from close to the horizon to nearly overhead. There were two problems with this antenna. First, nearly half the energy is directed at the ground where it is reflected back up, and interferes with, the upward energy causing deep nulls at certain elevation angles and loss of contact with aircraft. Second, if the surrounding ground is sloping, then the reflected energy is partly offset horizontally, distorting the beam shape and the indicated bearing of the aircraft. This was particularly important in a monopulse system with its much improved bearing measurement accuracy.[9]
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestOnce this was in place the planes could be taken over by remote control and flown into the World Trade Center.
#20. To: Cynicom, *9-11* (#1)
Uhhhh, nahhhhhhh.
#22. To: FormerLurker (#20)
Have you never heard of drones or UAVs?
#64. To: Cynicom, randge (#22)
Have you never heard of drones or UAVs?
#65. To: Original_Intent, randge, Christine (#64)
9/11 was flown by human hands.
#66. To: Cynicom (#65)
imagine
#67. To: wudidiz (#66)
#68. To: Cynicom (#67)
#70. To: wudidiz (#68)
There was no plane.
#72. To: FormerLurker (#70)
#73. To: All, *No Planers* (#72)
There were planes
#74. To: wudidiz (#73)
I didn't see one.
#76. To: FormerLurker (#74)
Just because YOU didn't see it doesn't mean it wasn't or isn't there.
#77. To: wudidiz (#76)
Noone saw it. Except on tv.
#114. To: FormerLurker (#77)
It wasn't just captured on video by MANY news agencies, people in New York actually saw it happen live.
#120. To: wudidiz (#114)
You have what evidence that they "actually" saw it live?
#127. To: FormerLurker (#120)
if you bothered doing any sort of research into 9/11 you'd know that it's 99.8% likely that planes hit the WTC towers
#147. To: wudidiz, *9-11* (#127)
(Edited)
Well said, but what evidence do you have that planes hit the wtc?
#149. To: FormerLurker, *9-11* (#147)
Do you have any bonafide evidence that all of the witnesses are lying and that all of the impact videos are faked?
Little to no smoke damage seen where much would be expected.
#150. To: GreyLmist (#149)
Is it actually news to you that there is ample evidence online of alleged 9/11- witnesses lying, FL?
#184. To: FormerLurker (#150)
(Edited)
Is it news to you that there are limits to what is probable and what isn't?
#186. To: RickyJ, *9-11* (#184)
(Edited)
Yep, simple logic says if there were no planes then there would have been many, not just a few, but many people proclaiming that they saw and heard no planes. Where are these people? No planers are not thinking about the illogical points in their positions.
#189. To: FormerLurker (#186)
It is MUCH easier to take control of an aircraft remotely and fly it into a tower, than to pull off such a large scale act of deception, where the world believes jet airliners hit the towers, yet in reality they were created in a studio and broadcast to the world in unison at the exact proper time, in league with every news crew and witness in the City of New York.
#191. To: GreyLmist (#189)
You need to prove first that planes were used before asserting they were remote controlled.
#198. To: FormerLurker, *9-11* (#191)
You need to first prove planes were NOT involved, as that is what was reported, witnessed, and recorded on video.
#203. To: GreyLmist, *9-11* (#198)
The burden of proof isn't really on No Planes researchers to prove a negative 4 times. Nevertheless, that nearly impossible mathematical feat has already been demonstrated many times, here and elsewhere, for those willing to review the technical analysis of Videographers as well as that of Architects and Engineers, etc. Perhaps you're under your mistaken impression because of G.W. Bush's ploy to invade Iraq by demanding evidence of non-existent WMDs there. The burden of proof about planes is on those making the assertions of planes -- the government and those like you who extrapolate from it.
After the steel structure was in place, the crew attached the outer "skin" to the perimeter -- anodized aluminum, pre-cut into large panels.
#210. To: FormerLurker (#203)
Your little GIF file tells a lie, in that the outer shell of the WTC towers was made of ALUMINUM, NOT STEEL.
After the steel structure was in place, the crew attached the outer "skin" to the perimeter -- anodized aluminum, pre-cut into large panels.
#229. To: GreyLmist (#210)
Are you joking? The WTC buildings were made of steel by the tons.
#234. To: FormerLurker (#229)
As far as an object travelling at high velocity, have you ever shot a gun? Lead is softer than steel, yet a high power rifle bullet such as a .308 will slice through steel as if it were butter.
#238. To: titorite (#234)
DU rounds would of never been engineered
#240. To: FormerLurker (#238)
Oh and BTW, DU rounds were invented in order to penetrate through heavily armored vehicles such as tanks.
#242. To: titorite (#240)
As good as of a digression as that is I would still point out that all the planes in the news footage lack any discernible wake....
#252. To: FormerLurker (#242)
What do you mean "wake"? Boats leave wakes, not planes.
#255. To: titorite (#252)
#257. To: FormerLurker (#255)
So you're trying to say that the hijacked aircraft were NOT lost on radar at anytime during their flights, and that FAA controllers knew exactly where they were at all times, eh?
Replies to Comment # 257. IT'S CALLED A FAIL SAFE and if you had looked more into the procedures of Air Traffic Control then you would know this already.
#265. To: titorite (#257)
[edit] Deficiencies
[edit] Mode A
[edit] Mode C
[edit] Fruit
[edit] Garble
[edit] Synchronous garble
[edit] Capture
[edit] Antenna
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=small}
End Trace Mode for Comment # 257.
