| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 10:13 am Post subject: Planes of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits |
 |
|
http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/planes-of-911-exceeded-their-softw are-limits
| Quote: |
Two of the aircraft exceeded their software limits on 9/11.
The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight. They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls.
They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. Though they are physically capable of high g maneuvers, the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls. They are limited to approximately 1.5 g’s, I repeat, one and one half g’s. This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma’s neck.
No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature.
The plane that hit the Pentagon approached or reached its actual physical limits, military personnel have calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and seven g’s in its final turn.
The same is true for the second aircraft to impact the WTC.
There is only one way this can happen.
As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757’s and 767’s can do it. The purpose for this is if there is a problem with the pilots, Norad can fly the planes to safe destinations via remote. Only in this flight mode can those craft exceed their software limits and perform to their actual physical limits because a pre existing emergency situation is assumed if this mode of flight is used.
[Google “Raytheon Global Hawk system”]
Terrorists in fact did not fly those planes, it is totally and completely impossible for those planes to have been flown in such a manner from the cockpit. Those are commuter aircraft, not F-16’s and their software knows it.
Another piece of critical evidence: the voice recorders came up blank.
The flight recorders that were recovered had tape that was undamaged inside, but it was blank. There is only one way this can happen on a 757 or 767. When the aircraft are commandeered via remote control, the microphones that go to the cockpit voice recorder are re routed to the people doing the remote controlling, so that the recording of what happened in the cockpit gets made in a presumably safer place. But due to a glitch in the system on a 757/767, rather than shutting off when the mic is redirected the voice recorder keeps running. The voice recorders use what is called a continuous loop tape, which automatically re passes itself past the erase and record heads once every half hour, so after a half hour of running with the microphones redirected, the tape will be blank. Just like the recovered tapes were. Yet more proof that no pilot flew those planes in the last half hour.
Eight of the hijackers who were on those planes called up complaining that they were still alive. I’d bet you never heard about our foreign minister flying to Morocco and issuing an official apology to the accused, did you? No, terrorists did not fly those planes, plastic knives and box cutters were in fact too ridiculous to be true. Any of the remaining accused have certainly been sought out and killed by now.
Our information IS controlled
The cell phone calls from the aircraft could not have happened. I am a National Security Agency trained Electronic Warfare specialist, and am qualified to say this. My official title: MOS33Q10, Electronic Warfare Intercept Strategic Signal Processing/Storage Systems Specialist, a highly skilled MOS which requires advanced knowledge of many communications methods and circuits to the most minute level. I am officially qualified to place severe doubt that ordinary cell phone calls were ever made from the aircraft.
It was impossible for that to have happened, especially in a rural area for a number of reasons.
When you make a cell phone call, the first thing that happens is that your cell phone needs to contact a transponder. Your cell phone has a max transmit power of five watts, three watts is actually the norm. If an aircraft is going five hundred miles an hour, your cell phone will not be able to 1. Contact a tower, 2. Tell the tower who you are, and who your provider is, 3. Tell the tower what mode it wants to communicate with, and 4. Establish that it is in a roaming area before it passes out of a five watt range. This procedure, called an electronic handshake, takes approximately 45 seconds for a cell phone to complete upon initial power up in a roaming area because neither the cell phone or cell transponder knows where that phone is and what mode it uses when it is turned on. At 500 miles an hour, the aircraft will travel three times the range of a cell phone’s five watt transmitter before this handshaking can occur. Though it is sometimes possible to connect during takeoff and landing, under the situation that was claimed the calls were impossible. The calls from the airplane were faked, no if’s or buts.
I hope I made sense, if you have questions I will respond if possible. If I do not respond, please research this out yourself, search the Boeing site, search the DARPA site, search where you have not searched before. Some of the information is classified and leaked by individuals, and it is also being scoured from the net. I have all of the original documents on my computer to safeguard against this.
Please do not ignore this, because only Norad has the flight codes for those aircraft, we did 911 to ourselves. Hitler had the Reichstag, we have 911. If 911 proves to not be enough to make the US citizenry set aside its rights for safety, the people who did 911 most certainly have access to nuclear material. 911 must be exposed for what it was before that material is used.
——————————————————————— ——–
UPDATE: RESPONSE
I, a Military Occupational Skill 68G, and a Federal Aviation Administration Certified “Privileged” Pilot, as well as an FAA Certified “Privileged” Mechanic, will witness to the overall accuracy of this letter by Jim Heikkila; A testimony, pertaining to equipment (parameter limits both governed and ungoverned), discussing capabilities/limitations of flight control systems and structural performance.
Additionally, MOS33Q10 describes wire and/or transmitted data interplay, consistent with PIC (Pilot In Command) responsibilities of flight safety, as PIC is expressly required to KNOW that:
FAA certified pilots, expressly embodies the PIC with full responsibilities of all flight safety explicit ALSO, as a Licensed Radio Operator in accordance with FCC communication rules, critical concerns of electronic interference with flight critical systems, and other capabilities/limitations of electronic devices [Original Equipment or not] as part of total onboard equipment.
To include such knowledge necessary, concerning functionality and limitations of hand-held, non-amplified, standard private cellular phones, un-repeated through nonexistent equipment, not installed aboard commercial aircraft of the time. These purportedly “private” cellular calls MUST therefore be considered a hoax (not real).
Of utmost importance, so please publish and disseminate to all concerned:
I hereby challenge all other pilots, those who have accepted the gift of wings and a duty to their trusting passengers, for remaining silent before the ears of humanity pertaining to a dangerous delusion, and thus allowed to permeate that same humanity, concerning the skies over the eastern region of North America, September 11, 2001.
Because of this general silence, I can no longer accept these people as MY true brethren, nor the FAA as a legitimate regulatory body who’s utmost concern has been “human safety”, or so declared. That because of this ongoing silence (licensing body intimidation?), I hereby deny the jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration to “Privilege” my right to command and enjoy the apparatus of flight. None-the-less, I retain my natural duty and responsibility to the safety of my person and passengers, including those otherwise bound to Earth.
I so challenge other pilots to consider the appropriateness of allowing an administration to “License” them as well, while in conflict with this overriding duty to human safety.
I so retain the FAA issued paper “proof” of my pilot training, and formal recognition as competent airman, merely as historical artifact. The “authorizing” seal and signature displayed on these artifacts, is no longer considered by me as lawfully valid, nor am I bound by the terms outlined through such a charter.
The first implicit duty of Pilot In Command (that of safety), remains unchanged.
To be absolutely clear, I will hold in contempt, any man or woman who considers themselves’ “Pilot” for taking to the controls of air worthy machines, yet does not vocalize a clear stand upon such an underlying principal, that of a pilot dependent upon truth.
I do not recognize the justice of liars “owning” the sky, for one can not retain their wings soaring upon an air of untruth. This will merely ground all of humankind, and THAT is not my destiny.
A pilot,
Erin Sebastian Myers |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MarkyX
Minor Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 21
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
realitybites
New Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Boy, that post has caught on like wildfire. Is there a site that has massive amounts of Troofer information that can just be copied and pasted?
'Cause that's the second time in as many days that I've seen the exact same post on different boards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No way, you trying to tell me that people share information on the internet?.
Who woulda thunk it?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dodgy
Minor Poster
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 78
Location: Newcastle
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just a note about the G force (the rest of the article argues for the auto-piloting though)
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html#approach
| Quote: | Such a maneuver is not normal for jetliners, but is it within the capabilities of a 757? I will calculate the G force that the turning component of the described maneuver would have imparted on the aircraft. The G force produced by travel along a circular arc can be calculated using the following formula:
RCF = 0.001118 * r * N^2
where
RCF = Relative Centrifugal Force (gravities)
r = rotation radius (meters)
N = rotation speed (revolutions per minute)
If the plane were traveling at 400 miles per hour it would travel 16.666 miles, or 26,821 meters, in 2.5 minutes. Assuming it was traveling in a circular arc, it would trace out 3/4ths of a circle with a 35,761-meter circumference, giving a rotation radius of 5,691 meters and rotation speed of 0.3 rotations per minute. Plugging those values into the above equation, I obtain a centrifugal force of 0.5726 Gs.
Jetliners such as 757s are rated for accelerations of around two Gs, but they may be able to survive much greater accelerations. An IcelandAir 757-200 logged an incident in which it experienced pitch accelerations of +3.95 Gs. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
realitybites
New Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| scar wrote: | No way, you trying to tell me that people share information on the internet?.
Who woulda thunk it?
|
Oh no doubt. I just find it interesting that the posts are copied word for word as if the information is from the poster himself. Especially when that information has been discredited time and time again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andyb
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1025
Location: SW London
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hardly when it is has been quoted and linked
_________________
"We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:15 pm Post subject: The OP article is a crock of smelly stuff.... |
|
|
It's too bad you get your stuff from that "alt" news site. The complete article (including appended rebuttals by experts appears here)
Here's the part your alt news site clipped:
| Quote: | A dissenting view: I am a retired Airline Captain, currently flying Business Jets. I have an Airline Transport Pilot Rating qualifying me to fly Captain on Boeing 707/720/727/747-400/757/767/777, Lockheed 382 and L-1011, and Dassault 20 and 2000 Aircraft. I have over 28,000 hours, several thousand of which were in command of 757/767's.
There is no provision for a 757/767 to be flown remotely. It can't be done. Period. Nothing disables the Flight or Voice Recorders, etc., except for the pulling of circuit breakers in the cockpit.
The 1.5 G limit built into the flight control system isn't there. The 757/767 does not have electronic flight controls- "fly by wire" and I don't know of any way to design these limits into the system without fly by wire. Some fly by wire aircraft- the Airbus 319/320/330/340 series and some military aircraft, for example- do have these artificial limits. The limits on the 'Busses is about 2.5 G's. Since the airplane is pulling 1 G in straight and level flight there would only be 1/2 G left for manuvering- not much.
The 757/767 cannot- repeat cannot be "programmed" to fly without a Pilot. It has a very good autopilot, capable of manipulating the controls as directed by the ON BOARD Crew in climb, cruise, descent, and- in some cases- landing. It must be disconnected for takeoff.
The 757/767 is hardly a Commuter aircraft. These are the small jets such as the Canadair and Embraer Jets and Turboprops used by Regional Airlines.
Herb Fischer
------------------------------------
Viewzone:
As an avionics engineer, I also would like to stress out that there are NO provisions on 757/767 aircraft to have it remote controlled. Also, the CVR itself only can be erased by having the parking brake set and the erase button actuated. Not something you can do in flight. You can before start and pull the CVR CB though.
Regarding turn control: there is a banklimiter but when flown by hand, it won't work. The automatic pilot is similar to the 747-400. It cannot do a complete start. It is able to engage lateral navigation and vertical navigation _after you have reached the radio altitude of 100 and 400 ft if I recall correct. So the AP functions are armed but will NOT be able to control the aircraft at the time you select Take-OFF.
I am pretty sure that there are big question marks about that the Govt of the USA showed and told us and I am pretty sure quite a bit is staged, just like some other past disasters. However, technically, the story "Planes of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits" in this case, is just BS.
imapbox@xs4all.nl |
Wow, even a guy who thinks some of the 9/11 stuff was "staged" blows this theory out of the air! Can't you guys ever agree on anything?
I am also a licensed pilot albeit with only a "private" rating...but even I know the 757 and 767 aren't "commuter" planes!
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow...the silence here is suddenly deafening.
(crickets chirp)
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leiff
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 509
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The fact that there are no provisions on 757/767 aircraft to have it remote controlled proves nothing.
The remote controlled jetliner deliberately crashed in Loose Change 2E have no provisions to have it remote controlled either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_720
But it was remote controlled as part of a fuel test.
'The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14 flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs, 69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway.'
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/movie/CID/index.html
Therefore remote controlled equipment can be fitted to planes as a modification. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leiff wrote: | The fact that there are no provisions on 757/767 aircraft to have it remote controlled proves nothing.
The remote controlled jetliner deliberately crashed in Loose Change 2E have no provisions to have it remote controlled either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_720
But it was remote controlled as part of a fuel test.
'The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14 flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs, 69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway.'
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/movie/CID/index.html
Therefore remote controlled equipment can be fitted to planes as a modification. |
No one is saying that it can't be retrofitted. We're saying that there is no evidence that it was. The only place in the US that retrofits aircraft for drone conversion is @ AMARC. They take months of work by many highly skilled techs at about the cost of $1,000,000 for each fighter plane converted. their Davis Monthan facility is openly viewable to the public. 4 passenger airliners undergoing conversion there could not be hidden. Even if they could it would require that the conspiracy would be known to hundreds of extra people.
Just because something CAN be done doesn't mean that it WAS done! For that leap to be made there must be evidence. Without evidence it's a fairy tale.
Here's CT-illogic in action:
CTer- Hey...I have no evidence that Las Vegas just got nuked. But since Hiroshima really DID get nuked...then Las Vegas must have been nuked!!!
riiiight!
-z
BTW: 10 takeoffs and 13 landings??? That's some special airplane!
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leiff
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 509
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I wasn't saying that my post proved 9/ll was an inside job, I was saying that your post didn't prove it wasn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leiff wrote: | | I wasn't saying that my post proved 9/ll was an inside job, I was saying that your post didn't prove it wasn't. |
I'm not supposed to prove it wasn't. You see there's this concept called:
"Innocent until proven guilty".
But you lot have turned it upside down. With you it's "Guilty until proven innocent". How'd you like it if I was in power and jailed you for participating in the 9/11 coverup,...then told you you'd be executed unless you could prove that you weren't?
Would you think that was fair?
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leiff
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 509
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jay Ref said:
'Remember it's "Innocent until proven guilty" not vice versa.'
Are you familiar with Guantanamo Bay, Control Orders and ASBOs?
It seems our illustrious leaders are going off the idea!
Jay Ref said:
'That would be just like the USSR was.' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leiff wrote: | Jay Ref said:
'Remember it's "Innocent until proven guilty" not vice versa.'
Are you familiar with Guantanamo Bay, Control Orders and ASBOs?
It seems our illustrious leaders are going off the idea!
Jay Ref said:
'That would be just like the USSR was.' |
And you so admire Gitmo, USSR, etc that you would like to emulate their example? No? Then why are you doing it?
It's fallacious logic.
| Quote: |
Tu quoque ("you too"). This is the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error. An error is still an error, regardless of how many people make it. For example, "They accuse us of making unjustified assertions. But they asserted a lot of things, too!"
Although clearly fallacious, tu quoque arguments play an important role in debate because they may help establish who has done a better job of debating (setting aside the issue of whether the proposition is true or not). If both teams have engaged in ad hominem attacks, or both teams have made a few appeals to pity, then it would hardly be fair to penalize one team for it but not the other. In addition, it is not fallacious at all to point out that certain advantages or disadvantages may apply equally to both positions presented in a debate, and therefore they cannot provide a reason for favoring one position over the other (such disadvantages are referred to as "non-unique"). In general, using tu quoque statements is a good way to assure that judges make decisions based only on factors that distinguish between the two sides. |
See? Two wrongs simply don't make a right!
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leiff
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 509
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| All we are asking for is an independent investigation into the facts around 9/11. I don't recall asking for sentencing without a trial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leiff wrote: | | All we are asking for is an independent investigation into the facts around 9/11. I don't recall asking for sentencing without a trial. |
There has already been an investigation. The 9/11 commission processed a lot of raw data, interviewed real experts, etc... You can go to the footnoted sources and see for yourself.
What would a new investigation prove? If it supported the OS you CTers would likely reject it's conclusions. Just as CTers laughed at the poor quality of the Pentagon camera footage of the crash...so too would CTers have dismissed a clear shot of the 757 hitting the Pentagon. We can see this mindset in action when reviewing CTer comments on the second plane to hit WTC at the south tower. They claim all of the following:
- It's not a 767-200.
- It's a military cargo or refueler variant of the 767.
- It shot a missile into the WTC just before it hit.
- It had missile pods under the wings.
- It was a holographic projection.
Why should we expect that CTers would accept the results of an "independent investigation" if those results did not support the CT?
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eckyboy
Validated Poster
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 162
Location: Edinburgh
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 4:59 pm Post subject: LARGE FOOTNOTE SECTION =ANOTHER SUCCESSFUL INVESTIGATION |
|
|
| Sound logic Jay Ref. How does having a large footnote section prove anything? Why did they not use their so called powers to get to the truth? The 911 Commission tells us the terrorists did not attack a NUCLEAR POWER STATION that they flew right over because it was too well protected and yet they then tell us how the terrorists attacked the pentagon. Also why no mention of WTC7? If it really did collapse because of fires then it has to be mentioned as these were related to the terrorist attacks. These are just small examples of the stupidity of the 911 Commission report. I have not closed my mind to other possible explanations of what happened on 911 but based on the evidence I have seen it was an inside job. The 911 Commission Report is a total sham from start to finish. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 5:15 pm Post subject: Re: LARGE FOOTNOTE SECTION =ANOTHER SUCCESSFUL INVESTIGATION |
|
|
| Eckyboy wrote: | | Sound logic Jay Ref. How does having a large footnote section prove anything? |
Footnotes are for citing one's sources. Therefore, interested parties can check those sources independantly.
| Quote: |
Why did they not use their so called powers to get to the truth? |
Who's truth? Yours? their report jibes with the extant evidence. Yours? Evidence for your crazy theories doesn't even exist in the material world.
| Quote: |
The 911 Commission tells us the terrorists did not attack a NUCLEAR POWER STATION that they flew right over because it was too well protected and yet they then tell us how the terrorists attacked the pentagon. Also why no mention of WTC7? If it really did collapse because of fires then it has to be mentioned as these were related to the terrorist attacks. These are just small examples of the stupidity of the 911 Commission report. I have not closed my mind to other possible explanations of what happened on 911 but based on the evidence I have seen it was an inside job. The 911 Commission Report is a total sham from start to finish. |
Oh please. You guys keep saying the same old things even though they've been addressed a hundred times....
It's why people think you're nuts.
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leiff
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 509
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Believe it or not, most 'CTers' would like nothing better than for it to be proved in an independent investigation that it was 19 hijackers with box cutters who perpetrated 9/11.
It would be far less disturbing than the other possibilities... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jay Ref wrote: |
There has already been an investigation. The 9/11 commission processed a lot of raw data, interviewed real experts, etc... You can go to the footnoted sources and see for yourself.
|
Maybe you should read David Ray Griffins book:
The 9/11 Commission report: omissions and distortions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eckyboy
Validated Poster
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 162
Location: Edinburgh
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Their evidence jibes with the extant evidence? Yeah that makes sense. As for my crazy theories what theories are those exactly? And as for the things we guys have been saying I have never heard a plausible explanation for the WTC7 collapse yet If you can see that for anything other than a controlled demolition then your just kidding yourself. There are so many unanswered questions from 911 and if the Commission was anything other than a Bush Spin panel they would have asked these questions and told us why our so called crazy theories were baseless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Oh please. You guys keep saying the same old things even though they've been addressed a hundred times....
It's why people think you're nuts. |
Yet you feel it prudent to keep on responding to us over and over - even though people think we're nuts. I think the Flat Earth Society is full of people who are nuts but I do not feel inclined to go there and engage in repeated debate over the same topic. If you genuinely felt we had nothing you would not be here and you would not be trying to tar the movement with anti-semitism. You clearly know what really happened and who likely did it. Your ridiculous attempts to prevent the spread of truth so as to protect the mass murderers merely show that you are associated with them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eckyboy
Validated Poster
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 162
Location: Edinburgh
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| true words black cat. Every single human being who attempts to defend or justify the official story based on the evidence so far gathered is a disgrace and is just as guilty as the perpatrators of that terrible day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
