| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 1:45 pm Post subject: Airtraffic Controller Describes Flight 175 Anomalies |
 |
|
Just thought I'd give a heads up on this clip: http://youtube.com/watch?v=lXEdrpzU_Qg
So what do we think different plane?
Or same plane but under remote control?
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Donbalaan
Persian Lamb Testicles
Contributed by Stacy Charland <stacy_charland@nih.gov> from a recipe at http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/F.Mokhtarian/recipes/index.html.
Ingredients Directions
4 sheep testicles
2 medium eggs
1 cup bread crumbs
cooking oil
100 grams parsley
salt
black pepper
Wash testicles and cut length-wise along the middle. Remove the skin and cut each part length-wise into two slices. Sprinkle some salt and black pepper on both sides of each slice.
Add salt and black pepper to eggs and mix well. Dip each slice on both sides in bread crumbs, then in eggs, and again in bread crumbs. Fry each slice in pre-heated oil on one side for a few minutes until colour changes, Turn over and fry on the other side again until colour changes. Serve with washed and cut parsley.
Yield: 4 servings |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flamesong
Major Poster
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | Donbalaan
Persian Lamb Testicles
etc. etc.
Yield: 4 servings |
And you accuse others of being disruptive.
I suggest you sort out your black kitchenware! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Am I wrong in thinking this member is a troll?
So is there any reason why they haven't been banned? 
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've said it time and time again. TTWSU3 is not here to debate 9/11 but purely to disrupt. This person/group should not be trusted. The constant promotion of no-plane theory, holocaust denial and a host of other off topic threads make TTWSU3 someone who should be ignored at all costs.
I second a call for a ban. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Having been vegan since 1982, I find the concept of taking the life of creature as beautiful as a lamb simply to satisfy a craving such as hunger, to be quite abhorent.
However, to the plane question.
Another plane? You believe another plane suddenly took its place? It was flying very close and suddenly they swapped places? I don't get it - if there was the obvious discrepancy on the screen that highlight a differing 'squawk' - I don't see the purpose of changing any of the aircraft's electronic identification markers? They could track it and clearly see its position - leaning out and putting bunny ears on the roof changed what exactly?
Has anyone actually looked into what equipment is necessary to remote control an aircraft - in other words, are the electronics small enough to be covertly hidden and easily installed?
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | Having been vegan since 1982, I find the concept of taking the life of creature as beautiful as a lamb simply to satisfy a craving such as hunger, to be quite abhorent.
However, to the plane question.
Another plane? You believe another plane suddenly took its place? It was flying very close and suddenly they swapped places? I don't get it - if there was the obvious discrepancy on the screen that highlight a differing 'squawk' - I don't see the purpose of changing any of the aircraft's electronic identification markers? They could track it and clearly see its position - leaning out and putting bunny ears on the roof changed what exactly?
Has anyone actually looked into what equipment is necessary to remote control an aircraft - in other words, are the electronics small enough to be covertly hidden and easily installed? |
Yup - although easily installed is a relative concept.
Tracor Systems who convert retired aircraft (such as the F-4 Phantom, our old friend the reactor wall test airplane) for the USAF and USN into aerial target drones normally take about 4 months per aircraft, although not all of the items in a normally fitted system suite would be required for the 911 drones.
"Modifications to the airframe and installation of major systems to transform the F-4 takes about four months. This includes installation of the primary and back-up Automatic Flight Control System, Command/Telemetry System, VDOPS Scoring System, Flight Termination System, Visual Enhancement System and Ancillary Subsystems".
http://www.philippecolin.net/82ATRS.html
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think the idea of homing devices being placed in the towers is simpler. The aircrafts computers could have been hacked to initiate auto-pilot mode with a pre-programed flightpath. The passengers and crew would have been exposed to some kind of poisonous gas to take them out of the equation. This could have all been done by timing devices placed in the aircraft.
This is all very speculative as it;s not something I've researched much. But: auto-pilots, homing devices in the towers, poison gas and timer triggered events all sounds pretty simple to me. There are also rumors that a third aircraft was seen flying around NY that morning. So was this third plane, if it really existed, the backup plane in case one of the others missed?
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thermate
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 445
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | Has anyone actually looked into what equipment is necessary to remote control an aircraft - in other words, are the electronics small enough to be covertly hidden and easily installed? |
I saw something recently about Boeing taken to court for retrofitting military grade gyroscopic controllers to their planes, this system allegedly could be used to remotely take control of the plane. Officially its an 'anti-hijacking' device of course... 
_________________
Make love, not money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Woodee
Moderate Poster
Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Posts: 159
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
that power dive thing is intriguing
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
numeral
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 500
Location: South London
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Woodee wrote: | | that power dive thing is intriguing |
As the ATC guy said, "it's the kind of stuff you only see in the movies".
Bet it was a movie.
_________________
Follow the numbers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wepmob2000
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 03 Aug 2006
Posts: 431
Location: North East England
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | I've said it time and time again. TTWSU3 is not here to debate 9/11 but purely to disrupt. This person/group should not be trusted. The constant promotion of no-plane theory, holocaust denial and a host of other off topic threads make TTWSU3 someone who should be ignored at all costs.
I second a call for a ban. |
I concur, TTWSU3-Ally (I believe they're one and the same) give every impression of being double agents, with their constant disruption, ad-hominen attacks, and promotion of frankly quite daft ideas.
More on topic though, I believe there is another possibility as regards the control of the aircraft in the attacks. I've been reading a series of articles by Captain Mike Ray - 'Flying the Boeing 7x7 series airliners'. In these articles he goes into great depth on the Flight Management Computer (FMC). This marvellous piece of kit controls every aspect of an aircrafts flight, from take-off to touchdown. It's pre-programmed with a very precise flightplan before take-off, and the pilots can literally fly hands-off all the way, effectively being there just to monitor the system.
Most pilots prefer to hand-fly the aircraft at least some of the way, but particularly on landing, where the FMC will provide a safe but 'firm' landing. The FMC can control everything, from throttle settings to navigation, to altitude.
Is it possible the Boeing's all simply had their FMC's programmed to carry out the attacks. It would be a lot simpler than remote control but do exactly the same thing. This is something I certainly am intent on doing more research on. All the aircraft used in the attacks would have had these FMC's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wepmob2000 wrote: |
I concur, TTWSU3-Ally (I believe they're one and the same) give every impression of being double agents, with their constant disruption, ad-hominen attacks, and promotion of frankly quite daft ideas.
More on topic though, I believe there is another possibility as regards the control of the aircraft in the attacks. I've been reading a series of articles by Captain Mike Ray - 'Flying the Boeing 7x7 series airliners'. In these articles he goes into great depth on the Flight Management Computer (FMC). This marvellous piece of kit controls every aspect of an aircrafts flight, from take-off to touchdown. It's pre-programmed with a very precise flightplan before take-off, and the pilots can literally fly hands-off all the way, effectively being there just to monitor the system.
Most pilots prefer to hand-fly the aircraft at least some of the way, but particularly on landing, where the FMC will provide a safe but 'firm' landing. The FMC can control everything, from throttle settings to navigation, to altitude.
Is it possible the Boeing's all simply had their FMC's programmed to carry out the attacks. It would be a lot simpler than remote control but do exactly the same thing. This is something I certainly am intent on doing more research on. All the aircraft used in the attacks would have had these FMC's. |
Whilst this is an interesting theory and one that I do not immediately discount, given the distance the aircraft was/were from the WTC, why would such extreme manoeuvres be necessary to acquire their targets?
Of course, the flight management control can instantly be overriden by the pilot and either, there was no pilot on hand to turn it off (dead/unconscious), or the FMC had been rigged so as not to be turned off.
As for TTWSU3 being banned, I am against such a move. There are far worse individuals in my opinion, even so, if I were in charge, I would ban no-one, everyone is entitled to a voice (spammers/herberts selling gold notwithstanding).
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with Telly
Why would such extreme manouvers be required for something flown by remote control
My understanding is that when flow by remote control these planes make very gentle manouvers
Perhaps you would like to address this area? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wepmob2000
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 03 Aug 2006
Posts: 431
Location: North East England
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: |
Whilst this is an interesting theory and one that I do not immediately discount, given the distance the aircraft was/were from the WTC, why would such extreme manoeuvres be necessary to acquire their targets?
|
Good question, this is something I pondered myself, but from what I understand, it depends on how flightplan waypoints are programmed into the FMC. For example if Waypoint B was 4nm from waypoint A, say 5000ft lower and required a 150 degree turn, this would result in some wild manouvering to reach A. I don't know if Boeing's have a system like Airbus aircraft do, whereby the aircraft won't permit extreme manouvers. I've not heard of such a system on Boeing aircraft, perhaps this is why no Airbuses were used? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| They had to use Boeings because I can say for a fact that Airbuses do not cut through buildings like a knife through butter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | They had to use Boeings because I can say for a fact that Airbuses do not cut through buildings like a knife through butter. |
The difference being....? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | They had to use Boeings because I can say for a fact that Airbuses do not cut through buildings like a knife through butter. |
The difference being....? |
Well everybody knows that Boeings can cut through the building like a knife through butter - we all saw it right??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | chek wrote: | | THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | They had to use Boeings because I can say for a fact that Airbuses do not cut through buildings like a knife through butter. |
The difference being....? |
Well everybody knows that Boeings can cut through the building like a knife through butter - we all saw it right??? |
This forum is turning to sh*t can we ban this twat?
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
