What Level Of Skill Was Required To Fly A Plane Into The Pentagon ?

a reply to: Jacobu12

And the ATT operators...or let me guess, they are assholes too? Again, how many people are involved in your conspiracy?

a reply to: Jacobu12

And even if they are on the plane, if they are disconnected as you claim, THEY NO LONGER WORK. If you get anything at all when you try to use them, it will be an error message that the phone service is disconnected.

Just because you have a cell phone that's been disconnected, you can't pick it up and call people, because you still have it. The ONLY way calls went out is if the phones were still connected.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Jacobu12

I not buying a novice could fly the plane like this on the day.

How did he fly the plane?

He flew like a novice.

So you don't accept that someone who flew a plane like a novice before crashing it was a novice pilot, he needed to have military training?

He flew it like an ace, hero that he has been elevated to. Let's have a show of hands from the various aviators here who have flown their transport category aircraft at Vmo +90. Jacobu will swallow that claim too, is my bet, but I don't know a single person who has flown his 757 in ground effect, at the bottom of a maneuver requiring 3500FPM descent, at Vmo +90.

Not AA77, not any other transport category aircraft, hit the pentagon on that day.

If a lie is repeated often enough, people will buy it.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jacobu12

And the ATT operators...or let me guess, they are assholes too? Again, how many people are involved in your conspiracy?

When you got a conspiracy you can't trust anyone. Do you know the ATT operators? The only way to verify information is legit is by paper trail. Where was the calls placed from? Did someone answer?

But as of today we have no telephone/print out that shows any airphone calls connected that day.

So trial evidence doesn't count. Someone could just create a report and put it out on the net but that wouldn't make it fact.

a reply to: roadgravel

Trial evidence counts only when it supports the official story. That is why there was only one actual trial associated with the events of 911, and in the discovery phase information was learned about ARINC ACARS data that really embarrassed the official story tellers, because that data showed UA93 still airborne about 30 minutes after it supposedly crashed in PA.

a reply to: Jacobu12

You know, there is a reason why the FBI had 7,000 employees spend a couple million man hours on interviews and examining evidence right? OR, is that 7,000 more conspirators on your ever growing list?

a reply to: Salander

No, the ACARS data showed that the message continued traveling along the system for another 30 minutes since Flight 93 was no longer airborne to receive it.

originally posted by: roadgravel

But as of today we have no telephone/print out that shows any airphone calls connected that day.

So trial evidence doesn't count. Someone could just create a report and put it out on the net but that wouldn't make it fact.

What evidence did they show that proved Barbara Olson phoned 4 times? Was her husband office number unregistered? Unknown numbers? The AT&A operator claims the she connected a woman to number 202514-2201. Why did the FBI call the number unknown? The 4 calls had the same destination.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jacobu12

You know, there is a reason why the FBI had 7,000 employees spend a couple million man hours on interviews and examining evidence right? OR, is that 7,000 more conspirators on your ever growing list?

Is that why the American public did not see the 29 pages for 16 years? Do you honestly believe there was no cover up going on here?

I had a vague memory of Pilots for 911 truth posting fake evidence regarding the seat back phones. So I went back and found it.

It's just as funny now as it was then.

They posted this document stating the phones had been disconnected before 9/11.





The red box at the bottom is suppose to be the effective date. You might notice that the bottom of the g is cut off on "page 1" inside the red box and the date numbers are a slightly different font from the rest of the document.

Other inconsistencies include :

- Both dates appear to have been altered in their last two digits.

- The two visible dates are supposed to match. That they do not, I strongly suspect, would reveal immediately to anyone knowledgeable about the format of these particular documents that this page has been falsified.

- That the redactor is attempting to disguise the page revision date at upper left as the software revision date, by blacking out the actual revision numbers and date that appear in the blacked-out field next to "Software Release." This is supported by:

1. There is no reason to conceal the software release; it could not possibly identify the individual user.

2. A software release is usually identifed by a revision number, and sometime also by a date. But what else is needed? If the software "REV" number (62) and date are visible on the line below, what other information about the software release would be left to appear on the line above?

- That the redactor changed the date at the bottom in order to back-date the document, and is attempting to disguise the resulting mismatch by making the top date appear to be a software revision date instead, and changing the year on that top date to appear plausibly recent for a software revision date.

- That the match in month and day is not a 1 in 365 coincidence, but an indication that the dates are supposed to match and the document has been altered. Conservatively estimating that there is at least a 10% chance of a document appearing in such circumstances (heavily redacted, by an anyonymous source, concerning a controversial issue) is faked, interpreting the 1 in 365 coincidence of the date match as conclusive evidence of a fake will lead to the correct conclusion 35 times out of 36.

Thus I conclude, not with certaintly but with considerable confidence, that this is a fake, and a clumsy one.

Source

www.internationalskeptics.com...

The Truth Movement still use this document as evidence.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

You don't understand how the 2001 vintage ACARS worked. Most likely you also don't understand how the current version works.

The fiasco in the discovery process of the Moussaoui trial is but one reason there were no other trials (and discovery) associated with 911.

a reply to: waypastvne

LOL, and those defending the official story still offer the statements of POTUS Bush as evidence. Or Colin Powell or Don Rumsfeld. It's comical.

Two friends of mine, and myself in separate action, demonstrated how 2001 vintage cell phones could not possibly have done what they said they did.

originally posted by: waypastvne
I had a vague memory of Pilots for 911 truth posting fake evidence regarding the seat back phones. So I went back and found it.

It's just as funny now as it was then.

They posted this document stating the phones had been disconnected before 9/11.

The red box at the bottom is suppose to be the effective date. You might notice that the bottom of the g is cut off on "page 1" inside the red box and the date numbers are a slightly different font from the rest of the document.

Other inconsistencies include :

- Both dates appear to have been altered in their last two digits.

- The two visible dates are supposed to match. That they do not, I strongly suspect, would reveal immediately to anyone knowledgeable about the format of these particular documents that this page has been falsified.

- That the redactor is attempting to disguise the page revision date at upper left as the software revision date, by blacking out the actual revision numbers and date that appear in the blacked-out field next to "Software Release." This is supported by:

1. There is no reason to conceal the software release; it could not possibly identify the individual user.

2. A software release is usually identifed by a revision number, and sometime also by a date. But what else is needed? If the software "REV" number (62) and date are visible on the line below, what other information about the software release would be left to appear on the line above?

- That the redactor changed the date at the bottom in order to back-date the document, and is attempting to disguise the resulting mismatch by making the top date appear to be a software revision date instead, and changing the year on that top date to appear plausibly recent for a software revision date.

- That the match in month and day is not a 1 in 365 coincidence, but an indication that the dates are supposed to match and the document has been altered. Conservatively estimating that there is at least a 10% chance of a document appearing in such circumstances (heavily redacted, by an anyonymous source, concerning a controversial issue) is faked, interpreting the 1 in 365 coincidence of the date match as conclusive evidence of a fake will lead to the correct conclusion 35 times out of 36.

Thus I conclude, not with certaintly but with considerable confidence, that this is a fake, and a clumsy one.

Source

www.internationalskeptics.com...

The Truth Movement still use this document as evidence.

Revision in manuals happen all the time, it's a SOP process. Anyway we have two reliable witnesses who claim the phones got disconnected prior to 9/11. Either way someone got this wrong, but who?

originally posted by: Salander

cell phones

But we are talking about Airphones. Silly.


And again, How long was AA77 in ground effect ?

originally posted by: Jacobu12



two reliable witnesses

Your two reliable witnesses are associated with the same group of people that forged this document.

Pilots for 911 Truth.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Salander

No, the ACARS data showed that the message continued traveling along the system for another 30 minutes since Flight 93 was no longer airborne to receive it.

Wasn't the issue no down link to confirm they were being received. The reports didn't have records of the down link (DLBLK) messages, just the up links that were not confirmed.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Jacobu12



two reliable witnesses

Your two reliable witnesses are associated with the same group of people that forged this document.

Pilots for 911 Truth.

That's a lie. The two eyewitnesses are American airlines workers they only got contacted for information. The 757 aircraft manual is a real document, its not forged. If people online are changing things that be easy to spot.

No, you dont have two reliable witnesses that they were disconnected. You have a PR hack and a pilot. Neither of which know jack about aviation maintenance or the maintenance records for that airframe.

So these two employees personally checked every 757 in the fleet?

If your car is recalled for a bad part, does that mean the part is replaced or is it on notice that it is to be done.