It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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?
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?
But as of today we have no telephone/print out that shows any airphone calls connected that day.
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.
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?
- 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.
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.
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.
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.