Report: Flight 77 Exceeded its Software Limits, page 1

This topic is in the 9/11 Conspiracies discussion forum. (rss)

Report: Flight 77 Exceeded its Software Limits << 1 2 >>

Topic started on 23-8-2002 @ 01:52 PM by cursedag
I read about this issue and thought, yea that makes sence, we have some proof here that there was no way that any person on Flight 77 could have made this wild turn dropping seven thousands feet in minutes while making nearly a 360 degree turn downward. PLANES OF 911 EXCEEDED THEIR SOFTWARE LIMITS Submitted by: Anonymous "Jim Heikkila Saturday August 17, 2002 Two of the aircraft exceeded their software limits on 911 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. From: Rumor News Link From: Hal Turner Show Link If someone could verify this information that the plane was making a 5 - 7 g turn, we could clear this up. Another Link with this quote from Dan Rather A confusing set of details from CBS 21 September 2001 (CBS) New radar evidence obtained by CBS News strongly suggests that the hijacked jetliner which crashed into the Pentagon hit its intended target. Top government officials have suggested that American Airlines Flight 77 was originally headed for the White House and possibly circled the Capitol building. CBS News Transportation Correspondent Bob Orr reports that's not what the recorded flight path shows. Eight minutes before the crash, at 9:30 a.m. EDT, radar tracked the plane as it closed to within 30 miles of Washington. Sources say the hijacked jet continued east at a high speed toward the city, but flew several miles south of the restricted airspace around the White House. At 9:33 the plane crossed the Capitol Beltway and took aim on its military target. But the jet, flying at more than 400 mph, was too fast and too high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker-pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn. Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes. The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed. The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and plowed into the Pentagon at 460 mph. Some eyewitnesses believe the plane actually hit the ground at the base of the Pentagon first, and then skidded into the building. Investigators say that's a possibility, which if true, crash experts say may well have saved some lives. At the White House Friday, spokesman Ari Fleischer saw it a different way. "That is not the radar data that we have seen," Fleischer said, adding, "The plane was headed toward the White House." Ten days after the hijacked airliner slammed into the Pentagon, leaving 189 people dead or missing including those on the plane, and gouging a giant smoky slice out of the world's biggest office building, some 300 people were looking for clues. (CBS) From: Independent Flight 77 Investigation [Edited on 23-8-2002 by cursedag]
copyright & usage
Click here for more 9/11 Conspiracies topics Hot Topics \| Top Topics \| This Week \| Subscribe \| Home
reply posted on 23-8-2002 @ 04:18 PM by Byrd
I saw this discussed on another forum (can't find the messages right now) and a couple of pilots chimed up and just ripped this one to shreds. Then someone from the military leaped on it and pounded the shattered remains of this into complete rubble, pointing out how stupid it was from a military standpoint. Apparently there's no such technology, and if they had such tech, no pilot would fly with it, no airline would accept it, the FAA would shriek bloody murder, and you'd have heard about it LONG before this. Pilots have to be able to override the autopilots. This isn't a real news report... it's someone's speculation. RumorNews has a bad habit of doing this.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 23-8-2002 @ 04:37 PM by William One Sac
Duncan Kunz Major Joined: 22 Jul 2002 Posts: 155 Location: Mesa Arizona USA Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2002 12:42 pm Post subject: Baa-aaa-aaa-hhh! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The problem with this article (in addition to the fact that it�s reported by �anonymous� like most conspiracy-crap, and therefore can�t really be challenged) is that there�s just enough truth in some of the information to shear the sheeple. Here are some examples: �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.� Lie. But, the aircraft does have an FMCS that, under pilot implementation will do some of those things. Here is some information from www.boeing.com... A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff (but not takeoff) to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system assures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload. However, all this software allows the aircraft to tie in to an airport�s automatic landing system and, if absolutely necessary, land under its own autonomous control � aided by the GCA (ground control approach) from the airport. And a flight crewmember has to turn it on and off � from the cockpit. Furthermore, the GCA at the WTC Airport is probably not capable of guiding an aircraft to a landing (or to an impact) since, of course, the WTC is not an airport and never had a GCA in it. www.boeing.com... discusses in detail how software (which controls a lot of things, not just the FMCS) can be updated. But the closest thing to �on the fly� reprogramming is to have the LRUs (line replaceable units) reprogrammed while the aircraft is on the ground. This would take an hour or two, which is not cost-effective if you�re trying to make money by flying people from here to there. Therefore, additional LRUs are pre-loaded in the work shop and physically installed into the aircraft, which is a pretty simple thing to do, given that they�re rack-mounted. But, these LRUs would have to be checked to ensure that they interface properly with the aircraft�s other computers. This takes a while, too. And all this checking is done from the cockpit, so that pilot certainly knows what�s going on. In other words, the aircraft cannot be guided by remote control -- even the software can't be loaded by remote control. But that kind of statement sure sells a lot of tabloids, doesn't it? �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.� Lie. Although the aircraft�s FMCS and other autopilot components are designed to keep stresses low by keeping the load factors down, the FMCS can be disabled instantly by a pilot for any reason whatsoever. For example, if an engine fails, the pilot will take over immediately and manually compensate for the torque delta, power delta, angle of attack, stall characteristics, etc. This could cause g-loads well in excess of 1.5 or �1.5. The aircraft is stressed for a higher load factor, anyway. Modern aircraft manufacturers realize that if you aircraft is going into a roll, the pilot should be able to pull any level of G�s he wants to recover, and even do things that may trash the engines; given that if he doesn�t, they�re all going to die, anyway. This is so typical of these types of �reports�. Some loser who desperately wants to believe that there is some sort of conspiracy about something in the news -- and wants you to believe it, too, to validate his own 'stuff' -- will actually make up completely bogus information � since the truth doesn�t support his arguments. Coward and liar that he is, of course he refuses to give his name � and yet his rant is picked up as though it were the truth. Baa-aaa-aaa-h! _________________ Regards, Duncan Kunz duncankunz@cox.net Mesa, Arizona, USA 480-891-2525 Back to top admin Site Admin Joined: 14 Jul 2002 Posts: 486 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2002 12:53 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for setting us straight! Back to top cbertok Lieutenant Joined: 25 Jul 2002 Posts: 80 Location: Edmonton,Canada Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2002 12:55 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm glad you're aboard Duncan. What about the cell calls? ________ I wouldn't critisize the anonymity this person retains, if I was either of you guys,, he gives his full technical training title. I would expect the post to be "un-named" either way. Back to top admin Site Admin Joined: 14 Jul 2002 Posts: 486 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2002 1:09 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If what he said was true, you might as well paint a bull's eye on his forehead. Notice the other posts about the the "assassination of Vreeland!" Back to top Duncan Kunz Major Joined: 22 Jul 2002 Posts: 155 Location: Mesa Arizona USA Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2002 1:51 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- �The cell phone calls from the aircraft could not have happened.� I�ll debunk this statement in a minute; first, though, let�s look at Einstein�s other pearls of wisdom. �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.� If the Professor here is up front about his MOS (which means military occupational specialty � and let�s assume that this is one thing he�s telling the truth about), then he is in the US Army, because it�s the US Army that uses the term �MOS�. Of course, it�s not his �Official Title�, any more that �BSME� is mine; it tells what kind of school he attended And where he did go to school (if he really is a sigint weenie) is in Ft. Huachuca, Arizona, right on the Mexican border. The NSA doesn�t train soldiers! Now let�s take a minute and look at his �MOS� � �33Q10� First, if you go to the Army site ( www.goarmy.com... ) and enter �33Q� in the search box, you get a really astounding message: No Military Occupational Specialties Match Your Search. Looking at the Electronic Warfare stuff: Signals Intelligence (SIGINT)/Electronic Warfare (EW) Operations are all MOS 98 followed by a letter identifier. Signal Operations (cable guys, radio repairers, etc., are all MOS 31 followed by a letter identifier. Psyops guys are all MOS 37 followed by a letter identifier. Military Intelligence guys are all MOS 97 followed by a letter identifier. BOOOOOOGUS!! �I am officially qualified to place severe doubt that ordinary cell phone calls were ever made from the aircraft.� How can you be �officially qualified� to �place doubt�? Who�s gonna �qualify� him? His mamma? �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.� Let me just blow off most of the silliness and ask you folks a question. Have you ever made a cell-phone call from outside your area recently? (I did yesterday; I called Dawn in Mesa from the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff.) Did you have to wait 45 seconds for the call to go through? (Funny; I didn�t, either.) �Though it is sometimes possible to connect during takeoff and landing, under the situation that was claimed the calls were impossible.� I have never made any cell-phone calls from an aircraft, but I have, on several occasions, sat next to a colleague flying over New Mexico on a Phoenix-to-St. Louis TWA flight and seen him talk to either his boss or his family. And if a cell-phone call can go through over New Mexico with its relatively light xponder census, then you certainly ought to be able to do so on the Boston-NYC-Washington corridor with cell xponders every couple of miles. And finally� If cell-phone communication is �impossible� as Doctor Science claims, then why do many airplanes have cell phones in the back of the seat ahead of you � that you can use with your handy-dandy calling card? Duuhhh! �The calls from the airplane were faked, no if's or buts.� The only �but� I can see is the �butthead� who wrote this in the first place. _________________ Regards, Duncan Kunz duncankunz@cox.net Mesa, Arizona, USA 480-891-2525 Last edited by Duncan Kunz on Wed Aug 21, 2002 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total Back to top Interdimensional Warrior Lieutenant Joined: 28 Jul 2002 Posts: 72 Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2002 1:55 pm Post subject: DUNCAN KUNZ IS LYING -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The high tech bs he spouted out above is, as usual 99% correct.But as I have said about Duncan before,it's that 1% of it that contains the "big lie",which is that it is imposible for the Boeings to be remotely piloted using thier own computers and "safety" features.I could rig it in about a 1/2 hour,using microswitches and servos to remotely activate the appropriate circuits,and I GUARANTEE THE INTEL OPERATIVES WHO DID IT WOULD KNOW HOW TO.As usual,Duncan again slaps us in the face with a bald-faced lie admin Site Admin Joined: 14 Jul 2002 Posts: 486 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2002 2:10 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- play nice... Joined: 23 Jul 2002 Posts: 35 Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2002 4:23 pm Post subject: Any comments here? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECEIVED IN EMAIL: Subj: ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS Date: 11/2/01 12:10:27 AM Pacific Standard Time Well you cannot expect standard Commercial Airline Pilots to know about (CLASSIFIED). OPS BLACKSTAR is Highly Compartmented, Secret Fire-Command & Control Platform System that flies out of Holloman AFB NM./FT. Huachuca, AZ (BLACKBAG OPS). Combine BLACKSTAR (Pilotless) and Thiokol's Corps. Portal Transport Systems (illegally downloaded by Wen Ho Lee, at Los Alamos), and You can control ANY AIRCRAFT THAT IS FBW. Remember that OPS BLACKSTAR has broadcast dissemination capabilities to 100 Aircraft at one time (AWACS, ASARS, JSTARS, TENCAP, TROJAN SPIRIT, GUARDRAIL-CS, UAV's, SIGINT, TEAMMATE, TRACKWOLF, REMBASS, HUMINT, CI IMINT, MASINT, TECHINT, JTF, ARF-OR, ACE, JIC, ACT) for an effective INTELLIGENCE BOS. I have personally SEEN, OPS BLACKSTAR in operation. I just thought you might would like to know. Tonight, on 60 minutes 2, there was a segment where the reporter went aboard one of those AWACS flying around overhead. He asked all the usual BS questions and got all the standard answers. I admit, I was so lulled by it all, I almost missed the big (I think,REALLY BIG) statement the reporter made very near the end of the segment..."The code name form their mission is "Darkstar"... See the connection? The BLACKSTAR program and an AWAC mission code named Dark star? Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2002 4:39 pm Post subject: More stuff: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- More stuff: Independent Flight 77 - Pentagon Event Investigation www.humanunderground.com...
copyright & usage

reply posted on 23-8-2002 @ 05:03 PM by cursedag
The discussion is not about the remote control theory. Period. I want to know if these planes could have been handled the way they were by any person, military, pilot on board, hijacker. If the plane was not able to be controlled to make such a turn, then there would have to be some other explanation as to how it was done. But I want to hear from someone who knows what they are talking about. "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." Lie. Although the aircraft�s FMCS and other autopilot components are designed to keep stresses low by keeping the load factors down, the FMCS can be disabled instantly by a pilot for any reason whatsoever. For example, if an engine fails, the pilot will take over immediately and manually compensate for the torque delta, power delta, angle of attack, stall characteristics, etc. This could cause g-loads well in excess of 1.5 or 1.5. The aircraft is stressed for a higher load factor, anyway. Modern aircraft manufacturers realize that if you aircraft is going into a roll, the pilot should be able to pull any level of Gs he wants to recover, and even do things that may trash the engines; given that if he doesn't, they're all going to die, anyway. Is there anyway to back this claim up?
copyright & usage
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
reply posted on 24-8-2002 @ 03:24 AM by ozze
Firstly, im no 'expert' (lol, is anyone!) on 757 flight dynamics, however it would be possible for the aircraft to perform these maneuvers. As far as im aware there are computer limitations on Airbus aircraft that in certain situations will not allow pilots to do certain things, however not on Boeing aircraft. Dropping 7000 feet in 2 minutes is not that big (3500 feet per minute) In fact, most aircraft can drop much faster than this (several thousand feet a minute.) However, The turn would have to pretty tight to hit 'between 5 and 7 G's'. The way I see it, it is most likelly that the plane has 1 wing facing the ground, and the pilot is pulling the nose 'up' (making the jet not go up but to swing the nose in the direction of the tail, if you get what I mean), and to do this while the plane is dropping, and at such high speeds would almost certainly result in a stall. If you are travelling at a high speed, in a nose down attitude, and then try to pull up, then the tail will continue on a downward momentum and although the nose is up, the jet will continue to sink. I think it would have been near impossible for anyone with very little experience (let alone an experienced pilot) to pull this off, and to be hitting these G-forces 1) The jet would be VERY strained, and perhaps (this is speculation on my part) not everything would be behaving as it should, and 2) Anyone exposed to this level of force, would be somewhat dis-abled by it, or at least have very limitted control of the aircraft. This alone would make it incrediblly hard to regain control of the jet. As I say, im not an Expert in any sense of the word, just an aviation enthusiast, but all the same in 'my view', I can see the plane doing these maneuvers, but recovering from them is another, more unbelievable aspect, though not impossible im sure. But Id also like to hear from anyone who knows about the aircraft, or any expert on the subject.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 25-8-2002 @ 01:53 AM by Kano
Or perhaps there is a special circumstances aspect to this. Perhaps the software is designed to let pilots override it if they are below 'x' altitude, to allow them to pull hard G's to escape hitting the ground. Unfortunately the software was not designed with this circumstance in mind.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 8-8-2003 @ 10:24 PM by uNBaLaNCeD
Aside from the fact that flight77 theoretically exceeded it's software limits on approach to the pentagon,most strange is how it supposedly went through a lot of trouble to hit where it did,you would think that the biggest office building in the world would provide a really easy target,wouldn't ya????????????. WELL!,ya know what?,that dern plane hit in the only place that was strengthened for a bomb attack etc.the only section completely strengthened against attack was right where the plane went through so much trouble to hit,smell anything fishy here?,really big,five sided target,huge target,but it hit right there. And ya know what else?,they announced on the news right afterward that the building had been strengthened ,so it would seem like such a stroke of luck that it hit right there,I think this whole terrorism thing here in the US is manufactured to distract all of the stupid sheoples from noticing that aliens are replacing their children's brains with dr.scholls foot powder.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 9-8-2003 @ 03:12 PM by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Another one of those "a plane didnt hit the building, a missile did" discussions? The answer is yes, what was done with flight 77 could have been done easily. Theres no questions it was well withion the planes capabilities, though not within its intention. Commercial airliners werent designed for Blue Angels style flying, and remain intact, however, the pilots intention here was not to keep the plane intact, but keep it on course into its fate. The real question is not whether the plane was capable. the question is the pilot: who the hell was capaple of playing with this big bird in this manner? The plane could have done what it did only in the hands of someone who had done this before in real life, playing with higher powered jets at speeds that are insane. F-15s do such things all the time, and fly at speeds that break the sound barrier. Tjis bird was only doing 420 miles an hour. Most planes cruise in flight around 500-600 miles an hour. And fighter jets blow both speeds away. So, Im not concerned about the planes capabilities, I live in jet city USA, we make these suckers. My cousins hubby designs the cockpit flight controls and stuff for these birds, hes a boeing software engineer. He states that in emergancies, pilots can do whatever the hell they want, that anything can get overridden. The 757's he said, were relatively easy to fly for pilots, with software that was less restrictive. What he did mention was the fact that the performance of the planes during the attacks was insane, whoever was flying them either had one hell of a flight intructor, or had flow jets like this before. That kind of fancy airwork dont come from people jumpin out of the flight simulator. Thus, my point. Whoever was flying that jet had to have experience flying military jets to be able to maintain cointrol of the bird while it was performing maneuvers it was not designed for. Miliatary flight training. Hm......last time I checked, Al Qaeda doesnt have any fleets of F-15 or Migs. Where would this rag tag bunch of terrorists get a hold of the training and equipment to pull this off? Hmmmmm............I know of other "terrorist: organization who not only have the people, but resources out the ass for this kind of training. The terrorist brotherhoods of the Mossad and CIA.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 9-8-2003 @ 09:48 PM by Estragon
I'm not sure we haven't discussed this to its limits over the months. It does rather assault credulity that pilots would accept control-systems that they could not -in an emergency -over-ride to the fullest extent. The conspiracy stuff (debunked here and elswhere) always seemed to be (a) drivel or (b) disinfo. That said: I note that all of this depends upon the plane's having been entirely standard and "untouched by human hand" and there are other conspiracy-posters who would suggest that the systems had been changed.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 9-8-2003 @ 09:56 PM by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Its more simple than that. No remote controls needed. No special software. it goes into who was flying the plane, someone of extraordinary skills. More than some ragtag terrorist could have learned from suppsoed flight schools. It has nothing to do with remote controls or special software, just unusually good skill even most commercial fulltime pilots dont have. Military fighter training. Where would terrorists get acess to such sophisticated schooling? Thats the real question.
copyright & usage
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
reply posted on 10-8-2003 @ 12:14 AM by Estragon
I hear glowing reports of the quality of training for military pilots in Israel.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 10-8-2003 @ 09:15 AM by uNBaLaNCeD
Estragon,that is what is called thinking outside the (black) box,Israel has been involved in almost all conflicts that have occurred after 1947 since Israel was created , on several occasions it has come to light that Israeli agents were discovered conducting ops in the US,but having the special priveledges that seem to have,it has been suppressed,I am beginning to wonder if the US is actually a puppet of isael somehow..
copyright & usage

reply posted on 24-9-2004 @ 12:26 AM by CatHerder
Originally posted by uNBaLaNCeD Aside from the fact that flight77 theoretically exceeded it's software limits on approach to the pentagon,most strange is how it supposedly went through a lot of trouble to hit where it did,you would think that the biggest office building in the world would provide a really easy target,wouldn't ya????????????. WELL!,ya know what?,that dern plane hit in the only place that was strengthened for a bomb attack etc.the only section completely strengthened against attack was right where the plane went through so much trouble to hit,smell anything fishy here?,really big,five sided target,huge target,but it hit right there. Actually, it was one of 3 sides that had been upgraded, it just happened ot be the side that was just being completed internally (decor-wise). The pilot had a 3 in 5 chance of hitting a newly upgraded section, not a 1 in 5. And whomever invented the story that the plane pulled some sort of remarkable G's is talking out their arse and embellishing the story to suit their fantasies of a conspiracy. A 3 (THREE) minute banking turn - BEFORE the plane got to the Pentagon. It did NOT fly past it, then circle around it - the terrorist flying the plane visually spotted the building and realized he was way too high for his approach so he turned the plane and descended -- a maneuver taking almost 3 minutes. The flight data recorder information has been available to the public for over a year now - funny how all the conspiracy sites don't include it's data in their story. If you, or any other person with math skills or flight engineering skills, can show me how a plane decending from 9,000 ft to 2,000 feet in 3 minutes, while performing a 320 degree turn would pull any significant G forces I'll be amazed.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 24-9-2004 @ 12:39 AM by slank
Dear Cat Herder, Is it your job to try and deflect any scrutiny of the attack on the pentagon? You wouldn't work for the Bush Administration would you? You seem very invested in it. [edit on 24-9-2004 by slank]
copyright & usage

reply posted on 24-9-2004 @ 12:45 AM by FredT
Originally posted by slank Is it your job to try and deflect any scrutiny of the attack on the pentagon? You wouldn't work for the Bush Administration would you? You seem very invested in it. Slank, give me a break! I mean really. Just because he has a logical point of view regarding the Pentagon plane strike does not make him a Bush Staffer. And if he is so what. In the 300+ posts I have yet to see anything in the thread based on his research to effectivly counter his findings. That being said: Boeing planes have alarm limits built in, but not hard limits as in Airbus planes. Its a design difference. So you can exceede design limits in Boeing planes. Not advised, but you never know what you have to do to avoid a crash etc.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 24-9-2004 @ 12:50 AM by slank
. logical is dispassionate, Cat Herder acts as if he has an iron in the fire. logical comes at things with an open mind not a preformed opinion or view. logical doesn't get hysterical when not everyone sees things their way. logic is cold brilliant and lovely. .
copyright & usage
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
reply posted on 24-9-2004 @ 12:57 AM by FredT
Originally posted by slank logical is dispassionate, Cat Herder acts as if he has an iron in the fire logical comes at things with an open mind not a preformed opinion or view.logical doesn't get hysterical when not everyone sees things their way.logic is cold brilliant and lovely. Thanks for the Logic pointer there Spock, but the manner with which portrayed the fact that the plane hit the Pentagonis logical. Period. [edit on 24-9-2004 by FredT]
copyright & usage

reply posted on 24-9-2004 @ 01:03 AM by slank
now that you've solved that for yourself you won't need to spend anymore time posting to these pentagon 911 threads. Whewww. What a relief for you. .
copyright & usage

reply posted on 24-9-2004 @ 01:18 AM by CatHerder
Originally posted by slank Is it your job to try and deflect any scrutiny of the attack on the pentagon? You wouldn't work for the Bush Administration would you? You seem very invested in it. No. I just can't stand when people post "scientific facts" (which are 100% fabrications) and "evidence" (which is altered and also fabricated) to support a theory that for whatever reasons is anti-government/anti-establishment just for the sake of being anti-government/anti-establishment. People either post untruths to intentionally mislead others into believing their story, or they post untruths because they've been mislead themselves and aren't willing or able to go investigate the truth on their own. Originally posted by slank . logical is dispassionate, Cat Herder acts as if he has an iron in the fire. logical comes at things with an open mind not a preformed opinion or view. logical doesn't get hysterical when not everyone sees things their way. logic is cold brilliant and lovely. . I choose to view the reality of the situation, you choose to wish for a grand conspiracy theory because you're one of those many who are too weak emotionally to accept that there are millions of people in the world who would like to kill you and your family members regardless that you've never met or that they've never heard of you. They don't know you but they want you, your parents, your wife, your kids, and everyone else you love, dead. Because, in their mind, you represent everything that is wrong. THAT is why people want something other than a 757 to have hit the Pentagon. They're too afraid to admit the cold reality of the world. I, on the other hand, grasp the reality of the situation. I looked at the Pentagon as objectively as I could. I was willing to accept either side of the story when I went into investigating it for myself. I concluded that it was indeed a 757 that hit the building - I did not give any opinion regarding who was to blame for it being allowed to happen.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 24-9-2004 @ 01:39 AM by slank
there are millions of people in the world who would like to kill you and your family members Is that supposed to be somekind of threat Cat Herder? Now because I am too weak emotionally Am I supposed to crumple like a little shivering kitten? "OOOhh, Mr. Big Strong Government Man Please Protect little ole me." Sorry babe, The terrorists may have you and a lot of other people hysterical, but statistically I am much more likely to die in an automobile crash or any number of other things. [Heart attack, Cancer, Stroke, etc] People get positively silly in their reaction to terrorism. Are you honestly that scared Cat Herder? I'm sure many people are, but it is not logical. The numbers do not bear it out. I, on the other hand, grasp the reality of the situation. I looked at the Pentagon as objectively as I could. I was willing to accept either side of the story when I went into investigating it for myself. I concluded that it was indeed a 757 that hit the building - I did not give any opinion regarding who was to blame for it being allowed to happen. Hosannah! the Oracle of truth has arrived. Everyone you can now turn off your minds because Cat Herder has determined the truth. And is perfectly willing to shove it down anyone's throat who doesn't agree with him. If you have arrived at this view after examining so much evidence, why are you so afraid to allow others the freedom to experience their own exploration of the truth and form there opinons thusly? Why are you so tense about it? Honestly it makes you seem a little weird. Im considered weird so don't take it as an insult. Truth is Truth. It will find it's way through in the end. So truly you can relax about it. .
copyright & usage