9/11 Aircraft 'Black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I was just looking beyond that and to the remote control theory itself.

Has the Honeywell vs Allied Signal discrepancy of the black-box manufacturers ever been clarified? There's a video over at hoodwinkedatshanksville.blogspot.com... called Back in Black Boxes that goes through it.

reply to post by TXRabbit


The direct link to the video you are talking about is this:

hoodwinkedatshanksville.blogspot.com...

And that is a great video! Highly recommended watching.

And to bring that full circle with this OP story:

Makes total sense that the serial numbers would be missing, seeing as according to the video- THEY PLANTED THE WRONG ONES!

Any identification of the planes via serial numbers of the FDR's would obviously lead to immediate signs of fraud! Wahahaaa.

Swampy, I know you're out there just waiting to derail this thread too, seeing as you can't come up with a reasonable explanation for all this. Kinda sucks, don't it?

Originally posted by habu71
reply to post by trebor451

 

I have not put forth an opinion about why or how much the Pentagon air defense system did or did not react, because I do not know enough personally about the system.

Hi Habu71, a few members on ATS have tried to tell me, for a fact that the Pentagon had no air defense systems in place before 9/11. I always had the very strong belief that the Pentagon had some form of air defense on the property, like ground to air missiles or Gatt. Guns?

Is it 100% FACT, that The Pentagon had an air defense system on site before 9/11?


Maybe, it's because I am a new member, and Australian, some havn't realized that I am up to speed on ATS threads now as well, and have been for about a week.

They might not realize how much personal time and effort I have put into discovering the real facts of 9/11. I have made a couple of errors in a Post about the Pentagon, but it was very late and I was tired, & didn't re-check sources properly before posting - A very stupid error on my part.

I have followed all of the relevant investigations, evidence, media reports from the first minutes of that day, and it just confirmed my original thoughts that I had minutes after the crime.

We are having the AE convention, Alex Jones and many other interesting people coming to Sydney, Australia November 14th & 15th 2009 (www.911oz.com), a lot of Australians like myself are trying to get them to Melbourne as well.

The media are invited at no entrance fee, so it should be another great step forward.

Cheers.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by Skyline666]

[edit on 9-6-2009 by Skyline666]

Originally posted by Skyline666
Is it 100% FACT, that The Pentagon had an air defense system on site before 9/11?

That's difficult to discern if you do not have access to classified information, on a need to know basis, directly about the Pentagon's defenses. The closest that I have seen anyone able to answer that question (for public consumption) came when Alex Jones interviewed April Gallop. April worked there, and was there on 9/11, just having returned from maternity leave.

April had received a classified tour of the Pentagon's defenses. In the interview Alex made a statement which April confirmed, that would indicate that air defenses at the Pentagon were so strong that she, to this day, cannot understand how or why anything was even able to come within "a certain radius" of the Pentagon- especially given that at the time it was already known that the country was under attack. And therefore even more so that an alert, firing-ready defensive posture would be assumed.

It does kinda boggle the mind- until you hear Norman Minetta's testimony of Cheney's stand down order, that is. Then it makes a whole lot more sense. Treasonous sense.

[edit on Thu Jun 11th 2009 by TrueAmerican]

BTW, those key points on April occur in this video of that interview, in the first few minutes:



In addition, note her comments here:

patriotsquestion911.com...

Interview 7/14/06: Interviewer: Do you have any theory about how a Boeing 757 could have hit such a secure building without any anti-aircraft defenses being activated or any warning alarms sounded?

Gallop: I have thought about this very question numerous times. And then I realized I needed to rephrase the question. The real question is what is the probability or likelihood that no anti-aircraft defense, warning alarms or additional security mechanism functioned on that particular day?

And then we need to think how likely is it then there was a glitch in all the security mechanisms, anti-aircraft defense and warning alarms?

She seems to indicate indirectly that there were air defenses there. But others deny it vehemently. So the jury is out on that one. Or is it?

[edit on Thu Jun 11th 2009 by TrueAmerican]

reply to post by TXRabbit


Honeywell acquired Alled Signal in 1999 - several of my friends worked
at Allied Signal in Morristown. Got laid off during the merger

en.wikipedia.org...

depending on when recorder was made and when it was swapped out
on jet can account for the discepancy

Older units carry Allied Signal name, ones made after merger Honeywell

Obviously the aircraft which returned to Virginia to fly Over the Naval Annex and did not crash into the Pentagon, was not Flight 77 N644AA and the real Flight 77 landed or disappeared up near Ohio and did not fly into Virginia.

This Flight Explorer animated gif of Flight 77 consists of 39 steps. At step 20 (the Northern edge of the path), you will realise that the plane icon doesn't move - BUT - the accompanying data change:

Suddenly the plane changes

a) the altitude (second line, first number including arrow for climbing or descending):

one moment, it is at 31200 ft., descending
the next moment, it is at 35000 ft., climbing

b) the speed (second line, second number):

one moment, it is 476 mph
the next moment, it is 458 mph

c) the estimated arrival time (fourth line):

one moment, it is 1:21 p.m.
the next moment, it is 1:16 p.m.

Was this an Operation Northwoods style plane swap?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c062e665689f.gif[/atsimg]

At 8:56, the blip of Flight 77 vanished from the radar screens of Indianapolis Center, the responsible ATC facility, and at the same time radio communication was lost. This is a well known and well confirmed fact. Just take a look at the ATC transcript:

0911.site.voila.fr...

The controllers thought it had crashed and submitted their assessment to other ATC centers, FAA headquarters and American Airlines. This caused the top AA management to believe that Flight 77 crashed into the South Tower - they believed it until the Pentagon strike! There were also rumors going around that a plane crashed near the Ohio-Kentucky border (as confirmed in Richard Clarke's "Against all enemies"), which is exactly the area where Flight 77 vanished (take a look at the Flight Explorer animation in the transcript link).

For sure, the controllers activated primary radar as soon as they lost Flight 77 to look for him, but this measure was obviously not successful. Flight 77 was not detected by any controller until it was picked up at 9:32 by Dulles TRACON controllers. (The only man who knew its position at 9:25 was Norman Mineta...)

For someone who's aware of Operation Northwoods this stinks of a plane swap: Flight 77 crashed or landed somewhere near the Ohio-Kentucky border, and the plane that was detected by the Dulles controllers was not Flight 77.

911woodybox.blogspot.com...

reply to post by SPreston


Excellent analysis, SPreston, even if I did not agree with you (which I do), your analysis would raise questions......

To answer a previous question, yes, the Pentagon does have significant air defense capability, as well as radar capability. Is anyone aware of anyone officially questioning the SECDEF about why the pentagon was so vulnerable on that day?

reply to post by SPreston


Thanks so much for that, This I think is very accurate. When I first discovered info about the time delay a while ago, it seemed like a swap, hence what you said the real Flight 77 landed or crashed.

I actually believe that they landed it somewhere in that vicinity, depending on how much time they had in the air before more sightings or radar pick up. Unfortunately, if the passenger list is real, I think the passengers would of been killed before it landed, or once landed.

This is why the Pentagon Complete Truth, may never bee known.
However, all we have to prove is that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, not how they did it.

reply to post by habu71


Thanks habu & SPreston. I think where I originally heard it had something to do with Nick Pope.

Did you see the debate in the UK on tv channel ? It has been posted in Ats Media here, but now I can't find it for some reason, if anyone finds it can they send me the link or let me know what section it is in, when I saw it it was not in the conspiracy section.

I have to watch this debate again, in the daytime, not when I am tired.

Nick Pope, very surprisingly dosn't agree with us here at ATS. Nick's true research and books on UFO"S and such is brilliant, but why is he defending the OS?

It makes me think, that he really hasn't investigated the OS at all???

Originally posted by habu71
...yes, the Pentagon does have significant air defense capability, as well as radar capability.

Yeah, it probably does now, but the question is did it have the capability to shoot down the plane, or missile, or whatever it was, on 9/11? THAT is the question that we can't seem to get any definite closure on, because supposedly that is classified.

But if the answer is truly yes to that question, and confirmed by those that know for sure, then I don't see how those that know for sure can justify in any way that plane (or whatever) hitting the Pentagon.

And with a yes answer, that makes Dick Cheney immediately a treasonous conspirator (because of the stand down order), along with everyone else who held back fire on the aircraft (or whatever)(because they obeyed an illegal order).

Is anyone aware of anyone officially questioning the SECDEF about why the pentagon was so vulnerable on that day?

Are you talking about Rumsfeld? (January 20, 2001-December 18, 2006)

or Robert Gates? (December 18, 2006- Present)

reply to post by SPreston

Suddenly the plane changes

a) the altitude (second line, first number including arrow for climbing or descending):

one moment, it is at 31200 ft., descending
the next moment, it is at 35000 ft., climbing

b) the speed (second line, second number):

one moment, it is 476 mph
the next moment, it is 458 mph

c) the estimated arrival time (fourth line):

one moment, it is 1:21 p.m.
the next moment, it is 1:16 p.m.

For non-pilots I see how this could be confusing. Ever heard of momentary glitches?? AND, the "source" is flightexplorer...

Flightexplorer is owned by Sabre...a computer system that provides the reservations and dispatching ond other operations for American Airlines.

For the data in Flightexplorer, it comes from the FAA first, then is routed to the piece you see as a layman consumer. The American Airlines dispatchers have a better feed, directly into their building. THEY would have seen any alleged "swap"!!

Again, this is pure speculation, from a source you found on the internet.

And, if....big IF...there was a 'swap', to you really think they'd be that amateurish about it??? They'd never make a big altitude mistake like that...heck, they'd turn off the Mode C temporarily...so the altitude data would just drop out for a few seconds, happens all the time.

As to the Groundspeed and ETA??? Hint: Groundspeed changes, ETA changes. Headings change, ETA can change. The computers are recalculating....winds vary....that's why it's called an Estimated Time of Arrival! Plus, the ETA that was depicted on Flightexplorer was for the destination! ETAs for the next waypoint, or VOR, or other fix only minutes ahead are far more accurate. ETAs for the final destination will fluctuate, depending on the computer doing the calculating.

For instance: We know an ETA from the computer flight plan time, added to the 'Off' time. In flight, the ETA shown on the FMC will vary, because the computer is looking at current winds, and groundspeed. Of course, by inputting the forecasted wind data along the entire route of flight, for each leg, the ETA in the FMC will be more accurate, and won't fluctuate as much.

Oh dear. It appears some people may have missed this thread, so I better bump it back up. *bump*

Yeah MISSING!

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Thanks for the bump, I had missed this thread, great information here!

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Since you 'bumped'....from your OP:

2) Because of this, we cannot be sure that any subsequent analysis of the FDR data indeed corresponded to the actual planes in question

3) Other research, such as that from Craig Ranke and the Northside Flight Path, indicates that the FDR data may have indeed been tampered with or false

4) There is no conclusive evidence to show that the FDRs analyzed by the NTSB were that of the 9/11 alleged planes

Please, address and privide proof of those three items...I chose only three because they seemed most important.



AS TO #2 --- what OTHER airplanes would the SSFDR data correspond to??

HOW would they be able to get the data from another airplane, as seen, without crashing it? Why bother?


AS TO #3 --- Craig Ranke is increasingly becoming debunked.

But, notwithstanding any of that, could you please provide some evidence of just how the SSFDR data can be "tampered" with?

You should be forewarned - modern solid state flight data recorders collect hundreds of specific situations and conditions onboard the airplane...all time coded, and MUST be logical....if you could find ANY mistake, I.E. a 'glitch' where data recorded is contradictory from a logical and operational standpoint, then you will have made quite a coup.


AS TO #4 --- This is the worst 'straw man' that just gets repeated, ad nauseum, picked up and repeated until it becomes a "truth'...without any basis in confirmation.

What's worse, is the way it was phrased, in #4...."alleged planes". That is volatile, and 'leading' (if I may borrow from a TV courtroom drama as the defense and prosecution parlay between each other...)

DO you see? We have to have some basis, first...."alleged planes" is way too inflammatory. And, it tends to poison the waters in the discussion.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
AS TO #3 --- Craig Ranke is increasingly becoming debunked.

BS. Besides, Craig Ranke is not the one TO debunk, if you are going to try and debunk any of his stuff. He and CIT merely went to get eyewitness reports. It's not Craig's fault or invention that the testimonies came back as they did, severely contradicting the OS, FDR data, 84 RADES data, light pole claims and ultimately, the AA77 impact claims. So debunk the eyewitnesses, not him.

As to the rest, you might try reading through the thread more, as I believe your questions have been covered.

reply to post by TrueAmerican

As to the rest, you might try reading through the thread more, as I believe your questions have been covered.

Nice deflection...but as poor dear departed Clara used to say..."Where's the Beef?!"

It wasn't hard to read thru two pages....so I ask again, in her memory...Where's the Beef?


Oh, and this bit??? True in fantasy land, 'tis...

It's not Craig's fault or invention that the testimonies came back as they did, severely contradicting the OS, FDR data, 84 RADES data, light pole claims and ultimately, the AA77 impact claims.

It has been well established that "Craig" selectively chose those 'testimonies' that supported his pet theory, systematically ignoring anyone else's testimony.

Funny that a handful of so-called "eye-witnesses", again ONLY those who were hand-picked (and others who contradicted were excluded) ... but just that small handful "saw" something other than the FDR data, 84 RADES data, the (you didn't mention it) TRACON data, the DCA local controllers witnessing, the positively identified debris at the Pentagon, the DNA recovered at the Pentagon, etc....

AND...these "eyewitnesses" of "Craig"'s don't even agree 100% (alas, that is the nature of eyewitnesses...and why, although you take what they 'report' into account, you weigh it all against the preponderence of other evidences...)

Problem with so many of these "investigations" by amateur internet sleuths is --- they are looking at it through the wrong end of a pair of binoculars.



[edit on 27 October 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by habu71


LOL, it is nice to see that I still have Tezza under my control. He/she constantly uses that link to try to back himself/herself up. Of course, in typical fashion, he/she always forgets to mention that my post was my impersonation of a truther.

He also forgets that, I, as Lord Most High of the 9-11 Official Story Supporters, has exempted all Official Story Supporters from any such requirements.

reply to post by earthman4


You are quite wrong. More than one child died that day.