Don't be fooled by ATS' professional debunkers

page: 37
118
<< 34  35  36    38 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 





I can see one pilot getting surprised like this, but what about the other pilot? To not even be able to squack to hijack code?


Do you even know the process in which a pilot would select the hijack code on his transponder? And do you think a terrorist is going to be dumb enough to stand there and say "Sure, Ill let you enter the code"?




posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Do you even know the process in which a pilot would select the hijack code on his transponder? And do you think a terrorist is going to be dumb enough to stand there and say "Sure, Ill let you enter the code"?


Is any terrorist/hijacker going to let someone squack the code?

Then why is it even possible to do so?



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Hi, Nutter,

I was typing and lost an entire post...so here goes again...

You wrote:

I can see one pilot getting surprised like this, but what about the other pilot?


Well, isn't it possible that at least TWO bad guys rushed the cockpit in the attack to take over the airpalne? That's how I would have planned it.


Now, this is something that has been talked about many, many times, seems I have to elaborate (again) on it, to adjust some misconceptions:

To not even be able to squack to hijack code?


You see, the purpose of a discrete transponder squawk code for hijackings is to be able to tell ATC covertly about a situation. There are code words to use, theory being that IF the pilots can't speak in the clear, then they can get the point across and the bad guys are no wiser.

IF a hijacking situation develops in the cabin, and the cockpit is secure, THEN the pilots will notify ATC (and their company, nowadays, with all the technology we have) in plain English. No need to squawk...in fact, if anything, they'll go straight to the 'emergency' code. BUT, even that is unneeded...it makes a big dispaly on the ATC radar screen, and could be distracting. Again, as long as you're in radio comm with the ground, the transponder codes aren't needed.


Now then....

Also, how did they kill the pilots while sitting strapped in and then remove their bodies from the flight seat without knocking the controls out of "auto pilot"?.


This is even easier to explain, because I can show pictures. Firstly, the seats in the B-757/767 move well aft, and outboard on their J-tracks.

Here's a good shot (of a Delta jet) showing the seats all the way back and outboard, along with showing the tracks on the floor:



Here's a side angle, where you can see how much room there is between the seat and the lower part of the control column:



One more (it was a simple, quick search) to show an example of a person in the seat, in this case, the First Officer (on the right). They are not in flight --- I can see that the engines are shut down, and the airspeed is Zero!! The F/O has his seat all the way back, you can see his legs space:



What's more, the control column and wheel are not 'hair trigger' when it comes to accidentally bumping them and causing an uncommanded A/P disconnect. In fact, in some cases, the A/P will first default to a more basic mode, where it stays engaged (controlling basic pitch and roll) but some of the upper-level programming may drop off...still, A/P remains.



Also, wasn't it reported by either Betty Ong or someone else that the pilots were herded to the rear of the plane?


Now, that I'm not sure about. I expect the circumstances were different on each airplane. It's hard to know what all EIGHT of the pilots did, how they died, etc. Find it dubious, though, that any would leave the cockpit under those circumstances....certainly not willingly, I can tell you that.

Much is pure specualtion, otherwise.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Thanks for the detailed information. Unlike a few around here, now that I've been shown my mistake, I will not be posting it again.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


My problem was never with the pilots response I'm sure they were overwhelmed.My problem was the passengers.I can do more damage with a ball point pen then they could with box cutters.
Maybe its because i was in the military but i assure you you try to hold me captive with box cutters and I will hurt you.I guess we could chalk this up to the fact that most Americans have become complacent and don't have the will to fight for anything even there own lives.

I truly hope this isn't the case however id like to think that there are still people out there willing to fight to protect others.And im still in disbelief that everyone just sat quitely as everything unfolded.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


My problem was never with the pilots response I'm sure they were overwhelmed.My problem was the passengers.I can do more damage with a ball point pen then they could with box cutters.
Maybe its because i was in the military but i assure you you try to hold me captive with box cutters and I will hurt you.I guess we could chalk this up to the fact that most Americans have become complacent and don't have the will to fight for anything even there own lives.

I truly hope this isn't the case however id like to think that there are still people out there willing to fight to protect others.And im still in disbelief that everyone just sat quitely as everything unfolded.


I think from memory there was reference in a phone call from UA 93 to a hi-jacker having a bomb. Probably a phony but I expect it looked real enough. Seems likely to me that each team followed the same procedure to cow passengers.

Also, you refer to a lack of will to fight even to save their own lives but, apart from UA 93 where there is evidence the passengers did fight, I don't see any reason why the others, until perhaps the last, expected anything but to be landed and held hostage for a spell so why risk being blown up.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 



I can do more damage with a ball point pen then they could with box cutters.


Well...if I were so inclined to commit violence on another person...mind you, I'm not referring to self-defense here, I am talking about being the aggressor, with all intent to subdue and win over the victims...I'd much prefer a boxcutter to a ballpoint pen.

Sure, a hard plastic pen, with a lucky shot into an eye or up the nose into the nasal cavity, perhaps the brain...yeah, that could take care of a person, again IF you get that lucky shot.

BUT...come up from behind a seated man, even a straong man, you is at that disadvantage, AND has a seatbelt on and you have the element of surprise...well, a boxcutter knife blade to the throat is going to be almost instantly effective at disabling your victim.

That's assuming you are bloodthirsty and violent enough to carry out such an act. Against someone who means you no harm. Insanity comes in so many different forms.....



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by dragonridr
 

Insanity comes in so many different forms.....

No offense Captain Weedwhacker, but anyone who still believes in the government's official 9/11 story after a mountain of contradictory evidence has been uncovered may not be clinically insane, but they're certainly very naive and easily brainwashed.

What are your problems with Pilots For 9/11 Truth? Have you even investigated what this group of professional pilots are saying?



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


My 'problem' with P4T????


Oh, there isn't enough room here to list them all...

Let's just look at one, shall we? There is a thread here on ATS concerning the incredible "News Release" that the sorry excuse for a pilot group P4T put out where they claim to have 'proven' that American 77 hijacking was 'impossible' based on the...ahem...cockpit door FDR parameter.

The booby prize goes to their fearless leader for promoting the debacle, and the claim, without verifying it first. Read the thread.

There is a lot more....mostly hilarious math mistakes, and pure wild speculation based on false assumptions, and claims...

The only people who are fooled by their baloney are the poor suckers who give them money and lap up their nonsense, because it's couched in a lot of good mumbo-jumbo and technospeak gobbledygook....and people who have NO experience flying airplanes fall for it.

Funny thing is, they trot out that 'list' of 'core contributors' who remain remarkably ABSENT from any discussions (most likely embarrassed).

And, what few do pipe up, claim that even THEY, with all of their thousands of hours, could not fly a simulator into the WTC Tower...(funny, I have no problem)...without first slowing down to near approach and landing airspeeds.

Hmmmm.....guess these airshow pilots are better than the P4T so-called "experts", then?





Mind you, they are lining up with a runway...usually either 125 feet to 150 feet wide, compared to the WTC Tower, over 200 feet wide.

And, sure...those examples aren't going much more than about 250 knots...but, still. Aiming an airplane is not nearly has difficult as they'd like you to believe, but it's needed for their fantasy story to keep getting spread around.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh, and.....



...anyone who still believes in the government's official 9/11 story after a mountain of contradictory evidence has been uncovered...


Where is your "mountain"?

So far, that too only exists in the imagination and load of crap baloney that exists in the conspiracy theorist's feeble minds.....



[edit on 22 December 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Hi Weed,
What exactly is the "crap baloney" you're talking about? I mean, you give us great stuff on the technical side of flying, and then you descend into a kind of hyperbole, exaggerating the silliness of other peoples views. I have no doubt that planes flew into the WTC and the Pentagon, how they got there are just theories, nothing else, especially the Pentagon plane. You know, you have never answered my query as to how the Pentagon plane came in at ground level, (like on the ground) the video of that shows, if nothing else that, that plane was on the ground. That should be a challenge for you to answer, but you never have...at least, not to me.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


"crap baloney" was a catch-all for many things...one aspect that doesn't apply to you, it seems, since you are not of the "Magic Flyover at the Pentagon" camp...THAT sort of baloney, for starters.

Anyway, as to the question...I don't think there is any determination that the airplane was "level" at the last moments before impact. If you're refering to the Pentagon parking lot video, it doesn't have the sort of resolution to accurately answer that. Also, its field of view was quite narrow, giving the illusion of a 'level' approach. BUT, the visual sample is too small to tell for sure.

What is MORE useful is the FDR data, as has been better decoded by Warren Stutt.

This blows back very heartily into the P4T cult's faces, and further tarnishes their image -- as if anything else was needed, they've done a fair job of getting their wang caught in their pants fly already....



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 
Well the video does have enough info for me Weed. I looked long and hard at that video, especially before any presence of an aircraft. What you can see are vehicles in the far distance way beyond the Pentagon, and being able to see them defines the ground level at a distance. there is no difference in the level of the airplane as the cars in the distance.
In this link there are some interesting witness reports....just to confuse the issue. Mr Bell and Mr O'Brien's are especially interesting.

killtown.911review.org...

[edit on 22-12-2009 by smurfy]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


OK...now you have me confused, as to just what you're trying to claim.

You link a list of eyewitness testimony, specifying Mr. Bell and Mr. O'Brien, who both state that they saw the airplane impact the Pentagon...and your point?

Second, once again...the few frames of video from a camera that did NOT record full motion, but only so many frames per minute is not definitive prof of ANY of the airplane's path. It lacks the resolution and field of view to be certain of anything.

Not mentioned on this thread, but on other threads discussing the FDR, the airplane's pitch attitude (that refers to the nose, and its angle relative the horizon) was about 4 degrees nose down. That would be about right, based on the full look of the FDR read and animation.

And, at that speed, which was unusual for that altitude, the nose would be lower attitude, than would be expected at a normal airspeed. The hijacker was diving to increase the airspeed, and a shallow level-off but not COMPLETELY level makes sense. Just looking at the terrain, with your own eyes, would help explain what I mean.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Mr Bell's statement is recorded that he was almost hit by a wing..you left that bit out. Mr O'Brien's statement implies he was close by, (four miles) to the hijacked plane.. maybe he was the purported "other plane" Here is a link to the video, (long version) and look for the traffic in the distance, then see the nose of a plane appear..could it be white as some witnesses claimed? it is not so cut and dried as you say. How does the helipad figure? How does the flight path not correspond to police and other witnesses who say that the plane flew directly over the Navy Annex? There could be a mundane anwer, that's why i'm asking you for help with a direct answer.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


smurfy, you aren't fully aware of all the details of those events.

O'Brien WAS a pilot, in the C-130. he and his crew had just taken off from Andrews AFB, en route to Minneapolis, when they were asked, by ATC, to visually acquire the traffic that the Potomac TRACON was tracking (American 77) as it was flying in the airspace near the Washington National Airport (KDCA) and preparing to line up and fly its fatal track into the Pentagon.

O'Brien, and his role in this, is covered extensively in other ATS threads...just do a search for '84RADES', by ATS member 'LaBToP' as example. You will find OTHER numbskulls from the P4T cult trying to wave away the facts, and inject ridiculous claims that are not supported by reality, in order to bolster their stupid pentagon "flyover' hypothesis....this is NOT new news.

smurfy...before coming into ATS threads from your "extensive" 'education' gleaned from the conspiracy sites, it would behoove you to see what has actually been discussed already, right here....



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Second, once again...the few frames of video from a camera that did NOT record full motion, but only so many frames per minute is not definitive prof of ANY of the airplane's path. It lacks the resolution and field of view to be certain of anything.


Huh? You do not need any more frames to determine that the plane was flying level at that moment. You have more than enough info for that, unless you think the plane did some neat tricks in the fractions of a second not being recorded.

Resolution and field of view have nothing to do with it. We can clearly see the trajectory as well as the impact point it where it disappears.

WW, pick an expertise. Is it being wrong about airplane mechanics? flight? Government SOP? Terrorism? Video Analysis?

I have a hint for you. Try and find one you really have knowledge of and stick to it. This might prevent pilots from saying you sound like someone with some books and MSFS. It might help to keep you from saying things about the video that make no sense at all in order to defend your precious OS. What film school told you about this resolution/field of view/not enough frames to determine direction bs at?



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
##ATTENTION ALL 9/11 POSTERS##

Enhanced enforcement is underway.

All members are entitled to their own opinions on the topic and are welcome to express them.

Comments on anything else, especially personal commentary of any kind whatsoever directed toward other members, are subject to warnings or removal. Repeated behavior of this kind is subject to temporary post bans or permanent account bans.

Please stay focused on the topic, respect the rights of other members to express their own opinions, ALERT us to problems and do your best.


THIS IS A MODERATOR ADVISORY. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST. STAY ON TOPIC.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Flight 77 was not level, it was descending. The lens in the parking lot (PARKING LOT Camera) was not accurate in showing the high terrain in the distance, made it look flat or worse. 77 was not level for seconds, it was descending as clearly seen in the FDR and if you model the distorted lens, 77 is also seen descending.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 



Resolution and field of view have nothing to do with it. We can clearly see the trajectory as well as the impact point it where it disappears.


I present this as exhibit 'A'.

Any normally cognizant adult who has viewed those clips can say, without a doubt, that there is NO clear indication in any way of the object involved.

BUT, by referencing this as "Exhibit A" I also draw attention to the ATS member "Lillydale"'s previous assertions that there is NO PROOF of the American Airlines impact at the Pentagon, and the obvious disconnect with her assertion here, trying to ( and failing miserably ) argue about the very poor few frames of pentagon parking lot video.

Despite ATS member "Lillydale"'s protestations to the contrary, there is AMPLE evidence of the fact that American Airlines flight 77, a Boeing 757 which was described as having the United States registration number of N644AA, was flown from the Washington Dulles International Airport, in Virginia (KIAD) with an intended destination of Los Angeles, California (KLAX). Among the passengers, besides the (we now know) five hijackers, were a prominent wife of a Bush Administration official, and also a group of elementary school children, excited about their first trip out of thier city, AND their first ever airplane ride.

ALL of this tomfoolery and woo-woo crappola about "FAKE THIS" or "THE GOVERNMENT PLANNED THAT" is forgetting the very reality of the tragedy and human loss of that day.

To think that the nonsense continues, as we sit here, going on more than eight years later is just mind boggling......



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
I personally like the debunkers. I think both are needed on this type of website. If we didn't the theorist would feed off of each other and start running around naked and painting themselves blue. GO DEBUNKERS!! For the balance you bring.





new topics
top topics
 
118
<< 34  35  36    38 >>

log in

join