9/11 Truth Movement Gaining Scientific Credibility

page: 15
71
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight

So 1/10th of 1% of the worlds engineers think 9/11 was a demo, that isn't actually very impressive.


I'm sure this has been said before but I'm not reading all 14 pages. If you say 99% of the worlds engineers believe the official story, then you're including all the engineers that have no opinion or have done no research into the events.

If you took only the engineers that have done a study of 9/11 then you would have very different results.

Edited for spelling

[edit on 2/3/2010 by System]




posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by System
If you say 99% of the worlds engineers believe the official story, then you're including all the engineers that have no opinion or have done no research into the events.

I've tried explaining this to him. But the sad thing is, he actually does believe that all the world's engineers agree with the official version because if they believed in the 9/11 conspiracy version, they would have an obligation to come forward.

He doesn't understand that most people like to keep their mouths shut and live their little lives in peace and quiet.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



www.ae911truth.org...

"We are a non-partisan association of architects, engineers, and affiliates.

Our mission is to to research, compile, and disseminate scientific evidence relative to the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers, calling for a truly open and independent investigation and supporting others in the pursuit of justice. "

Gotta love that no matter what side of the fence you're on. That's the spirit of ATS.


-AD



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
I get so frustrated with people coming up with THEORIES of how it happened. Do pods on a plane make the world Flat? No, they do not. They have nothing to do with the shape of planet earth -- nor do they have one bit of influence PRO OR CON, with they theory that two planes brought down three buildings -- or why everything accidentally came into alignment so that untrained pilots with box cutters could carry it off and remove evidence without a LOT OF HELP.

Modern commercial airplanes can be flown by remote already -- so it's easier to assume someone got the FAA codes to do it, rather than attached pods. Is that what happened? How should I know -- but I'd be willing to waterboard Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld until they told me.


The FAA can remotely fly planes without pods? Really??

If that is the case then how come the FAA has NEVER saved a plane from crashing in the past? One would think if this technology goes back to the 60's many lives would have been saved already!

Never-the-less the pictures taken by a spanish photographer and analysed at a spanish university in barcelona seems quite convincing to me. I don't even need a special analysis to see SOMETHING is protruding from the planes belly.

In any case, I DON"T UNDERSTAND why some people need to be SO RUDE in pushing THEIR CASE against other truthers who are EQUALLY DETERMINED in getting justice served. WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME SIDE, SO JUST RELAX A BIT!

Yes I agree, we DON'T need to speculate AT ALL what happened that fateful day, but since government is so paranoid about doing a new impartial investigation, the only natural thing left to do is speculate.

Perhaps concerned citizens will uncover the truth themselves rather than wait ad-infinitum! I read your entire post and I agree for the most part.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
I get so frustrated with people coming up with THEORIES of how it happened. Do pods on a plane make the world Flat? No, they do not. They have nothing to do with the shape of planet earth -- nor do they have one bit of influence PRO OR CON, with they theory that two planes brought down three buildings -- or why everything accidentally came into alignment so that untrained pilots with box cutters could carry it off and remove evidence without a LOT OF HELP.

Modern commercial airplanes can be flown by remote already -- so it's easier to assume someone got the FAA codes to do it, rather than attached pods. Is that what happened? How should I know -- but I'd be willing to waterboard Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld until they told me.


The FAA can remotely fly planes without pods? Really??

If that is the case then how come the FAA has NEVER saved a plane from crashing in the past? One would think if this technology goes back to the 60's many lives would have been saved already!

Never-the-less the pictures taken by a spanish photographer and analysed at a spanish university in barcelona seems quite convincing to me. I don't even need a special analysis to see SOMETHING is protruding from the planes belly.

In any case, I DON"T UNDERSTAND why some people need to be SO RUDE in pushing THEIR CASE against other truthers who are EQUALLY DETERMINED in getting justice served. WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME SIDE, SO JUST RELAX A BIT!

Yes I agree, we DON'T need to speculate AT ALL what happened that fateful day, but since government is so paranoid about doing a new impartial investigation, the only natural thing left to do is speculate.

Perhaps concerned citizens will uncover the truth themselves rather than wait ad-infinitum! I read your entire post and I agree for the most part.



Short answer; Yes.
Long Answer; YYYYEEEEESSSS
FAA emergency landing procedures: Engage Autopilot

Also, Raytheon has a full patent application to totally remote a plane.

Why on earth would you need a "pod?" There is plenty of room and radio equipment already inside the plane. The idea of adding something to the plane for reception or control on the outside makes absolutely no sense to me -- I can't think of a benefit. If there were a pod, it might have been used for something else.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
I get so frustrated with people coming up with THEORIES of how it happened. Do pods on a plane make the world Flat? No, they do not. They have nothing to do with the shape of planet earth -- nor do they have one bit of influence PRO OR CON, with they theory that two planes brought down three buildings -- or why everything accidentally came into alignment so that untrained pilots with box cutters could carry it off and remove evidence without a LOT OF HELP.

Modern commercial airplanes can be flown by remote already -- so it's easier to assume someone got the FAA codes to do it, rather than attached pods. Is that what happened? How should I know -- but I'd be willing to waterboard Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld until they told me.


The FAA can remotely fly planes without pods? Really??

If that is the case then how come the FAA has NEVER saved a plane from crashing in the past? One would think if this technology goes back to the 60's many lives would have been saved already!

Never-the-less the pictures taken by a spanish photographer and analysed at a spanish university in barcelona seems quite convincing to me. I don't even need a special analysis to see SOMETHING is protruding from the planes belly.

In any case, I DON"T UNDERSTAND why some people need to be SO RUDE in pushing THEIR CASE against other truthers who are EQUALLY DETERMINED in getting justice served. WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME SIDE, SO JUST RELAX A BIT!

Yes I agree, we DON'T need to speculate AT ALL what happened that fateful day, but since government is so paranoid about doing a new impartial investigation, the only natural thing left to do is speculate.

Perhaps concerned citizens will uncover the truth themselves rather than wait ad-infinitum! I read your entire post and I agree for the most part.



Short answer; Yes.
Long Answer; YYYYEEEEESSSS
FAA emergency landing procedures: Engage Autopilot

Also, Raytheon has a full patent application to totally remote a plane.

Why on earth would you need a "pod?" There is plenty of room and radio equipment already inside the plane. The idea of adding something to the plane for reception or control on the outside makes absolutely no sense to me -- I can't think of a benefit. If there were a pod, it might have been used for something else.


A plane cannot be flown remote-control style from outside the cockpit without additional gear such as an external pod OR heavily modified electronics within the Flight Control System. I have been a virtual FS pilot for over a decade and as such I know all or most of the basics that non-pilots don't.

Do you have access to classified data that over-rules common knowledge? A transpoder code CANNOT grant access to the flight control system and this is done for safety reasons by manufacturers. It ONLY serves to IDENTIFY airplanes! Further the AP cannot be turned on/off from outside the cockpit from anyone! The link you provided CONFIRMS what I just said, otherwise a steward would not go around the plane asking for non-qualified volunteers.



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
A plane cannot be flown remote-control style from outside the cockpit without additional gear such as an external pod OR heavily modified electronics within the Flight Control System. I have been a virtual FS pilot for over a decade and as such I know all or most of the basics that non-pilots don't.



Just one question here. You claim that it needs an external pod OR heavily modified electronics within the FCS. How would you identify these heavily modified electronics within the FCS from outside the plane?



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
A plane cannot be flown remote-control style from outside the cockpit without additional gear such as an external pod OR heavily modified electronics within the Flight Control System. I have been a virtual FS pilot for over a decade and as such I know all or most of the basics that non-pilots don't.


Lets look at some facts.

1. The auto pilot can be pre-programmed.

2. The British have a system in one of the Tornado fighters that can take over a airliner by remote control.



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
A plane cannot be flown remote-control style from outside the cockpit without additional gear such as an external pod OR heavily modified electronics within the Flight Control System. I have been a virtual FS pilot for over a decade and as such I know all or most of the basics that non-pilots don't.



Just one question here. You claim that it needs an external pod OR heavily modified electronics within the FCS. How would you identify these heavily modified electronics within the FCS from outside the plane?


And I have one important question for you. Can you please show me the obituary of all the dead passengers and crew of those ALLEGED FLIGHTS?

Thanks and then I JUST MIGHT take you seriously....



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
2. The British have a system in one of the Tornado fighters that can take over a airliner by remote control.


No they do not.... where did you get that silly story from - a conspiracy theory site!



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Just one question here. You claim that it needs an external pod OR heavily modified electronics within the FCS. How would you identify these heavily modified electronics within the FCS from outside the plane?


And I have one important question for you. Can you please show me the obituary of all the dead passengers and crew of those ALLEGED FLIGHTS?

Thanks and then I JUST MIGHT take you seriously....


What? I was asking a legitimate question about the things you stated as fact. Is that a sin now? Why did it upset you? What does your response even mean? I am simply asking a question about the technicality of your statement. You just lashed out with a nonsense deflection about obits? I have no clue what to say other than I guess you realized what was so incredibly wrong with your statement and now you are afraid to even address it.

Allow me.

I am simply asking you why you claimed that the plane cannot have invisible remote control systems because it would need an external pod OR ADVANCED ELECTRONICS INTEGRATED INTO THE FCS. Apparently you misstyped. That is ok, it happens. You do not have to get mad at me for pointing it out. I was genuinely just asking. I guess if that sort of thing is going to upset you, make sure what you post makes sense from now on.



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
What? I was asking a legitimate question about the things you stated as fact. Is that a sin now? Why did it upset you? What does your response even mean? I am simply asking a question about the technicality of your statement. You just lashed out with a nonsense deflection about obits? I have no clue what to say other than I guess you realized what was so incredibly wrong with your statement and now you are afraid to even address it.


Do I have to address an obvious question such as yours? The answer is nobody would notice internal changes but it seems fair to assume you were insinuating that the aircraft were actually bonafide flights, which no one can prove anyway.



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
I am simply asking you why you claimed that the plane cannot have invisible remote control systems because it would need an external pod OR ADVANCED ELECTRONICS INTEGRATED INTO THE FCS. Apparently you misstyped. That is ok, it happens. You do not have to get mad at me for pointing it out. I was genuinely just asking. I guess if that sort of thing is going to upset you, make sure what you post makes sense from now on.


I did not mistype anything! Perhaps you can't read properly?

Instead of people trying to guess what you are implying, just tell us your version and save us the BS!



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Do I have to address an obvious question such as yours? The answer is nobody would notice internal changes but it seems fair to assume you were insinuating that the aircraft were actually bonafide flights, which no one can prove anyway.


Well you did since you seemed to be refuting the post above yours about how easily they could be remote controlled. I could have been wrong but then, that is why I asked. Now where exactly did I insinuate anything? I think you are lashing out at the wrong person. Are you trying to claim that there is a chance they were not the flights we were told they were?



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Do I have to address an obvious question such as yours? The answer is nobody would notice internal changes but it seems fair to assume you were insinuating that the aircraft were actually bonafide flights, which no one can prove anyway.


Well you did since you seemed to be refuting the post above yours about how easily they could be remote controlled. I could have been wrong but then, that is why I asked. Now where exactly did I insinuate anything? I think you are lashing out at the wrong person. Are you trying to claim that there is a chance they were not the flights we were told they were?


Yes that is EXACTLY what I am claiming! When somebody shows me a passenger list of the supposed victims and the corresponding obituaries I will retract my speculation and give you an apology.

Until then we have ACTUAL PHOTOS showing something hanging from the plane's belly as crucial circumstantial evidence along with the fact that NO EVIDENCE exists for a super-stealthy AP.



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Yes that is EXACTLY what I am claiming! When somebody shows me a passenger list of the supposed victims and the corresponding obituaries I will retract my speculation and give you an apology.


Did I ask for an apology? You sure do assume a great deal. For one thing, you have assumed I am not a truther. You assumed I insinuated something I never did. You assumed I asked for an apology. You can apologize soon though, just wait.


Until then we have ACTUAL PHOTOS showing something hanging from the plane's belly as crucial circumstantial evidence along with the fact that NO EVIDENCE exists for a super-stealthy AP.


I never once denied any of what you said. I am not at all sure why you are lashing out at me. I did not fully understand one of your posts so I asked you to clear it up for me. I thought that was pretty innocent. I was never arguing, I just wanted to understand what you were saying better. I honestly thought I was being nice about it as well. Maybe you can show me what I said wrong. Maybe you can show me what I insinuated and when I asked for that apology or even better, show me where I once defended the OS in any way.

Instead of wasting your time snapping at me to the delight of the Pteridines and weedwhackers of ATS, do me a simple little favor before you respond to me. I am going to say please. You will have to trust I am begging and doing it nicely. I hope we have a deal. Ok, pal?

Here is what I would like you to do.

1. See if I ever said any of the things you have basically torn my head off about. No apology necessary. Just for your own head, please see if you can find them because I cannot.

2. See if you are not reacting and feeling more than thinking. Being thoughtful can really be handy in any search for the truth.

3. Check my post history. You do not have to go far. I have posted a great deal in many 9/11 threads including this one. You might only need to go to the top of this very page, not sure. Check out just one or two of my posts before talking to you about 9/11.

4. Really read them and see what side of the argument I am on.

5. Feel stupid.

6. Now you can apologize.



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Well that is what happens when you don't make your points clear and concise. In any case I apologise for over-reacting and assuming things that do not apply!

Here is what the above poster said:


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Why on earth would you need a "pod?" There is plenty of room and radio equipment already inside the plane. The idea of adding something to the plane for reception or control on the outside makes absolutely no sense to me -- I can't think of a benefit. If there were a pod, it might have been used for something else.


He said "there is plenty of room and radio equipment already inside the plane so that remote controlling it would not need any pods."

Obviously if the aircraft belonged to united and american airlines and were scheduled flights either (a)SOMEONE would have noticed the extra hardware and/or (b)a lot of repair/service personal were into the conspiracy.

Then you asked me a dumb question "How would you identify these heavily modified electronics within the FCS from outside the plane?" and the answer is pathetically obvious, is it not? Then you insult me by saying "I have no clue what to say other than I guess you realized what was so incredibly wrong with your statement and now you are afraid to even address it." and " I guess if that sort of thing is going to upset you, make sure what you post makes sense from now on."

I neither mistyped anything nor am I posting nonsense! I am simply using common sense and logic skills to seperate the wheat from the chaff. Perhaps you misunderstood my intentions.

In the future, you need to read carefully and make sure your questions make sense. Just a little friendly advice to save everyone some grief!

[edit on 7-3-2010 by EarthCitizen07]



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Well that is what happens when you don't make your points clear and concise. In any case I apologise for over-reacting and assuming things that do not apply!

Here is what the above poster said:



I was not making any point. That is your problem. You seem consumed with the idea that I am making some point of one kind or another. Let me try this one last time. I WAS SIMPLY ASKING A QUESTION.

Go back and read that post you flipped out over about 500 times until you can find the point I was trying to make and then explain it to me.

I do not need you to repeat what the above poster said, I CAN READ. You are the one who seems to be having a hard time dealing with the words in front of you. I know exactly what they said. I was not sure if you were refuting them or agreeing so I ASKED YOU A QUESTION TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR POINT WAS.

Need me to explain it again? I do not need to be clear about the point I am making WHEN I AM NOT MAKING ANY POINTS.
I am certain that after reading my last post you have thought about being a little more precise with what you are reading. I know you would not really read all of that and then go and just assume more crap right? RIGHT. So just show me what point I was trying to make that deserved such anger and such vitriol and we can call it even. Thanks in advance.



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
I was not making any point. That is your problem. You seem consumed with the idea that I am making some point of one kind or another. Let me try this one last time. I WAS SIMPLY ASKING A QUESTION.


And I indirectly answered your dumb question with my own question.

Apparently my logic went way beyond your reasoning capabilities to the point of you attacking and insulting me.


[edit on 7-3-2010 by EarthCitizen07]



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   
[edit on 7-3-2010 by EarthCitizen07]





top topics
 
71
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join