It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Self Evident. Proof of Twin Tower CD = Remote Controlled, Swapped-in, Military Drone Aircraft on 9/1

page: 19
24
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   

hellobruce

NewAgeMan
it was flying between 550 and 858 mph,


Just when you thought truthers "evidence" had hit the high point of craziness, they come out with more "evidence" even crazier - now they are claiming one of the passenger jets may have exceeded the sound barrier....
edit on 6-12-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)


That was a typing error, see my edit/correction. The plane was clocked at about 575mph, while flying, and maneuvering, deftly, at about 700 feet altitude.


edit on 6-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Zaphod58

So let me see if I have this straight..... It couldn't have been a commercial Boeing aircraft, because it exceeded its operational capability, by orders of magnitude, so it had to be a rebuilt Boeing aircraft so it could do that? Do you not see how that makes no sense at all? If Boeing had the ability to allow a 767 to be rebuilt to be able to do that, why wouldn't they just build them to those specifications in the first place?

Did THAT make sense..? (what you just said)

Edit to add:

Speed

Speed - Cont'd


edit on 6-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


It made as much sense as "It couldn't be a commercial aircraft because it was going too fast. So it had to be a modified Boeing instead."



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


If a commercial Boeing 767 cannot go that fast or successfully maneuver like that at that altitude (700 feet), then I'd say that what I'm suggesting makes more sense, than what you are proposing, namely that if this plane can do that, then all Boeing commercial airliners are built with the capability to do that (which they are not), yes.

I find it unusual that you're not addressing the issues from a purely technical perspective.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


So why would they modify an aircraft to do that, and not just build them like that in the first place? Wouldn't that make a world more sense? And you'd be surprised what a commercial plane can do (Egypt Air was approaching Mach 1 in a dive, and remained intact until they tried to pull up).

Because you have already made your mind up, and nothing technical that can be said is going to be worth the amount of effort I would put into it.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Don't worry zaphod, the thread is in the hoax forum, so it's obviously bunk.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Zaphod58

leostokes
According to pilotsfor911truth


There's your first problem right there. They also claim that a sensor that was never activated proves that there was no hijacking.


All I am saying is that Pilotsfor911truth say one thing about ACARS technology and the debunkers say it is not true.

To me that implies the ACARS issue is unsettled at this point.

I do not get your point. Are you saying that if they got one thing wrong then they (pilots) got everything wrong?
edit on 6-12-2013 by leostokes because: add

You do not mean that. Nobody ever gets everything right.
edit on 6-12-2013 by leostokes because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-12-2013 by leostokes because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 





So why would they modify an aircraft to do that, and not just build them like that in the first place?

Are you saying Boeing never would choose a cheaper design to cut costs and raise profits.

Are you saying that a one of a kind type for a special project is never built by bad guys?
edit on 6-12-2013 by leostokes because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


Not at all, but it costs Boeing millions to modify an aircraft. Even a small modification. If the money was paid to them, and they modified the aircraft, not only are you adding a few hundred people at least to the conspiracy, you're adding a paper trail with the money that they're required to report to their share holders.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


ACARS is a one way system. It doesn't send an acknowledgement, unless the pilots send the message. There's a long thread here about it.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

Are you saying Boeing would not lie to their share holders?



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


And risk getting slammed? But ok, they lied to their shareholders. You have a dozen engineers that developed the modifications, and a couple hundred workers that all worked on the modifications. So there's, let's call it, 500 more people added to the conspiracy. You think those people couldn't figure out what the modifications were for, and put 2 and 2 together? And they're all keeping quiet?



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by leostokes
 


ACARS is a one way system. It doesn't send an acknowledgement, unless the pilots send the message. There's a long thread here about it.


My position again is that Pilots say one thing and debunkers say the opposite.

Pilots say ACARS technology is a "two way" system (to borrow your term).

You refer to a thread that debunks this. Are you choosing sides or debating? I refer to a quote from pilots to present their side. Not to choose their side.

Pilots say more. They say that the 9/11 commission has agreed that Flight 175 acknowledged receipt of an ACARS message.



The 9/11 Commission has claimed which messages have been received by the aircraft. According to a another Memorandum For The Record (MFR), four ACARS messages were sent between 8:59AM and 9:03AM on the morning of Sept 11, to United Flight 175. The MFR reads as follows(3) -

1259:19Z A dispatcher-initiated message that reached the plane but not crew acknowledged stating "I heard of a reported incident."
1259:29 Additional dispatcher-initiated message
1259:30 Additional dispatcher-initiated message
1303:17 Rogers-initiated message not received by the aircraft

The first message at 1259:19Z, as stated, was received by the aircraft, but not crew acknowledged, which is not required as technical acknowledgements are automatic.

Pilots



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by leostokes
 


And risk getting slammed? But ok, they lied to their shareholders. You have a dozen engineers that developed the modifications, and a couple hundred workers that all worked on the modifications. So there's, let's call it, 500 more people added to the conspiracy. You think those people couldn't figure out what the modifications were for, and put 2 and 2 together? And they're all keeping quiet?


Have you ever known a case where the government used the principle of "National Security" to hide their misdeeds?



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


It's a two way system in that it receives messages, and the plane can send messages. As far as I've been told, it doesn't automatically acknowledge receipt (from people that have worked on it). My understanding, as explained by mechanics that deal with it, is that they have to call down to the dispatch office to have a message sent, and call to acknowledge receipt of said message.

You mean the 9/11 commission got something wrong? Shocking.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by leostokes
 


It's a two way system in that it receives messages, and the plane can send messages. As far as I've been told, it doesn't automatically acknowledge receipt (from people that have worked on it). My understanding, as explained by mechanics that deal with it, is that they have to call down to the dispatch office to have a message sent, and call to acknowledge receipt of said message.

You mean the 9/11 commission got something wrong? Shocking.


I will no longer reply to your posts.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


You think that a few hundred people aren't going to put 2 and 2 together, realize that they just worked on a system that killed 3,000+ of their own people, and not say a word. Ever. To anyone. You're talking civilian workers, that don't fall under an NDA normally, and don't go through any kind of major security check to get their job. Not one of them has ever leaked anything like this, 12 years later. That's impressive to say the least.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by leostokes
 


You think that a few hundred people aren't going to put 2 and 2 together, realize that they just worked on a system that killed 3,000+ of their own people, and not say a word. Ever. To anyone. You're talking civilian workers, that don't fall under an NDA normally, and don't go through any kind of major security check to get their job. Not one of them has ever leaked anything like this, 12 years later. That's impressive to say the least.


Ever heard of flight TWA 800. FBI FAA NTSB



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


Those also weren't civilians hired to build planes. When you go into the FAA, or NTSB, or any government organization you go through a background check, and in several cases you have to get a clearance at some level. That's completely different from a guy hired to punch rivets into a wing in Seattle.

It's apples and oranges.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   

leostokes

Zaphod58
reply to post by leostokes
 


ACARS is a one way system. It doesn't send an acknowledgement, unless the pilots send the message. There's a long thread here about it.


My position again is that Pilots say one thing and debunkers say the opposite.

Pilots say ACARS technology is a "two way" system (to borrow your term).


You clearly have no idea what those words actually mean for ACARS - pilots do not say anything different from debunkers - it is just that you do not understand what either of them are saying!!

Thanks you for providing a perfect example of how "truthers" use their own ignorance as if it were evidence of a crime - whereas the only "crime" here is that you still spout this rubbish.
edit on 6-12-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join