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: 20
24
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 10:01 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.


It's a timestamp acnowledgement of receipt, not a physically sent acknowledgement, like the email system which shows you that it went, and made it (otherwise kicking back as "unsent").

This can be verified by anyone with the technical knowledge of the system - requires more research other than an ATS thread in the appropriate forum, and forgive me if I don't take your word for it, or that of the debunkers participating in that thread. I will comb through it thoroughly however and I've started poking around on the net but I can't find the right technical data on how the system actually works, wish someone would help me out with this piece of the puzzle...
..and the wind speed and direction on September 11th as it relates to that miraculous passport we were looking at earlier, since a passport isn't a mere piece of paper, but has a little weight to it..
I can't do this by myself in other words so I wish more people might chime in, you won't get banned for it or anything, so don't be shy or afraid to help out.

Best Regards,

NAM




posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Aloysius the Gaul

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)


This is from your own debunking post:




1/ The messages were sent TO the aircraft - that is they had the aircraft addresses on them. That does not actually require the aircraft to exist!! Seriously - just like you could get on a ham radio and send out a call for a non-existent station or similar.


This is from pilots for 911 truth:



A dispatcher-initiated message that reached the plane but not crew acknowledged stating "I heard of a reported incident."


This above quote is where they say The 9/11 Commission agrees that flight 175 acknowledged receipt.

The pilots say the plane got the message. You say the opposite.

I am not going to reply to any more of your posts. I leave it to the interested readers of this thread to judge as to who is being disruptive.
edit on 6-12-2013 by leostokes because: correct 117 to 175



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 10:17 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.


Number of people involved and who would talk, isn't necessarily a valid argument as to why it would be impossible to pull off as a "conspiracy" or a great hoax of the very worst kind. It CAN be done and there's a whole history of conspiracies involving history, but this one really takes the cake, with the fireball and exploding buildings routine in order to wage war and do all the things that Mr. Zelikow imagined 3 years prior, in setting the "Elements of a National Policy". It was bad policy. And there've been many victims of this monstrosity of a Big Lie at all levels including ourselves, that's how bad it is they'll made you turn a blind eye and ignore reality, just to protect it, because it's the lie you just can't take and in so doing willingly accept.

History isn't founded on this kind of nonsense and outright barbarism and hypocrisy (lying).

It didn't take. It was a FAIL, big time, because in the final analysis, looking back on it in hindsight and playing the tape all the way through, it's not even believable, and cannot be believed and accepted as true, so there's the tipping point in that which is or becomes, self evident. One once CD is self evident, then in examining the atrocity it becomes clear that the south tower plane was indeed a modified Boeing monster 767 plane, a plane as a missile, a giant fuel air bomb. There's no getting around it.

The performance barrier alone proves it, that it wasn't and could not have been the originating flight 175, the plane that flew in and impacted the south tower of the world trade center on September 11th, 2001.

It's self evident and elementary.

How such a conspiracy and operation could be performed, well, first you'd need a smokescreen grid of war games practicing the flying of simulated hijacked aircraft being flown into landmark buildings, with resources moving in the wrong direction at just the right time, that's a whole other domain of 9/11 research right there, and maybe we'll get into that part of this horrible puzzle at some time permitting (wish someone would help me out here though!).

Best Regards,

NAM

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



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


ACARS is not a general broadcast system like a radio. The message was sent to specific broadcast stations along the projected flight path of the aircraft, based on their flight plan.

The second time stamp is NOT from the aircraft, it comes from the DSP when they receive a message to upload. There's a great description of how ACARS works, using actual ACARS documentation, but I can't link it because it's on another forum. But the time stamp is NOT from the aircraft acknowledging receipt of the message.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 




It's a timestamp acnowledgement of receipt, not a physically sent acknowledgement, like the email system which shows you that it went, and made it (otherwise kicking back as "unsent").

I am not referring to the time stamp. My references are to the evidence presented on the Pilots site versus the debunking on this your thread. The Pilots say that flight 175 automatically acknowledged receipt. And they say that the Commission does not dispute this.

Now do not come back and tell me for the 10th time that the debunkers say that ACARS messages are not automatically acknowledged. I know that is what they say.
edit on 6-12-2013 by leostokes because: correct 117 to 175



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


And you really think that you can have a massive number of people involved, and no one talk? You think that a few thousand people are all going to stay perfectly silent for the rest of their lives, and NOT ONE have a crisis of conscience?



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


See the video I posted on edit, above.

People knew and are keeping their mouths shut.

Black bag, black op psy-ops at this level of sophistication are possible, and there was even access, MOTIVE, and opportunity, and a whole heap of physical evidence, not the least of which is the CD of the twin towers and building 7.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 10:41 PM
link   

leostokes
The Pilots say that flight 175 automatically acknowledged receipt. And they say that the Commission does not dispute this.


So how about you show us exactly where in the Commission's report that is stated. Unless.....



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


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).


Speed

Speed - Cont'd



In terms of speed its (monster plane prototype, no particular model name needed) Mach 0.8 performance compares to the Mach 0.85 or better performance
www.abovetopsecret.com...



New York Times
February 23, 2002
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER CRASHES; First Tower to Fall Was Hit At Higher Speed, Study Finds

By ERIC LIPTON AND JAMES GLANZ
Researchers trying to explain why the World Trade Center's south tower fell first, though struck second, are focusing on new calculations showing that the passenger jet that hit the south tower had been flying as fast as 586 miles an hour, about 100 miles an hour faster than the other hijacked plane.
The speed of the two planes at impact has been painstakingly estimated using a mix of video, radar and even the recorded sounds of the planes passing overhead.

Two sets of estimates, by government and private scientists, have surfaced, but both show that the plane that hit the south tower at 9:02 a.m., United Airlines Flight 175, approached the trade center at extremely high speed, much faster than American Airlines Flight 11, which hit the north tower at 8:46 a.m.
In fact, the United plane was moving so fast that it was at risk of breaking up in midair as it made a final turn toward the south tower, traveling at a speed far exceeding the 767-200 design limit for that altitude..


Egypt Air 990


Egypt Air 990 (EA990) is a 767 which was reported to have entered a dive and accelerated to a peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet. Boeing sets maximum operating speeds for the 767 as 360 Knots and .86 Mach. The reason for two airspeed limitations is due to air density at lower vs. higher altitudes. To understand equivalent dynamic pressures on an airframe of low vs. high altitude, there is an airspeed appropriately titled "Equivalent Airspeed" or EAS[1]. EAS is defined as the airspeed at sea level which produces the same dynamic pressure acting on the airframe as the true airspeed at high altitudes.[2]

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United 175, and 5 knots less than the alleged American 11. Although it may be probable for the alleged American 11 to achieve such speed as 430 knots is only 5 knots over that of EA990 peak speed, It is impossible for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB using EA990 as a benchmark.




586mph is 77% of Mach 1 (@ approx. 700 feet altitude) or about 468 nm/h @ .78 Mach
According to you, all commercial Boeing aircraft are built such that this is possible, but that's just not
true, which you probably already know anyway..


Best Regards, (honestly, and Merry Christmas too)

NAM

(we're like the sheepdog and the wolf in that Bugs Bunny Roadrunner hour cartoon, punching the clock, g'night Sam, g'night Ralph, but I've noted that you keep your replies generally to no more than 4 lines per rebuttal, and I know what you'll say to that already so this isn't a set up)


edit on 6-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


That wasn't maneuvering. It leveled off, and went into a bank. That puts almost no stress on a plane. It was a gentle level, and a roll to the left. You act like moving at all would put huge stress on the plane and tear it apart.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


.77 Mach @ 700 FEET altitude.


edit on 6-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


You do realize that cruise speeds aren't talking about at sea level right? They're talking about cruise at altitude, so Mach 0.8 is at 34,000 feet. That doesn't translate to 700 feet. And the 767-200 has a typical cruise speed of Mack 0.8, so how is the "monster plane" any better?

And yes, I keep my replies short, because I'm particularly lazy when it comes to 9/11 anymore. I used to put a lot of effort into it, but I don't see the point anymore.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Yes, and? It wasn't doing hard maneuvering, and if it hadn't hit the building, that speed would have bled off.

You think a plane can't dive down, and build up speed to go past it's normal operating speed?
edit on 12/6/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


You do realize that cruise speeds aren't talking about at sea level right? They're talking about cruise at altitude, so Mach 0.8 is at 34,000 feet. That doesn't translate to 700 feet. And the 767-200 has a typical cruise speed of Mack 0.8, so how is the "monster plane" any better?


Because it's flying at 700 feet altitude, which would require a hardened structure and more powerful engines, and a performance capability that is well beyond that of the commercial Boeing 767-200, at that altitude, which it's simply not capable of, as outlined in the previous post.

You're a tricky one.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


So planes can't dive down, reach speeds faster than their normal operating range, level off and maintain those speeds for short times? What, once they reach that speed they just stop accelerating? Even if they dive down?



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Zaphod58
So planes can't dive down, reach speeds faster than their normal operating range, level off and maintain those speeds for short times? What, once they reach that speed they just stop accelerating? Even if they dive down?


Well, in the real world they certainly can do just that, but in "truther world" planes cannot do that at all! Remember, in "truther world" the laws of physics do not apply.
edit on 6-12-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 12:42 AM
link   

NewAgeMan
[
Because it's flying at 700 feet altitude, which would require a hardened structure and more powerful engines, and a performance capability that is well beyond that of the commercial Boeing 767-200, at that altitude, which it's simply not capable of, as outlined in the previous post.


Absolute rubbish.

These "pilots" are misleading you and because you do not know what they are talking about you do not realise you are being lied to.

The speed set by Boeing is the max safe operating speed - it is not the speed at which the aircraft will instantly disintegrate if it goes 1 mph over it. It says nothing at all about what speed the plan COULD reach!

Sure there will be stresses from going faster - and if the aircraft was left in service it would have to be checked and might need repair. But fall apart?? No - that is BS.

This is just more evidence that the "truther" movement is only concerned with lying to the public and has no connection with the truth at all!!
edit on 7-12-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 12:47 AM
link   

NewAgeMan


It's a timestamp acnowledgement of receipt, not a physically sent acknowledgement, like the email system which shows you that it went, and made it (otherwise kicking back as "unsent").

This can be verified by anyone with the technical knowledge of the system - requires more research other than an ATS thread in the appropriate forum, and forgive me if I don't take your word for it, or that of the debunkers participating in that thread.


That's fine - looking for confirmation is a good thing.

And since I actually am an aircraft mechanic with a working knowledge of how ACARS functions (not the electronics, but the messaging system itself since I used to use it to send and receive maintenance information) I am very happy that you do so - it will disabuse you of this particular nonsense, and, hopefully, start you along the path of realising that you are begin lied to by the "truther" movement!



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Aloysius the Gaul

NewAgeMan
[
Because it's flying at 700 feet altitude, which would require a hardened structure and more powerful engines, and a performance capability that is well beyond that of the commercial Boeing 767-200, at that altitude, which it's simply not capable of, as outlined in the previous post.


Absolute rubbish.

These "pilots" are misleading you and because you do not know what they are talking about you do not realise you are being lied to.


Actually, I just came across that video presentation by Pilots for 9/11 Truth today, while researching info for this thread/topic. I didn't even have access to the information presented in that video when I started this thread, except based on my own investigation and research/inquiry. It really summed things up though, especially in terms of the issues we've been exploring these past few pages and throughout the thread.

Thanks for your participation, "the Gaul", without which an open and honest debate, and the ensuing presentation of information and evidence isn't really possible.

Please save the seething contempt and derogatory comments though, from now on, thanks, and no need to reply.


Best Regards, and, Merry Christmas/Happy New Year.

NAM


edit on 7-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: typo



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join