ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 911 conspiracy theory

Reply
Old 11th November 2008, 01:14 PM   #321
Dr Adequate
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
You are right. It is much safer to simply accept what they tell you on teevee.
We skeptics have discovered a third way that is e'en mightier than the twain.
Dr Adequate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 01:14 PM   #322
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
What is so exceptional about this. Aznar calls a prosecutor and invites him for a diner in the palace to discuss the 'international situation' and 'Spanish interest'. This is Spain, not Sweden.
Still didn't read the article I posted , right? Do try to keep up.

Spain is wrong to indict UBL and the US is wrong not to indict UBL, right?
stateofgrace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 01:18 PM   #323
Dr Adequate
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
So, it seems that Spain is "in the tank" for the New World Order. Any indictment from Israel, or does the Holy Land still evade the clutches of the sinister Jewish octopus?
Dr Adequate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 01:18 PM   #324
ellindsey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
The forces on these planes at 500 mph must be enormous. There must be an amplifier. If that were the case then I cannot accept your reasoning that the pilot can 'mechanically overrule' the autopilot. It is the force of the servo that determines the position of the flaps
The force applied by the pilot is amplified by a hydraulic actuator located at the control surface. The cable from the pilot's controls goes to a hydraulic valve located at the actuator, which controls the force the actuator applies to the control surface. Again, this is a completely mechanical system, independent of the autopilot and capable of running even if the plane loses all electrical power. There's no software, no lines of code to change in the hydraulic booster - it just does what the control cable tells it to do. The autopilot pulls and pushes on the control cable just like the pilot does, but its force is small and can be easily overridden by the pilot, because the autopilot is applying force to the cable before the force boosting, not after.

Please read this page thoroughly. It explains in detail exactly how the flight control systems of the 757 and 767 work, and various ways you might try to remotely control them (and why they won't work). He also goes into several different poison gas release scenarios to disable the crew, and what problems there are with them.
ellindsey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 01:19 PM   #325
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,518
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
You are right. It is much safer to simply accept what they tell you on teevee.

Aha!

[Climbs on soapbox]

This is a forum hosted by a foundation dedicated to critical thinking. One of the most important aspects of this is to learn how to determine good information from bad. One of the worst ways to do this is to follow your pre-conceptions and biases. One must learn not only to analyze evidence, but also sources of evidence. This is where terms such as "Appeal to Authority" come into play.

Having a bit of a background in science, particularly physics, can help in determining the physical possibilities of much of what you postulate (see X's "The Physics of Flight" thread). Having a background in economics can help in determining whether or not the insurance/put option/etc. theories make sense.

When you do not have a background in anything relating the any of the topics, what do you use? This is a serious question and I would like to see your answer.

[Hops off soapbox.]
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 01:23 PM   #326
ktesibios
Worthless Aging Hippie
 
ktesibios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,493
If you're going to continue to try to work "remote controlled planes" into your cheesy action movie script, you might want to take the time to read this paper. It's written by forum member apathoid, an avionics tech who works for a major airline and has extensive experience with the 757 & 767. It's informed by specific product knowledge gained from technical training and actual work experience, and illustrated with diagrams reproduced from Boeing's technical service manuals for those aircraft.

Ap starts out with an overview of how the flight controls on a 757/767 work, and right there the first big problem with a remote takeover scheme emerges- as ellindsey pointed out upthread, there's a direct mechanical connection between the pilots' controls and the hydraulic actuators which do the grunt work of moving the control surfaces. That means that you cannot lock the pilots out of control of the aircraft by putzing with the computer systems, because no computer is interposed between the controls and the control surfaces.

Read on and it becomes abundantly clear that to implement the "remote takeover" scenario, nothing short of a complete redesign of the flight control system will do. We can reasonably expect that this would be a project similar in scope to the engineering of the original flight control system- a cooperative effort among many professionals- and consequently difficult to keep under wraps, especially if the engineers and technicians involved subsequently realize the use to which their work has been put.

If your goal is to substitute a rigged airplane for a normal one on 9/11, your design effort also has to work under the constraint that nothing about the look and feel of the altered airplane can be different in any way from normal, lest the crew notice that their airplane isn't what they're accustomed to and refuse to take off until the weirdities are checked out.

In addition, you have somehow to ensure that some pesky maintenance tech doesn't open an access panel and notice that the control system guts don't look like the ones he's been servicing every day, or like what's in the tech manuals.

All that assumes that you've been able to switch four airplanes belonging to two different carriers for your remanufactured drones. Companies owning movable assets costing tens of millions of dollars generally don't leave them parked out behind the barn with nobody keeping an eye on them, so you're going to need some major collusion on the part of airline staff.

Is the inflation of absurdity required for a "remote takeover" scenario starting to sink in yet?

Perhaps in a universe created by the morons who write movie scripts anything, from the entire Los Angeles traffic control system to an attacking alien spacecraft, can be taken over by some geeky-looking guy tippy-tapping at the keyboard of a laptop, but the real universe isn't controlled by scriptwriters. You might want to keep that in mind as a general principle.

Now that you've received eight zarking pages of help from people pointing out the more obvious absurdities in your script, perhaps we should talk about what you're going to pay for the service if you manage to sell the damn thing.
__________________
Ship me somewheres east of Suez, where the best is like the worst, where there ain't no ten commandments and a man can raise a small, bristly mustache.
ktesibios is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 01:29 PM   #327
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Quote:
If your goal is to substitute a rigged airplane for a normal one on 9/11, your design effort also has to work under the constraint that nothing about the look and feel of the altered airplane can be different in any way from normal, lest the crew notice that their airplane isn't what they're accustomed to and refuse to take off until the weirdities are checked out.
also it should be noted that any irregularities would have to be hidden from the groud crew as well as the flight crew

im not sure what kind of inspection is done before a plane takes off, but im guessing they would notice is extra hardware was spliced into the control cables and they would ground the plane
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 01:34 PM   #328
Dr Adequate
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
Originally Posted by ktesibios View Post
All that assumes that you've been able to switch four airplanes belonging to two different carriers for your remanufactured drones.
Actually, his scenario assumes that this stuff has been fitted as standard to all planes without anyone noticing.
Dr Adequate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 01:57 PM   #329
ellindsey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 228
Let me go over this again and spell it out clearly.

The 757 and 767 are widely used airplanes. Many, many thousands of airplane mechanics work on them every day. Many countries in the world fly them. If their control systems didn't match what the maintenance books say, airplane mechanics would not be able to do their jobs and these planes would not fly.

The 757 and 767 are fairly old airplanes. They were built before computers were as small, cheap, and reliable as they are now. They were built before computers were considered safe enough to take over control of airplanes. Airplanes being designed today have computers which control the flaps, elevators, rudder, ailerons, and other control systems. The 757 and 767 do not use computers to control these systems. They use a control system made up of all mechanical parts which can keep running even if the airplane loses all electrical power.

The pilot and copilot sit in the cockpit. They have controls which are used to steer the plane. They have a control wheel and rudder pedals. These controls do not go into any computer. Instead, these controls have wheels and arms which pull and push on cables. These cables run from the cockpit of the airplane's wings and tail, passing through and over many pulleys and linkages.

The most important control surfaces of the plane are the ailerons in the wings, and the elevators and rudder in the tail. These control surfaces are very large and heavy, and the pilots are not strong enough to move them. So each control surface has several hydraulic actuators to move it. Each actuator is controlled by hydraulic valves. When the pilots pull or push on their control wheel and rudder pedals, the cables running from the cockpit to the control surfaces pull or push on little pins that move in and out of valve bodies to let the pressurized hydraulic fluid coming from the pumps on the engines into the hydraulic actuators. That way a little force on the control wheel can be converted into a lot of force to move the ailerons, rudder, or elevators.

There is nothing in this system that requires a computer to work. It doesn't even need electricity! Airplanes have landed after suffering complete electrical power losses during flight because the controls are fully mechanical.

There is nothing in this system which can be taken over remotely. There are no computers or radios you can make to take control of the plane. To stop the pilots from controlling the plane, you would have to physically break the cables and then install a new system of servos and computers to move them instead. This would be noticed by the ground crew, and by the pilots.

These airplanes do have an autopilot. The autopilot is in the cockpit with the pilots. It has electrically powered servo motors which push and pull on the same control cables the pilots use to control the plane. It is just like an invisible person in the cockpit with a third control wheel and set of rudder pedals. However, it is not very strong. It is not as strong as the pilots. If the autopilot tries to crash the plane, the pilots are strong enough to stop it from moving the control cables. The pilots don't need to be strong enough to stop the control surfaces in the wings or tail from moving! They just need to be strong enough to stop the autopilot from moving the control cables.

The cockpit crew have another way to stop the autopilot. They can shut it off. If the autopilot is not responding normally and does not want to shut off, they can pull the circuit breaker which powers the autopilot. Pulling the circuit breaker physically cuts power to the autopilot. That cannot be overridden by remote control or software, because it is a physical switch in the cockpit. If that switch doesn't work, the pilots have other ways to cut off the autopilot. They can even manually disconnect all electrical power from the plane's engines and batteries and make an emergency landing! Landing with no electrical power is difficult, but it has been done before and is better than letting the plane crash.

No pilot is going to sit idly by and let the plane crash just because the autopilot is acting weird. If a plane is flying and the autopilot suddenly starts making it do something the pilot doesn't want it to do, the pilot will do anything he has to regain control. Even if that means sending someone crawling into the avionics bay with bolt cutters to find and remove the autopilot manually.
ellindsey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 02:12 PM   #330
lapman
Graduate Poster
 
lapman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,717
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Excellent post ellindsay!

Yes I am aware that the 9/11 planes were older types, not FBW. I remember that on the forum in Holland, on which discussion my blog is based, we had heated debates over exactly this issue. You will probably agree that an autopilot controls servo's that control the cables. You confirm what somebody in Holland stated: that the steering pole (german Steuerknueppel; english word?) follows the movement of flaps (word?). What I cannot imagine that there is no mechanical amplifier between the steering pole and the planes that are controlled (a wing and tail). The forces on these planes at 500 mph must be enormous. There must be an amplifier. If that were the case then I cannot accept your reasoning that the pilot can 'mechanically overrule' the autopilot. It is the force of the servo that determines the position of the flaps



But I get your point and start to understand why in the narrative of 911research they build in an additional element:

The use of AAL Flight 11 and UAL Flight 175 to attack the Twin Towers, and of AAL Flight 77 to attack the Pentagon requires the execution of two main tasks in each case:

1. Rendering unconscious the flight crew and passengers, preventing any communications from them about events in the cabin.
2. Taking over the flight computers, allowing the planes to be auto-piloted to their targets.

Task 1 is achieved with aerosol bombs of decapacitating gas hidden in luggage. The gas is fentanyl, the extremely potent opiate used by Russian forces to end the hostage crisis in the theater in Chechnya. The bombs detonate when the barometric trigger senses a cabin pressure corresponding to an altitude of 28,000 feet. The fentanyl gas diffuses throughout the cabin and is absorbed so rapidly by the victims that they cannot even pick up a cell phone or handset to initiate a call.


But I am starting to feel compassion for you debunkers. We truthers are hopeless.

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/a...enario404.html
I love when people that have no idea how an airplane works try to pretend they do.
__________________
They take their paranoia, mix in a healthy dose of mistrust in anything "gubmint", and then bake it in that big ole EZ Bake oven of ignorance, and come to the delusional conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. - Seymour Butz
lapman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 02:14 PM   #331
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,808
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Excellent post ellindsay!

Yes I am aware that the 9/11 planes were older types, not FBW. I remember that on the forum in Holland, on which discussion my blog is based, we had heated debates over exactly this issue. You will probably agree that an autopilot controls servo's that control the cables. You confirm what somebody in Holland stated: that the steering pole (german Steuerknueppel; english word?) follows the movement of flaps (word?). What I cannot imagine that there is no mechanical amplifier between the steering pole and the planes that are controlled (a wing and tail). The forces on these planes at 500 mph must be enormous. There must be an amplifier. If that were the case then I cannot accept your reasoning that the pilot can 'mechanically overrule' the autopilot. It is the force of the servo that determines the position of the flaps
As pointed out the amplification is provided not by electronically controlled servo but by hydralics. You do not need servos to control a bulldozer or loader and the arm actions of the driver easily manipulte ton of mateial. The big difference is that long cables are not needed, the levers control hydralics directly. If one wanted to one could design loader in which the operator pulled levers that pulled cables which in turn adjusted the valves that control hydralic fluid. Why do plane do it the wy they do? One word - weight.
Quote:
decapacitating gas hidden in luggage. The gas is fentanyl, the extremely potent opiate used by Russian forces to end the hostage crisis in the theater in Chechnya. The bombs detonate when the barometric trigger senses a cabin pressure corresponding to an altitude of 28,000 feet.
"decapacitating" is not a word in te Englis language , Perhaps Hoffman meant "incapcitating"
Furthermore of "cabin pressure" was that which is foun at 28,000 feet then no gas woul be needed as everyon on board would be dead or near death already. Cabins ar never alowed to be at a pressure lower than one would expeience at 10,000 feet..
Pehaps Hoffman meant 'outside atmospheric presure" but he since Hoffman has opened hi mouth to prove he is an idiot on so many occassions it is likely that 'senario 404" is just another example of it
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 02:21 PM   #332
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,808
please excuse the typos above. This hotel computer key board is rap :lol
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 02:29 PM   #333
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
Was OBL and KSM at the Moussaoui trial? Moussaoui's mother was and thought that the son was drugged. Sad story. Moussaoui was/is just a patsy, poor sod.
1. You once again, like most truthers, are moving the goal posts. Earlier in this thread you stated that for you to consider evidence legit, it would have to be accepted in a court of law (paraphrasing). I subsequently pointed out that if that is the case, then you must consider all of the evidence presented at the Moussaoui trial legitimate, as it was accepted by a court of law. Now that is not good enough. Do you see the problem with this????

2. I think Moussaoui is a real good actor.

3. I think it is convenience for truthers, with their singular outcome world view, to pigeon hole all that does not fit, as either faked, or under control of the NWO.

Originally Posted by bio View Post


The Bush-Administration marked Saddam Hussein as a dangerous Terrorist with WMD. This war would not have been possible without 9/11.

See what is happening now with Iran.
BS. Bush would have gone after Hussein anyway. 9/11 merely helped his case. He had revenge and big oil on his mind, and was set to obtain both. You will see what will happen with Iran...a big lot of nothing. Then what will you say, who will you blame?

truthers, constantly looking for an excuse to blame the world problems on the USG and the NWO.

Oh, and since someone posted a reply from 9/11 Investigator after I put him on ignore....NO, I will not miss you after you have gone down the memory hole...not one slight bit.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 02:42 PM   #334
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by ellindsey View Post
The force applied by the pilot is amplified by a hydraulic actuator located at the control surface. The cable from the pilot's controls goes to a hydraulic valve located at the actuator, which controls the force the actuator applies to the control surface. Again, this is a completely mechanical system, independent of the autopilot and capable of running even if the plane loses all electrical power. There's no software, no lines of code to change in the hydraulic booster - it just does what the control cable tells it to do. The autopilot pulls and pushes on the control cable just like the pilot does, but its force is small and can be easily overridden by the pilot, because the autopilot is applying force to the cable before the force boosting, not after.

Please read this page thoroughly. It explains in detail exactly how the flight control systems of the 757 and 767 work, and various ways you might try to remotely control them (and why they won't work). He also goes into several different poison gas release scenarios to disable the crew, and what problems there are with them.
I get your point. I assume that you refer to the situation 'as is delivered from factory'. For the moment I accept your notion that a pilot can overrule the autopilot for arguments sake. Have not given up my theory though.

The question is: was there anything like 'home run'/remote control facility implemented yes or no. Because it is a piece of cake to make a mechanical facility that decouples the pilots steering pole and the autopilot servo. From then on the autopilot rules uninterruptable.
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 02:47 PM   #335
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Furthermore of "cabin pressure" was that which is foun at 28,000 feet then no gas woul be needed as everyon on board would be dead or near death already. Cabins ar never alowed to be at a pressure lower than one would expeience at 10,000 feet..
Pehaps Hoffman meant 'outside atmospheric presure" but he since Hoffman has opened hi mouth to prove he is an idiot on so many occassions it is likely that 'senario 404" is just another example of it
Fortunately we do not have to rely on air pressure if we can buy a timer at Walmart.
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 02:49 PM   #336
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Because it is a piece of cake to make a mechanical facility that decouples the pilots steering pole and the autopilot servo. From then on the autopilot rules uninterruptable.
you may be right, but the trouble is such a modification going unnoticed by ground crews
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 02:51 PM   #337
lapman
Graduate Poster
 
lapman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,717
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
I get your point. I assume that you refer to the situation 'as is delivered from factory'. For the moment I accept your notion that a pilot can overrule the autopilot for arguments sake. Have not given up my theory though.
Of course not. You must keep the fantasy going
Quote:
The question is: was there anything like 'home run'/remote control facility implemented yes or no. Because it is a piece of cake to make a mechanical facility that decouples the pilots steering pole and the autopilot servo. From then on the autopilot rules uninterruptable.
The answer would be no for piloted aircraft. Either the control cables are connected to the yoke or they aren't. Add to that the fact that it must have a completely self contained power source. Of course, the it would have to somehow be hidden from the mechanics and inspectors.
__________________
They take their paranoia, mix in a healthy dose of mistrust in anything "gubmint", and then bake it in that big ole EZ Bake oven of ignorance, and come to the delusional conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. - Seymour Butz
lapman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 02:55 PM   #338
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Fortunately we do not have to rely on air pressure if we can buy a timer at Walmart.
good thing none of the flights were delayed

...oh wait, 93 was delayed on the ground for 45 minutes before taking off (the other flights were hijacked within 45 minutes of leaving the gate)

if timers were used flight 93 should have gassed everyone on the ground

also, its an extremely risky decision, if so much as one crewmember gets an oxygen mask on as they notice everyone else keeling over they can blow the lid off the whole thing
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 03:04 PM   #339
ellindsey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 228
Quote:
The question is: was there anything like 'home run'/remote control facility implemented yes or no. Because it is a piece of cake to make a mechanical facility that decouples the pilots steering pole and the autopilot servo. From then on the autopilot rules uninterruptable.
Well, sure. You could assume that some nefarious people took four airplanes out of service to install all the complex mechanics and electronics needed to cut the pilots out of the control loop. You'll have to pull them out of service for a while while you do that, of course, and it'll look mighty suspicious to have all four of your hijacked planes mysteriously pulled out of service and put back just before 9-11. But if you don't manage that, you'll have to somehow hide all the modifications from the maintenance and ground crews, at every airport that plane stops at, and make the system one that no pilot will notice until it's activated. You'll also have to somehow isolate and self-power the whole thing so the pilots can't disable it by pulling circuit breakers, and figure out some way to stop them from just sending someone down into the avionics bay with a fire axe to smash the autopilot. Remember, no pilot is ever going to just give up and let the plane fly itself - they're going to do everything even remotely humanly possible to regain control.
ellindsey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 03:10 PM   #340
Ravenwood
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 614
Perhaps this is reaching, but wouldn't it be more cost effective & reliable to have several fanatic/dedicated operatives trained in fight crew operations & armed with these:
http://www.shomer-tec.com/product/ci...cutter-318.cfm
On board the aircraft to take control of & pilot said aircraft? I'm just saying....
__________________
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose Free Will.
-Rush, "Free Will"
Ravenwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 03:24 PM   #341
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
I think this 9/11 conspiracy greatest hits cliche thread pretty much proves that 9/11 is the most boring overused conspiracy there is. It's all re-runs now.
Jonnyclueless is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 03:30 PM   #342
ktesibios
Worthless Aging Hippie
 
ktesibios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,493
Originally Posted by Dr Adequate View Post
Actually, his scenario assumes that this stuff has been fitted as standard to all planes without anyone noticing.
Little problem with that assumption. First, we can safely assume that the as-built systems which operate the control surfaces on these planes don't differ significantly from the diagrams in the Boeing tech manuals, as shown in Ap's paper.

Y'see, while it might be convenient for conspiracists to believe that technicians are merely trained monkeys who carry out procedures by rote without actually understanding what they're doing, reality is somewhat different- we're not that stupid nor ignorant.

A meaningful discrepancy between what the service manual shows and the system under repair will not go unnoticed. If you were to go through the binders containing the schematics of the SSL consoles where I work, you would find multiple places where errors have been corrected in pencil so that the drawing correctly shows the actual hardware we bought.

I've also had the experience, several times, of discovering an actual stupid design error committed by people who were presumably much better-educated than I am, and of squawking about them until the manufacturer remedied the problem in the unit's design.

It's inherent in the design of the 757 and 767 flight control systems- at least as they're illustrated in Ap's manuals- that there is no way to lock the pilots out of control of the control surfaces. The Vialls fantasy can't be true unless the design of these airplanes is very different from what Boeing has documented in their tech publications, and such differences could not long be kept secret.

Moreover, if such a system really was built into the 757/767, it would have some rather obvious consequences. A system which can deprive the pilots of control of the airplane is inherently a system where failure could cause a very serious accident. In the regulatory environment commercial aviation operates in, such a system would be subject to mandatory scheduled testing and maintenance.

That means that the following would have to take place;

1. Specialized test equipment must be designed, approved, manufactured and distributed.
2. Test and repair procedures must be written, approved, published and distributed to the companies that will be doing the work.
3. Other system documentation, such as electrical schematics, mechanical drawings, assembly/disassembly drawings, parts lists and such have to be produced and inserted into the technical manuals for the aircraft.
4. Technicians have to be trained and certified to perform MRO on the system.

Unless you posit a super-secret NWO maintenance facility to which all aircraft equipped with the remote-takeover system have to be sent at regular intervals, your chances of keeping the existence and purpose of the system secret enough for use in a 9/11 conspiracy are slim and none.
__________________
Ship me somewheres east of Suez, where the best is like the worst, where there ain't no ten commandments and a man can raise a small, bristly mustache.
ktesibios is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 03:36 PM   #343
X
Slide Rulez 4 Life
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,127
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
X, thanks for the words of moral encouragement, much appreciated.

Read the paragraph "Dov Zakheim, remote control and the Pentagon" to see what I have on the subject.

The entire section about Dov Zakheim is a non-sequitur. You discuss his background and history, and make up some motives that sound good to you.
Then you discuss some ideas that people had for controlling aircraft.
You link to a brief of a digital flight control system (here, and assert that it can take control of the plane. But that system says nothing about how it controls the plane. It reads like a description for an autopilot. Someone with more experience in the industry can tell me what it actually is.
Regardless, the system still has to manipulate the controls. The brief you linked to says nothing about this. And it has already been mentioned a few times that the autopilot can be overridden, overpowered, or disconnected by the pilots.



Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
The entire story is based on frustration with the official account, I just wanted to see how far I could get with an alternative hypothesis.

So, you have problems with the "official account", and come up with a hypothesis that requires technology that does not exist? You have solved nothing. Instead of making things up, why didn't you ask us for clarification on the things you didn't understand?
Just because you don't like or comprehend something, does not automatically mean it is false. i shouldn't have to say that, but it seems necessary, for such is the basis of your claims here.



Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Remote control was 'in the air' so to speak in 2001.

Here is a US-patent, filed one month after 9/11:

US-patent 6,641,087

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...y=PN%2F6641087

Summary: Anti-hijacking system operable in emergencies to deactivate on-board flight controls and remotely pilot aircraft utilizing autopilot.

Yes, remote-control aircraft have been around for a long time.

Your link to a patent, however, is meaningless. Why? because the patent proposes an idea not a system. It is an idea. There are no specifications for such a system, and it could not be retrofitted onto older aircraft like the 767/757 anyways.

As has been mentioned (as was the main reason I addressed this in my earlier post), those aircraft are not fly-by-wire. There is a direct physical connection between the pilots and the control surfaces.

Setting up a remote control system that the pilots could not see would involve completely redesigning and rebuilding the aircraft's control systems. Top to bottom. And if that was done, it would involve lots of workers, and would be noticed immediately by the maintenance crew. There is an exceedingly good chance the pilots would notice something was different during the pre-flight checks.

Alternately, you could leave the control system intact and instead fill the cockpit with actuators, servos, and hydraulics or pneumatic pumps. Not to mention that required radio transceiver (or whatever it is they use for remote control vehicles). You would have to have actuators controlling the pitch (yoke forward/back), roll (control wheel left/right), yaw (rudder pedals in/out), throttle (throttle levers forward/back), and a whole host of other systems. At the same time, you would have to have a system in place to inform the remote controllers of the plane's position, velocity, heading, control positions, thrust, etc etc.


And your scenario requires that the pilots and ground crew and passengers don't notice any of this until they lose control.

To give you a sense of what I mean, [url=http://www.flixxy.com/top-gear-rc-cars.htmwatch this video[/url] (Top Gear rocks!), showing a car retro-fitted for remote control. This is similar (but vastly less complicated) to the setup you have proposed the people on and around the plane did not notice.



Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
This document...

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...msMonaghan.pdf

... is a peer-reviewed study about the possibility of 757/767 having had remote controlled systems anno 9/11.

Conclusion: Increasing the plausibility of precision automated control of the two aircraft striking the WTC, is
the fact that each aircraft struck precisely the only sections within each WTC tower reportedly
upgraded with thermal protection materials, suggesting a clandestine relationship between the
visually spectacular aircraft attacks upon the WTC and activity pre-September 11, 2001 within
each WTC aircraft impact region, initiating complete structural failure within these regions not
generated by the aircraft attacks themselves
.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

And now you have to explain how remote pilots could guide the aircraft to their destinations with such a high level of accuracy. This complicates your remote control setup immensely, especially given the speed the aircraft were flying at.

This is in contrast to pilots (and yes, the hijackers could fly) simply aiming the plane at the side of a rather large building and not caring overmuch where ion the building they hit.

And do yourself a favor: Don't refer to the Journal of 9/11 studies as peer-reviewed. It is not.



Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
One smoking gun obviously is Dov Zakheim. He is co-author of the central PNAC-document, with the new Pearl Harbor reference. Document completed 1 year before 9/11. At the time Zakheim had been CEO of SPC for 4 years, a company that produced amongst others specialized remote control systems of airplanes (up to 8 at a time!). It is very likely that Zakheim must have been aware which type of aircraft had remote control capability. In april 2001 we witnessed the first unmanned flight from Edwards Airbase to Australia.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/uav-01d.html

"It was in the air" so to speak.

The suspicion is of course that Dov Zakheim came to an luminous idea when this new Pearl Harbor idea was discussed during these meetings with his mainly zionist PNAC-pals. The idea was to find an excuse to invade the ME. This would be an implementation of the ideas as formulated in the Clean Break document (Israel benefactor), PNAC (US-empire and global supremacy) and the oil-motive; Cheney was at the time well aware of the impending peak-oil crisis, of which we have witnessed the first dark clouds earlier this summer.

You continue to overlook the main point of my post.

The control systems you propose could not have been installed without being noticed by the pilots, ground crew, and possibly even passengers.

Whether remote control systems existed for different aircraft is irrelevant, unless those other aircraft were manually controlled and had remote systems retrofitted to them in such a way that the retrofits were unnoticeable by anyone working on or with the aircraft.

It's like claiming that just because new Corvettes have heads-up-displays, that my 40-year-old Lincoln can be easily retrofitted to suit. You ignore all the other things such a retrofit requires.

I don't care who this "Dov Zakheim" fellow is. Until you can show that the flight control system necessitated by your hypothesis exists (and it is truly impossible for the aircraft involved to be retrofitted as such so inconspicuously), the question of "who done it" is meaningless conjecture. It's like saying a man could have killed someone because he knows how to shoot a gun, but not having a body, a motive, or a murder weapon. You would not make such an accustation normally (I hope), so why do you so cavalierly accuse Dov Zakheim of being complicit in mass murder when you have no evidence other than conjecture and ignorance?




Now please answer my questions. Not with dodges, personal opinion or irrelevant factoids. Answer it with evidence and reason. Ideas, or ideas of ideas do not count. Link to my other post in this thread.

Either you can support your claims, or you cannot. If you can't, admit it, and remove the flawed ideas from your hypothesis.



----- ----- ----- -----




Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Excellent post ellindsay!

Yes I am aware that the 9/11 planes were older types, not FBW. I remember that on the forum in Holland, on which discussion my blog is based, we had heated debates over exactly this issue. You will probably agree that an autopilot controls servo's that control the cables. You confirm what somebody in Holland stated: that the steering pole (german Steuerknueppel; english word? [1]) follows the movement of flaps (word? [2]). What I cannot imagine that there is no mechanical amplifier between the steering pole and the planes that are controlled (a wing and tail). The forces on these planes at 500 mph must be enormous. There must be an amplifier [3]. If that were the case then I cannot accept your reasoning that the pilot can 'mechanically overrule' the autopilot. It is the force of the servo that determines the position of the flaps.[4]

Numbering by me.

[1] The English word is yoke, I believe. Control wheel has also been mentioned.
[2] Flaps is the correct term.
[3] It seems you are unfamiliar with the concept of mechanical advantage.
[4] No. It is the mechanical advantage of the hydraulics system.

You have shown that you do not have a full understanding of certain topics that are central to your hypothesis. Fortunately, this can be corrected. Read the Wikipedia links I gave above. Don't just make assumptions based off of gut instinct (or you might wind up comparing WTC 1 and 2 to Pizza Box towers). Actually learn about the topic, and understand the consequences of your ideas. Especially what they require to work as you have said.


Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
Having a bit of a background in science, particularly physics, can help in determining the physical possibilities of much of what you postulate (see X's "The Physics of Flight" thread). Having a background in economics can help in determining whether or not the insurance/put option/etc. theories make sense.

When you do not have a background in anything relating the any of the topics, what do you use? This is a serious question and I would like to see your answer.

As Hokulele mentioned (and thanks for the plug), background knowledge is necessary to being able to understand certain events. That is why I spent so much time in my flight thread hashing over the basics of aircraft designs and aerodynamics. I could have just come out and said lift is due to friction, and given the formulae for turns and climbs. But as I was attempting to reach people who may not have education in those areas, it was necessary ot cover the basics. Otherwise, people would have had no idea how the equations were developed or why they represent physical limits.

You can't argue from ignorance. You make mistakes, and won't even realize it.

If you are arguing things because you just know or feel them to be so, there's a good chance you argue from ignorance. And this is a skeptics forum, dedicated to education. The chances of there being someone among those who read your posts who understands the issue better than you is very good. Mistakes and ignorance will be found, and will be called to task. When you can defend your claims reasonable, instead of through incredulity or bias, then you have arguments people will listen to. Until then, expect your hypothesis to be torn apart, piece by piece, and its flaws exposed for all to see. If you have any intellectual honesty, you will learn from what people here say, rather than accuse them of being sheep (i.e. believing whatever we're told on television). Learn from it, and use the knowledge to examine your own beliefs and conclusions with the same scrutiny you apply to ours.




Originally Posted by Ravenwood View Post
Perhaps this is reaching, but wouldn't it be more cost effective & reliable to have several fanatic/dedicated operatives trained in fight crew operations & armed with these:
http://www.shomer-tec.com/product/ci...cutter-318.cfm
On board the aircraft to take control of & pilot said aircraft? I'm just saying....

Am I the only one who shudder at the thought of clipping a 7.5" long ceramic knife to my pocket? I mean, the clip is the reason they give for not needing a sheet, but unless that thing folds, there is no way I would clip it to my pants. And why only $9?
__________________
It is sad that this is necessary:
Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly."
Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly."

[X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis

Last edited by X; 11th November 2008 at 03:44 PM. Reason: added a quote
X is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 04:00 PM   #344
MIKILLINI
Incromulent Logic
 
MIKILLINI's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,979
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
You are right. It is much safer to simply accept what they tell you on teevee.
Is it much easier to accept Bollyn is right, rather than to investigate all his claims?
These arguments you bring up here are not new, in fact, they are a few years old.

You need evidence to back up these claims in order for you to gain any ground, but there hasn't been any evidence presented from these old claims to back them up...even years later.
So, unless you can produce the key element for these claims in the form of evidence, you are waging a lost battle.
__________________
Attempting to build a case without evidence is just another day spent with no use of common sense.-Me

The conspiracist is not merely illogical: he assaults logic.~ Pomeroo

Last edited by MIKILLINI; 11th November 2008 at 04:02 PM.
MIKILLINI is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 04:00 PM   #345
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Can somebody explain why all four aircraft did not send a 'I am hijacked' signal?

Thanks.
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 04:02 PM   #346
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
You are right. It is much safer to simply accept what they tell you on teevee.
You are right. It is much safer to simply accept what they tell you on

Utoob.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 04:05 PM   #347
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Can somebody explain why all four aircraft did not send a 'I am hijacked' signal?

Thanks.
why would the hijackers want the FAA to know that their plane had been hijacked??

"think McFly.....think"

and, if they HAD turned on their hijack signal, would that convince you that 9-11 was NOT an inside job?

is it just me..or do 9-11 truthers seem to willingly and intentionally abandon ALL common sense???? sometimes it is so very frustrating.

Last edited by Thunder; 11th November 2008 at 04:07 PM.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 04:05 PM   #348
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
http://www.youtube.com/v/tRfhUezbKLw

Here is the well known video of the Urban Moving Systems workers who got detained because they were caught cheering and high-fiving as the planes slamed in the buildings. After a long period they were released and appeared at home in Israel on Israeli television. They stated that they were there to 'document the event'.

How is this possible without foreknowledge as in 'they organized the event themselves'?

Thanks.
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 04:08 PM   #349
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
I'm sorry..is this a general 9-11 conspiracy theory discussion thread...or is there an actual topic here?
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 04:09 PM   #350
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Can somebody explain why all four aircraft did not send a 'I am hijacked' signal?

Thanks.
Are you really that stupid that you can't figure out they didn't because they didn't. Why is this evidence of something nefarious or is it just that you would prefer it is so you can sling your anti-semitic baloney about Jews, Mossad and Israel?
~enigma~ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 04:10 PM   #351
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
i would URGE everyone NOT to respond to his new Mossad topic. it has been covered 1 million times here. let him use the search function.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 04:16 PM   #352
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
You want me to believe that in all four cases these tiny Arabs were able to prevent the experienced pilots from pushing one of the several distress buttons... with walmart box cutters?

.
are you aware of what a walmart box cutter can do to a human throat?

they are made to cut thick pieces of carboard. i wonder what they can do to skin, soft tissue, and a large jugular artery?
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 04:17 PM   #353
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
walmart box cutters?
Fugitive and felon Chris,

They have Walmart in Amsterdam?
~enigma~ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 04:29 PM   #354
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by parky76 View Post
are you aware of what a walmart box cutter can do to a human throat?

they are made to cut thick pieces of carboard. i wonder what they can do to skin, soft tissue, and a large jugular artery?
The cockpit door is not wide enough to let 2 hijackers in at once. If the first pilot has his throat slit then the second pilot should have enough to a split second to mobilize himself with stretched arms to avoid throat cutting.

BTW, nothing but really nothing in the life's of these shy soft spoken devout muslims give's hints that they were capable to such a sudden burst of barbaric violence. You're making it up just not to contradict OCT.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...r_history.html

Hanjour an Unlikely Terrorist

WRH is just the carrier. The Post published this early after 9/11. No truth movement yet. Written by Amy Goldstein. Everybody believed he Story. I believe the Post now dropped the story, at least is does not show up as a hit.

Unlikely terrorist indeed.

Since he was none.
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 04:31 PM   #355
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
so.....from "why didnt they turn on the hijacker alert"
to
"the terrorists were soft spoken devout muslim angels"

which derail would you like us to address first?

honestly, dude, all of these topics have been addressed....YEARS ago. why dont you just use the search function and look them up? all the answers your little heart desires are right there.

Last edited by Thunder; 11th November 2008 at 04:34 PM.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 04:37 PM   #356
Dr Adequate
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
You want me to believe that in all four cases these tiny Arabs were able to prevent the experienced pilots from pushing one of the several distress buttons... with walmart box cutters?
They were not "tiny", being an experienced pilot does not qualify you to fight unarmed against armed men who outnumber you, and they were not armed with Walmart boxcutters.

The only references I can find to "distress buttons" on airplanes is on Truther websites.
Dr Adequate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 04:41 PM   #357
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by Dr Adequate View Post
They were not "tiny", being an experienced pilot does not qualify you to fight unarmed against armed men who outnumber you, and they were not armed with Walmart boxcutters.

The only references I can find to "distress buttons" on airplanes is on Truther websites.
what? Kung-Fu and Tae Kwon-Do isnt part of FAA Commercial pilots training???

dude. we KNOW that airplanes have "help Ive been hijacked by Arabs" buttons.

we know that the Pentagon had several batteries of secret underground anti-Arab missiles.

and we know that Arabs not only cant fly, but they cant use knives or turn off transponders.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 04:52 PM   #358
Trojan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 481
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Explain to me please why there need to be an explosive on every truss. It does not.

According to this scenario...


... here is een narrative that states: The deployment of the explosive charges in the three World Trade Center skyscrapers is performed by a team of just three technicians working over a period of about four weeks.

That's 60 man-days. Or a crew of 30 in my weekend-scenario.

P.S. the same link has a paragraph "The Destruction in Manhattan". It states that placing of radiographic explosives in the elevator shaft is sufficient to bring the building down. This makes the discussion about power-down in the weekend superfluous. Essential is the availability of one elevator shaft closed for the public.
The full quote is here

The Destruction in Manhattan
Quote:
The deployment of the explosive charges in the three World Trade Center skyscrapers is performed by a team of just three technicians working over a period of about four weeks. The explosive charges, disguised to look like lighting fixtures, are placed on the roofs of elevator cars and installed on the inside walls of the elevator shafts by a technician riding on the elevator. There are no security cameras inside the shafts to capture this operation. A controller is placed on each floor to signal the dozens of charges on that floor via short-distance radio links. After the attack, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani assures, through his control of the police force and over city contracts, that Ground Zero is sealed off and that the evidence is destroyed.
This statement is not supported by any evidence. In fact, it is just a passage on a web page. Why do you think this is evidence?

It is in direct contradiction to EVERY controlled demolition expert on the planet. CDI are NOT conducted by demolishing elevator shafts.



Quote:
CDIís 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDIís implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.
So again, what evidence do you have? Do you believe that the destruction of an elevator shaft could result in the destruction of a steel structure?
Trojan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 04:54 PM   #359
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
BTW, nothing but really nothing in the life's of these shy soft spoken devout muslims give's hints that they were capable to such a sudden burst of barbaric violence. You're making it up just not to contradict OCT.
I am sure the same could be said for just about every suicide bomber in the world, right up until the point they detonate themselves and kill everyone in the pizzeria.
__________________
I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago.
-David Ray Griffin-
JamesB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 04:57 PM   #360
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by parky76 View Post
I'm sorry..is this a general 9-11 conspiracy theory discussion thread...or is there an actual topic here?
The topic is the competition between the Arab versus Israeli Conspiracy Theory narrative.

I am perplexed I have to tell you that in page 10.
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:27 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.