IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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.
Reply
Old 7th April 2016, 04:01 PM   #121
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Why did it take years before it was discovered that VW was defeating emission control standards?
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
"How does that relate?

VW was a software thing in engine management, not a physical thing on a few selected vehicles.

Modifying a commercial jet for remote control would involve obvious changes to the aircraft that would be seen by the engineers and technicians servicing and repairing the aircraft.

Commercial jets have strict type approval. Any unauthorised modification would be picked up by the highly trained staff certified for the particular model.

You demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the certification, maintenance and training regimes involved."
Hmm...4 planes with doctored auto pilot software go undetected.

Hundreds of thousands of VW cars with doctored emission control software go undetected for years.

In both cases, qualified experts failed to detect any anomaly.

You think it is totally implausible that trojan software modifications to the planes would go undetected but you are quite willing to accept the reality that trojan software modifications to hundreds of thousands of VW's cars could, and did, go undetected.

Amazing.
Criteria 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 7th April 2016, 04:06 PM   #122
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Hmm...4 planes with doctored auto pilot software go undetected.
Explain how the auto pilot software "doctoring" could explain what you believe.

My guess is you have no idea.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 7th April 2016, 04:13 PM   #123
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Hmm...4 planes with doctored auto pilot software go undetected.

Hundreds of thousands of VW cars with doctored emission control software go undetected for years.

In both cases, qualified experts failed to detect any anomaly.

You think it is totally implausible that trojan software modifications to the planes would go undetected but you are quite willing to accept the reality that trojan software modifications to hundreds of thousands of VW's cars could, and did, go undetected.

Amazing.
You think all that would be needed was a bit of 'software doctoring' to allow some remote third party to take over control?

You display a basic lack of knowledge of the flight systems on the aircraft.
I suggest you do some serious reading and research on the subject.
Andy_Ross 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 7th April 2016, 04:25 PM   #124
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
VW cheated on a test so,... 9/11 was a false flag.

Got it.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F 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 7th April 2016, 04:35 PM   #125
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
I know there is another discussion going on with Criteria, but I will add some facts.

1. The Manhattan project was kept secret. That project went on for years and involved over 100,000 people.
2. The complexity of a task is not proof it can't be done. Once you suspect something you investigate its cause. You never claim that it can't be done because it would be difficult.
3. We allegedly landed on the moon several times. That sounds like a pretty difficult task? Does the difficulty of the task mean it could not be done? Please don't give me any moon landing CT arguments. I am not a moon truther.
FalseFlag 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 7th April 2016, 04:52 PM   #126
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I know there is another discussion going on with Criteria, but I will add some facts.

1. The Manhattan project was kept secret. That project went on for years and involved over 100,000 people.
2. The complexity of a task is not proof it can't be done. Once you suspect something you investigate its cause. You never claim that it can't be done because it would be difficult.
3. We allegedly landed on the moon several times. That sounds like a pretty difficult task? Does the difficulty of the task mean it could not be done? Please don't give me any moon landing CT arguments. I am not a moon truther.
Not to mention that it was so porous that the Russians knew all about it.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 7th April 2016, 04:55 PM   #127
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
If detective A determined that the victim was given poison but was also subjected to suffocation, and that autopsy results showed the victim died of asphyxia before the dose of poison could have became fatal, than the great detective B would appear to be part of a coverup or not as good at their job as people may believe.
I made this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6&postcount=45

In response to the above.

Bad analogy.

WRT 9/11, a better example would be where a Fire Marshall determines that a fire was caused by faulty electrical wiring and the medical examiner determines that a victim of the fire died as a result of smoke inhalation being criticized by someone (with no training in fire investigation or in forensic medicine) for not fully investigating the possibility that the fire was caused by spontaneous human combustion.


The individual that insists on an investigation based on their misunderstanding or ignorance of the facts or of science may not be disrespecting the dead, but they are certainly annoying the hell out of the grownups.

Care to comment?
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong 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 7th April 2016, 05:14 PM   #128
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Not to mention that it was so porous that the Russians knew all about it.
What Russians? Are you saying that a few Russians knew about the Manhattan project, or did they all? Was there a small group that knew about it or a large group? Where is your proof to support your claim?
FalseFlag 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 7th April 2016, 05:53 PM   #129
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Hmm...4 planes with doctored auto pilot software go undetected.

Hundreds of thousands of VW cars with doctored emission control software go undetected for years.

In both cases, qualified experts failed to detect any anomaly.

You think it is totally implausible that trojan software modifications to the planes would go undetected but you are quite willing to accept the reality that trojan software modifications to hundreds of thousands of VW's cars could, and did, go undetected.

Amazing.
Your post is all of that and more, but not in the manner in which you may intend.

In your fantasy construct, an automobile manufacturer that uses technology to pass emissions control testing w/o being in compliance with the emissions standards required occupies the same moral and technological landscape as mass murder.

Call me captain obvious, but somehow in a world where gearheads like myself and my circle in California have had to deal with smog laws from the early '70's on that in the beginning not only didn't do a hell of a lot to curb pollution but built a huge bureaucracy we've had to work under and the rise of aftermarket manufacturing to legally improve performance while remaining in compliance with state and federal law, the notion of VW gaming the emissions testing requirements isn't even surprising - hell, in California phony smog testing certificates are popular even among the rich:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier...ar-3315420.php

First there's an uproar over his late-night private jet landings in San Jose, then a yacht salesman drags him to court for allegedly stiffing him on a $700,000 commission. Now comes word of a smog-check flap involving Ellison's prized $1 million McLaren F1 auto.

What we're talking about here is a little silver-gray one-seater with a 627-horsepower engine that is so rare and so expensive that only a half dozen are in the United States.

As sources tell us, Ellison's smog troubles started when investigators from the state Department of Consumer Affairs Bureau of Automotive Repairs busted a Burlingame mechanic for issuing certificates by mail -- without so much as looking under a car's hood.

As luck would have it, among the many vehicles listed in the mechanic's files was the aforementioned McLaren . . . registered to Oracle Corp. and its chairman, Larry Ellison.

And lo and behold, sources say, investigators found evidence that Ellison's million-dollar ride -- with license plate "ORACLE 8" -- had been issued a phony smog certificate.


So on the record, monkey business with emission controls isn't a new story - the above is from 2000.

Let's get to how you want to link what I just described as what, a gateway drug? to mass murder.

Guy wants to start a war. What does he need? Me! Me! I know! dramatic event. Lets wipe out the WTC.

Problem is dickhead never held anything more dangerous than a sparkler, can't chew gum and walk, so he needs co-conspirators, and that is the moment where the whole scenario goes tits up in the real world.

One of the conspiracy charges that I observed or investigated that usually turned into a fish-in-a-barrel prosecutions were these:

https://www.google.com/#q=man+convic...+commit+murder

Take your pick of any of the news reports on that page.. I can't even tell you how many I saw in 15 years, more than a couple of dozen easily.

This is the real world - there are no armies of faceless heartless killers waiting for orders or cash contracts willing to wipe out victims from singletons to thousands available for hire in the way Hollywood fiction has evidently conditioned a portion of the population to believe.

In your scenario, you have the plotters, the tech guys, the logistics guys and the operational guys.

In the CT world, well hell, the actors are false flag recruited and nobody knows what is really going to happen etc. so...it's flat nonsense. Pros, and there are pros in any given field including the ones described, don't work blind. Ever. A guy might see a colleague out and about and not ask them what they're doing, but he for damn sure knows what he himself is doing, and for who.

Real world again, but as somebody that seems to be hot on the trail of the true bad actors, the hidden hand, I'd expect you to already know this story, but I'll throw it out there FWIW

Ever heard the name Bob Rehault?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_B._Rheault

"Rheault was awarded the Silver Star for his actions in combat in the Korean War, attaining the rank of captain. After Korea, Rheault taught French at the U.S. Military Academy for several years in the mid-1950s, attaining the rank of major. Rheault attended the Special Forces Qualification course, the Q-Course, in 1961, and his initial Special Forces assignment was with the 10th Special Forces Group in Germany. He would later command the 1st Special Forces Group on Okinawa before being assigned to Vietnam to take command of the 5th Special Forces Group."

"All U.S. Army Special Forces, in 1969, operated under the control of 5th Special Forces Group, headquartered at Nha Trang, on the southeast coast of South Vietnam, and there was a close relationship with the CIA that complicated the chain of command and philosophy of rules of engagement.[6] Colonel Rheault took command of 5th in May 1969 and his unit was charged with seeking out leaks in a CIA-directed espionage ring as part of Project GAMMA. Colonel Rheault along with six of his Special Forces officers and a sergeant were arrested by the U.S. Military under the orders of General Creighton Abrams and threatened with court-martial charges of murder and conspiracy to commit murder, arising from the alleged extrajudicial killing of Thai Khac Chuyen, a Vietnamese double agent for the Americans and the North Vietnamese.[1][7]

The investigation and court-martial, held by the U.S. Army in Vietnam, rapidly became engulfed in a firestorm of media publicity. Most of the American public, and the Special Forces, believed that Colonel Rheault and all involved had been made scapegoats for a matter that reflected poorly upon the Army.[8] The view that there was no wrongdoing by the soldiers was probably best stated by Rheault's 11-year-old son, Robert, Jr. who upon learning of his father's arrest said, "What is all the fuss about? I thought that was what dad was in Vietnam for...to kill Viet Cong".[3] However, the prosecution provided testimony showing that Chuyen was shot by Rheault's officers and his body dumped into the South China Sea. Further, they argued that Rheault was most certainly aware of the provisions of the Third Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war and Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He approved the execution of Chuyen, and also approved the cover story that Chuyen was lost on an undercover mission designed to prove his loyalty to South Vietnam and the United States.[1] Judge Advocate General Captain John Stevens Berry called General Abrams and CIA officials to the witness stand, but both declined to testify. Finally in September 1969 the Secretary of the Army Stanley Resor announced to all that all charges would be dropped against the soldiers since the CIA, which the interests of national security had refused to make its personnel available as witnesses. Thus a fair trial was not possible. On October 31, 1969, upon ascertaining that further military commands and promotions were not likely, Colonel Rheault requested immediate retirement from the Army. All others charged in the affair also had their careers effectively ended, so all left the service soon afterwards.[3][8]


More details about the incident below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projec..._Beret_Afffair

My point here is that in the real world, the Commanding Officer of the 5th Special Forces Group. in the middle of a shooting war, with all the logistic and manpower support in the world couldn't kill a single individual actually identified as a threat and get away clean w/o notice.

Your construct is completely contrary to what happens in the real world, and there's not even a sliver of reasonable connection between the VW emissions scandal and mass murder.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong 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 7th April 2016, 05:56 PM   #130
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
Have you read the Iraq War Resolution? So they did the Iraq war because of 911... Jesus *********** Christ that is stupid... you're the conspiracy theorist.
Did you read my post?

They were looking at Iraq on 9/12/2001, and looking for links. Richard Clark is a source for this.

Then there is VP Dick Cheney on Meet the Press on 9/14/2003 saying this:



Quote:
MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.
We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.
Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.

MR. RUSSERT: We could establish a direct link between the hijackers of September 11 and Saudi Arabia.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We know that many of the attackers were Saudi. There was also an Egyptian in the bunch. It doesn’t mean those governments had anything to do with that attack. That’s a different proposition than saying the Iraqi government and the Iraqi intelligent service has a relationship with al-Qaeda that developed throughout the decade of the ’90s. That was clearly official policy.
* Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3080244/ns...anscript-sept/

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km1SL1i-pWI

This is clearly a man who refuses (at the time of this interview) to believe that Al Qaeda acted alone, but instead of thinking "Inside Jobby-Job", he saw an Iraqi conspiracy. The big difference between Cheney and garden variety Truthers is that he sat at the table while foreign policy was being shaped, and wars were being planned.

Should also be pointed out that not everything he says is false, just the part where he believed the discredited reports of Atta in Prague.

For the record, I supported the invasion of Iraq, just not the execution of the operation(s). Not because of 9-11.
Axxman300 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 7th April 2016, 06:14 PM   #131
Seymour Butz
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 884
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
What Russians? ?
Stalin
Seymour Butz 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 7th April 2016, 06:19 PM   #132
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I know there is another discussion going on with Criteria, but I will add some facts.

1. The Manhattan project was kept secret. That project went on for years and involved over 100,000 people.
You can't be serious.

Do the names Julius and Ethel Rosenberg ring any bells?

Quote:
2. The complexity of a task is not proof it can't be done. Once you suspect something you investigate its cause. You never claim that it can't be done because it would be difficult.
But level-of-difficulty can speak to the likelihood of the task being done.

Lets say you are in the pitch meeting (the metaphor is appropriate here) for the inside jobby-job to destroy a building that isn't important, that almost no one has heard of or cares about, and whose destruction serves absolutely no purpose.

You propose To send hundreds of workmen into this fully occupied office building day after day, tearing apart their offices to gain access to the buildings structure so you can plant super-secret hush-a-boom explosives that no one has ever heard of and which produce no sound, no flash, no blast, no pressure wave or high-velocity ejecta. You will of course have to count on none of the thousands of people whose work lives you are disrupting noticing a single thing as well as none of your hundreds of workers spilling the beans over a pint. And oh yeah, you are going to do this pointless task with no plausible cover story and do it hours after the building is fully evacuated ensuring there are no casualties but thousands of potential witnesses to your evil doing.

Impossible? Maybe not. Plausible? Likely?

Not if Plan B is to get two guys to cook up a McViegh bomb and park it out front, blowing up the building at the same time a Twin Tower is hit (or better yet collapses) and before the target building is evacuated.

Its still stupid and pointless but orders-of-magnitude less risky and less expensive while ensuring maximum casualties and effect.

Quote:
3. We allegedly landed on the moon several times. That sounds like a pretty difficult task? Does the difficulty of the task mean it could not be done? Please don't give me any moon landing CT arguments. I am not a moon truther.
Not allegedly. We did land on the Moon and we did it in the most effective way possible at the time. If you are not a "Moon Truther" you would not use the word "allegedly", therefore you must be a "Moon Truther", which would explain a lot of things really.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.

Last edited by Mark F; 7th April 2016 at 06:20 PM.
Mark F 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 7th April 2016, 06:19 PM   #133
waypastvne
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 539
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Where is your proof to support your claim?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_spies
waypastvne 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 7th April 2016, 08:58 PM   #134
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Did you read my post?

They were looking at Iraq on 9/12/2001, and looking for links. Richard Clark is a source for this.

Then there is VP Dick Cheney on Meet the Press on 9/14/2003 saying this:





* Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3080244/ns...anscript-sept/

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km1SL1i-pWI

This is clearly a man who refuses (at the time of this interview) to believe that Al Qaeda acted alone, but instead of thinking "Inside Jobby-Job", he saw an Iraqi conspiracy. The big difference between Cheney and garden variety Truthers is that he sat at the table while foreign policy was being shaped, and wars were being planned.

Should also be pointed out that not everything he says is false, just the part where he believed the discredited reports of Atta in Prague.

For the record, I supported the invasion of Iraq, just not the execution of the operation(s). Not because of 9-11.
Honestly wtf? Cheny soon admitted that the Czech intelligence was wrong. Nothing about 911 in the Iraq War Resolution. Reasonable people can disagree on wheter or not the Iraq war was a good idea. Telling people it might not have happened had certain people not believed that saddam had a hand in 911 is monumentally *********** stupid. It's ahistorical. Now *********** triply so since you supported the invasion. My head exploded.

Last edited by Joey McGee; 7th April 2016 at 09:01 PM.
Joey McGee 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 7th April 2016, 09:07 PM   #135
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Beyond stupid. If I was a historian I'd be pulling my *********** hair out.

Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_Yasin

Return to Iraq, 1993

In Baghdad, Iraq, Yasin lived freely for at least a year. Saddam Hussein's regime gave money and housing to Yasin. The Iraqi government later claimed he was arrested and put in prison
Why is this a side note in history that only pricks like me know about?
Joey McGee 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 7th April 2016, 09:09 PM   #136
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Put your hand in the air if you argue online about the Iraq war and have read the Iraq War Resolution word for word.

THAT' S WHAT I THOUGHT!!!!!!
Joey McGee 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 7th April 2016, 10:10 PM   #137
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
What Russians? Are you saying that a few Russians knew about the Manhattan project, or did they all? Was there a small group that knew about it or a large group? Where is your proof to support your claim?
Holy sweet mother of Jehosaphat. You don't even know that? Good grief.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 8th April 2016, 08:17 AM   #138
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
Honestly wtf? Cheny soon admitted that the Czech intelligence was wrong. Nothing about 911 in the Iraq War Resolution. Reasonable people can disagree on wheter or not the Iraq war was a good idea. Telling people it might not have happened had certain people not believed that saddam had a hand in 911 is monumentally *********** stupid. It's ahistorical. Now *********** triply so since you supported the invasion. My head exploded.
Iraq was going to happen eventually in a Bush admin no matter what. Certain key members of the Bush admin had a hard-on for Iraq and that was an itch that was going to find a way to get scratched. 9/11 just helped grease the wheels.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F 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 8th April 2016, 11:19 AM   #139
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Iraq was going to happen eventually in a Bush admin no matter what. Certain key members of the Bush admin had a hard-on for Iraq and that was an itch that was going to find a way to get scratched. 9/11 just helped grease the wheels.
Yup.

There was an incident in 2001 when the Iraqis took a shot at one of our aircraft patrolling the No-Fly Zone, the first time since Bush had taken office, and his NSC went into overdrive. That same weekend, George HW Bush, and his old NSC met with Jr. out at Camp David. The message was to "cool it" with Iraq.

And yes, I read the resolution when it came out. It covered everything but the kitchen sink.

The point being: 9-11 was used as an excuse.

The point NOT being: 9-11 was a false flag incident to force us into Iraq.
Axxman300 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 8th April 2016, 12:31 PM   #140
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Hmm...4 planes with doctored auto pilot software go undetected.
Your lack of understanding regarding aircraft systems is total. If you had any interest in the systems themselves and what is actually required to change them, then you wouldn't be hanging your hat on an impossible scenario.

Even a James Bond doctored auto-pilot would have no effect. The pilots would simply revert to a different law and look to fly the plane manually. They would also report such a malfunction.

The pilots would simply go through their checklist for an autopilot that was not operating properly and ultimately, if needed, pull the (electrical) bus switches for that system thus rendering it inoperable.

Like every truther you have little understanding about how a modern passenger jet actually works. Instead, you revert to Hollywood fantasy even though one of your supposedly doctored auto-pilot aircraft crashed.

If you don't believe me, then might I suggest you post on a professional flying forum under the relevant sub-forum. You'll be schooled quickly, but that won't make any difference to your fantasy.
Sunstealer 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 8th April 2016, 12:45 PM   #141
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Speculation proved wrong by evidence

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Hmm...4 planes with doctored auto pilot software go undetected.

You think it is totally implausible that trojan software modifications to the planes would go undetected but you are quite willing to accept the reality that trojan software modifications to hundreds of thousands of VW's cars could, and did, go undetected.

Amazing.
There is no remote control in the 757/767, thus no way to doctor the software to make it remote control.
Pure speculation proved wrong because 77 and 93 were flown by hand into the Pentagon, and into the ground; the terrorists moved the control column to fly the plane, as recorded in detail in the FDR of 77 and 93...

This is not who can make up the dumbest fantasy on 911, it is a fact and evidence based place to debunk, to expose lies like your failed speculation of remote control, as your fantasy add unknown millions and hundreds of people to the inside job plot.

You have no idea how much software costs to implement... your speculation is bad fiction. Remote control failed, what is left to mock those murdered by 19 failed followers of UBL.

How do you get software engineers to murder people? Software engineers did 9/11, news on 9/11 truth news at 11.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK

Last edited by beachnut; 8th April 2016 at 12:48 PM.
beachnut 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 8th April 2016, 12:48 PM   #142
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I know there is another discussion going on with Criteria, but I will add some facts.

1. The Manhattan project was kept secret. That project went on for years and involved over 100,000 people.
2. The complexity of a task is not proof it can't be done. Once you suspect something you investigate its cause. You never claim that it can't be done because it would be difficult.
3. We allegedly landed on the moon several times. That sounds like a pretty difficult task? Does the difficulty of the task mean it could not be done? Please don't give me any moon landing CT arguments. I am not a moon truther.
Russia new all about Manhattan, thry had information passed to them by spies and sympathisers.

Alledgedly landed on the moon? You mean we did land on the moon with a number of remote landers and 6 Apollo missions.
Andy_Ross 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 8th April 2016, 03:37 PM   #143
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Your lack of understanding regarding aircraft systems is total. If you had any interest in the systems themselves and what is actually required to change them, then you wouldn't be hanging your hat on an impossible scenario.

Even a James Bond doctored auto-pilot would have no effect. The pilots would simply revert to a different law and look to fly the plane manually. They would also report such a malfunction.

The pilots would simply go through their checklist for an autopilot that was not operating properly and ultimately, if needed, pull the (electrical) bus switches for that system thus rendering it inoperable.

Like every truther you have little understanding about how a modern passenger jet actually works. Instead, you revert to Hollywood fantasy even though one of your supposedly doctored auto-pilot aircraft crashed.

If you don't believe me, then might I suggest you post on a professional flying forum under the relevant sub-forum. You'll be schooled quickly, but that won't make any difference to your fantasy.
Boeing acknowledged the existence of an Uninterruptible Autopilot System in 2006.
Criteria 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 8th April 2016, 04:47 PM   #144
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
speculation debunked by FDR

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Boeing acknowledged the existence of an Uninterruptible Autopilot System in 2006.
lol, and

LOL, and did anyone buy one? Would a pilot fly a plane he can loose control of? Suppose like the the Airbus flight test, the plane decides all on it's own, due to the super software, to land on takeoff? Or divert to some airport and crash landing the wrong direction... hitting other planes... Good one...

The pilot union, smart pilots, and passengers should refuse to fly on a plane which can be hacked...
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Thermate exists... you got us now... must be CD

Explosives exists... must be CD

The sun exists, must be an inside job... 9/11 truth, the movement with special logic.

Your speculation, proved wrong; FDR. Your system was not on the planes used on 9/11 - FDR proves fantasy wrong.
Does anyone believe your speculation - did you check the FDR stuff?

How does your fantasy achieve the accuracy needed to hit a ~200 foot wide WTC tower? Have you detailed your fantasy version of 9/11?
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK

Last edited by beachnut; 8th April 2016 at 04:53 PM.
beachnut 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 8th April 2016, 04:53 PM   #145
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Boeing acknowledged the existence of an Uninterruptible Autopilot System in 2006.
Have you read the autopilot activity report from the NTSB?
pgimeno 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 8th April 2016, 06:09 PM   #146
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Boeing acknowledged the existence of an Uninterruptible Autopilot System in 2006.
That's awesome.

Why do you think airlines have spent billions of dollars employing pilots over the last 10 years when they could've saved a fortune using an autopilot system?
ProBonoShill 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 9th April 2016, 02:57 AM   #147
AZCat
Graduate Poster
 
AZCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Boeing acknowledged the existence of an Uninterruptible Autopilot System in 2006.
They did? I'm curious to read about this, as I thought even the 777 still had pilot override. Boeing has traditionally approached flight control systems differently from Airbus.
AZCat 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 9th April 2016, 03:42 AM   #148
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Boeing acknowledged the existence of an Uninterruptible Autopilot System in 2006.
Again you don't understand the technology, nor do you understand what would be required to retrofit such a system to an aircraft in service even if such a system existed at the time that could potentially be used to take control of the auto-pilot.

To retro-fit the system it would take dozens of man hours at a dedicated facility using qualified Boeing engineers who understood the new system. That system would have been required to be certified (which would require a lengthy certification and testing program) and then fitted to the aircraft under the relevant FARs and in accordance with Boeing procedures at the request of the airline. Not only that but this had to take place on two different aircraft models (757 and 767) from two different airlines!

The system would need to be procured by the airline because you simply cannot change the configuration of an aircraft unless there is a legal requirement or a recommendation from an aviation authority, in this case the FAA.

What is more, this newly installed system would appear on the individual aircraft's configuration because Boeing's configuration engineers under their Configuration Management (CM) system would have logged it there as they are legally required to do as part of the contract with the customer and such a change would be part of the CM change control process. A change would have to be made by an engineer using a change request and would therefore be well documented. Any change would automatically be sent to the customer(s), in this case United Airlines and American Airlines.

So you see, your throw away line and fantasy concerning an uninteruptable auto-pilot taking control of two different aircraft models is simply ludicrous. To do so would require hundreds of people to be in on it.

Not only that but lets also analyse this so called fantasy auto-pilot. It didn't do much of a job did it? It flew poorly and was not upto the standard of an airline pilot flying manually. We know that from the radar tracks and from the flight data recorders recovered. In fact this James Bond autopilot was so good it crashed one of the aircraft!

You are lazy. You refuse to learn. You are wilfully ignorant. That is why you are a truther. Why not put some effort in and try to learn and understand how aircraft are built and the complex systems put in place to make that process work?
Sunstealer 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 9th April 2016, 04:33 AM   #149
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Embedded and embattled, reporting from Mississippi
Posts: 5,203
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Again you don't understand the technology, nor do you understand what would be required to retrofit such a system to an aircraft in service even if such a system existed at the time that could potentially be used to take control of the auto-pilot.

To retro-fit the system it would take dozens of man hours at a dedicated facility using qualified Boeing engineers who understood the new system. That system would have been required to be certified (which would require a lengthy certification and testing program) and then fitted to the aircraft under the relevant FARs and in accordance with Boeing procedures at the request of the airline. Not only that but this had to take place on two different aircraft models (757 and 767) from two different airlines!

The system would need to be procured by the airline because you simply cannot change the configuration of an aircraft unless there is a legal requirement or a recommendation from an aviation authority, in this case the FAA.

What is more, this newly installed system would appear on the individual aircraft's configuration because Boeing's configuration engineers under their Configuration Management (CM) system would have logged it there as they are legally required to do as part of the contract with the customer and such a change would be part of the CM change control process. A change would have to be made by an engineer using a change request and would therefore be well documented. Any change would automatically be sent to the customer(s), in this case United Airlines and American Airlines.

So you see, your throw away line and fantasy concerning an uninteruptable auto-pilot taking control of two different aircraft models is simply ludicrous. To do so would require hundreds of people to be in on it.

Not only that but lets also analyse this so called fantasy auto-pilot. It didn't do much of a job did it? It flew poorly and was not upto the standard of an airline pilot flying manually. We know that from the radar tracks and from the flight data recorders recovered. In fact this James Bond autopilot was so good it crashed one of the aircraft!

You are lazy. You refuse to learn. You are wilfully ignorant. That is why you are a truther. Why not put some effort in and try to learn and understand how aircraft are built and the complex systems put in place to make that process work?
One thing I've noticed about Truthers (and, really, CTists of all stripes) is that they really have no idea of the complications their plots require- they're always looking for that one simple "gotcha!" that would undermine reality, without ever quite tumbling to the fact that there's a difference between "simple" and "simplistic." If their fantasy needs an un-interruptible autopilot, then one existed and was used, never mind the details. What happened that day is really not that complex or hard to understand, but Truthers want to make it a mystery by making it, at the same time, both simple and ridiculously complex.

Truther, please- there's a difference that's more than just a comma between "keep it simple, stupid" and "keep it simple stupid."
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest 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 9th April 2016, 04:36 AM   #150
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
One thing I've noticed about Truthers (and, really, CTists of all stripes) is that they really have no idea of the complications their plots require- they're always looking for that one simple "gotcha!" that would undermine reality, without ever quite tumbling to the fact that there's a difference between "simple" and "simplistic." If their fantasy needs an un-interruptible autopilot, then one existed and was used, never mind the details. What happened that day is really not that complex or hard to understand, but Truthers want to make it a mystery by making it, at the same time, both simple and ridiculously complex.

Truther, please- there's a difference that's more than just a comma between "keep it simple, stupid" and "keep it simple stupid."
That is the inherent difficulty of working the problem backwards. They never stop to realize that no one, in real life, would do something that ridiculous and complex.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F 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 9th April 2016, 04:38 AM   #151
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Embedded and embattled, reporting from Mississippi
Posts: 5,203
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
That is the inherent difficulty of working the problem backwards. They never stop to realize that no one, in real life, would do something that ridiculous and complex.
Yup- reverse engineering like theirs is more apt to result in cartoony Rube Goldberg contraptions than anything actually workable.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest 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 9th April 2016, 05:03 AM   #152
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
Well, we all know from tv and movies that all you need us a man in black ninja gear or overalls to sneak aboard and plug in a USB stick.
He will tap a few buttons then a screen will say 'Uploading' for a few seconds and just before he is discovered it will beep and say 'Upload Complete', he will slip away undetected or walk out pretending to be a member of the service crew. 'I'm Klaus Hergersheimer from G Section, checking Radiation Shields' or somesuch.
Or, he will have a small box the size of a cigarette packet that he will clip on to a control box under the floor somewhere. After flicking the on switch it will beep and a led will start flashing and then he will escape just before he is discovered (See Klaus Hergersheimer)
After either of these is done the bad guys can use a little box with some flashing leds and a little joystick to take over.
On the aircraft the pilots won't be able to do anything, all their controls will move on their own.

Last edited by Andy_Ross; 9th April 2016 at 05:09 AM.
Andy_Ross 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 9th April 2016, 05:43 AM   #153
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Well, we all know from tv and movies that all you need us a man in black ninja gear or overalls to sneak aboard and plug in a USB stick.
He will tap a few buttons then a screen will say 'Uploading' for a few seconds and just before he is discovered it will beep and say 'Upload Complete', he will slip away undetected or walk out pretending to be a member of the service crew. 'I'm Klaus Hergersheimer from G Section, checking Radiation Shields' or somesuch.
Or, he will have a small box the size of a cigarette packet that he will clip on to a control box under the floor somewhere. After flicking the on switch it will beep and a led will start flashing and then he will escape just before he is discovered (See Klaus Hergersheimer)
After either of these is done the bad guys can use a little box with some flashing leds and a little joystick to take over.
On the aircraft the pilots won't be able to do anything, all their controls will move on their own.
...did you forget the laughing Jolly Roger graphic that will pop up on all their Digital Displays, when the takeover is effected?
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle 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 9th April 2016, 05:53 AM   #154
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
"Boeing 777 along with other Boeing models, can in fact be flown remotely through the use of independent embedded software and satellite communication.

Once this advanced system is engaged, it can disallow any pilot or potential hijacker from controlling a plane, as the rooted setup uses digital signals that communicate with air traffic control, satellite links, as well as other government entities for the remainder of a flight’s journey.

This technology is known as the Boeing Honeywell ‘Uninterruptible’ Autopilot System."
Criteria 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 9th April 2016, 06:03 AM   #155
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
"Boeing 777 along with other Boeing models, can in fact be flown remotely through the use of independent embedded software and satellite communication.

Once this advanced system is engaged, it can disallow any pilot or potential hijacker from controlling a plane, as the rooted setup uses digital signals that communicate with air traffic control, satellite links, as well as other government entities for the remainder of a flight’s journey.

This technology is known as the Boeing Honeywell ‘Uninterruptible’ Autopilot System."
Patented in 2006 and unavailable for the aircraft in question at the time in question.

Even today, if it were used, the pilots would have access to radios and be saying stuff like "Er, help ATC, we have no control over the plane - it's flying itself"
__________________
"There ain't half been some clever bastards" - Ian Dury
GlennB 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 9th April 2016, 06:07 AM   #156
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
"Boeing 777 along with other Boeing models, can in fact be flown remotely through the use of independent embedded software and satellite communication.

Once this advanced system is engaged, it can disallow any pilot or potential hijacker from controlling a plane, as the rooted setup uses digital signals that communicate with air traffic control, satellite links, as well as other government entities for the remainder of a flight’s journey.

This technology is known as the Boeing Honeywell ‘Uninterruptible’ Autopilot System."
You're an authority on this? What does the installation entail?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 9th April 2016, 06:10 AM   #157
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
You're an authority on this? What does the installation entail?
See post 152
Andy_Ross 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 9th April 2016, 06:11 AM   #158
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Patented in 2006 and unavailable for the aircraft in question at the time in question.

Even today, if it were used, the pilots would have access to radios and be saying stuff like "Er, help ATC, we have no control over the plane - it's flying itself"
Obviously it takes over the radio as well.
Andy_Ross 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 9th April 2016, 06:11 AM   #159
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
You're an authority on this? What does the installation entail?
From the wiki article: "...a prototype has been tested on small aircraft". It's not even in commercial use 15 years after 9/11.

Just more CT delusion, this time bordering on delirium.
__________________
"There ain't half been some clever bastards" - Ian Dury
GlennB 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 9th April 2016, 06:13 AM   #160
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Embedded and embattled, reporting from Mississippi
Posts: 5,203
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
You're an authority on this? What does the installation entail?
No, no, you're doing it all wrong- if the conspiracy requires it, the conspiracy had it. Simples...
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest 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

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 08:04 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.