What Happened on 9/11? Narrative or GTFO.

[Jontg]

Exactly what it says on the tin. Truth movement, I challenge you to stop picking at the commonly accepted version of events and produce your own. Tell me what, exactly, went down six years and 363 days ago, and tell me how the "evidence" you've uncovered links into this. Tie the hundreds of loose threads you've spun into something understandable, something that makes even a shred of sense, or admit that your movement is full of it and go back to PrisonPlanet.

[T.A.M.]

[Boilerplate Truther Reply]
On september 11th, Four aircraft took off, were subsequents landed while substitute remote control planes were sent up to replace them. These replacement jets were remotely piloted into the WTCs and Pentagon. One malfunctioned and crashed in shanksville. The WTCs (and later WTC7), were then brought down via preplanted explosives. The remainder of what we know as the official story was fabricated for the benefit of the USG, to stir anger, and to promote a case for upcoming war.[/Boilerplate Truther Reply]

TAM;)

[Ysidro]

[Boilerplate Truther Reply]
On september 11th, Four aircraft took off, were subsequents landed while substitute remote control planes were sent up to replace them. These replacement jets were remotely piloted into the WTCs and Pentagon. One malfunctioned and crashed in shanksville. The WTCs (and later WTC7), were then brought down via preplanted explosives. The remainder of what we know as the official story was fabricated for the benefit of the USG, to stir anger, and to promote a case for upcoming war.[/Boilerplate Truther Reply]

TAM;)

You shill! There were no planes! Holograms! Lasers! Therm?te!!!!!! ;)

[Jontg]

My point exactly.

[Drudgewire]

Look man, they've only had seven years to deal with the "just asking questions" part of the investigation.

In terms of all recorded human history, that's barely a millisecond. Quit rushing them, Mr. Impatientpants. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/colbert.gif

[HyJinX]

, Mr. Impatientpants.

My wife calls me this...but for completely different reasons.

[Drudgewire]

My wife calls me this...but for completely different reasons.

Hopefully not in the context of "you're doing your own laundry from now on, Mr. Impatientpants." :newlol

[twinstead]

My grandmother wears incontinencepants. Is that similar?

[Drudgewire]

My grandmother wears incontinencepants. Is that similar?


Well, it depends.

















:duck:

[GeeMack]

Oh, no no no. Don't tell me you're playing the old "write a book gambit." From another thread...



Tell you what. Set up a thread and we'll ask each other questions about 9/11 and we'll see who knows more.


Maybe you don't understand how foolish you're being when you suggest that asking each other questions might be an effective way of demonstrating your knowledge about 9/11. You, as well as pretty much every other Truther who crosses the threshold of this forum, are clearly under the incorrect impression that asking questions demonstrates knowledge. The truth of the matter is, all your JAQing off actually shows is your lack of knowledge. It proves how much you don't know.

So I'll tell you what. Why don't you assemble a rational, chronologically coherent description of how the events came down on 9/11, one where all the pieces and parts could plausibly lead somewhere other than the generally accepted explanation. If you think there's some sort of conspiracy or covered-up involved, explain the set-up, the planners, the players, the mechanics, the motive, means, and opportunity, everything. After all, the consensus explanation takes into account all those things in varying degrees of detail. And it provides independently verifiable support for all the elements.

You start a thread opening with your alternative description. (And wow, you'd be the first Truther ever to do anything of the sort.) If you have some relevant independent research, something original or fresh to support your explanation, all the better. Include it, too. Then I'm sure you'll find lots of people, including myself, who would be willing to discuss your knowledge about 9/11. Use that thread to tell everyone what you do know for a change. But I can't imagine why you'd want anyone to start another thread just so you can continue to prove how much you don't know. You've done plenty of that already.


And the (more or less predictable) reply was...

This silly tactic is known as the "write a book gambit." For some stupid reason there are some posters who think they are winning an argument if you don't write them a book defending your position.

[GregoryUrich]

Rummy and Dick Dastardly knew what was coming so they planned some complex war games to confuse the military and sent Chimpy to Florida to read my pet goat.

[beachnut]

Rummy and Dick Dastardly knew what was coming so they planned some complex war games to confuse the military and sent Chimpy to Florida to read my pet goat.
Your "ample evidence". ? You picked the debunked truth movement core crap as your plot.

19 terrorist took 4 planes by killing the pilots in place. The entire mission had to have dead pilots, they are responsible and can disable their plane in seconds. They had to kill the pilots before they transmitted the hijack code and disabled the planes. Does anyone know anything about flying? UBL told us he would kill us. He did it.

9/11 truth lacks the basic skills and knowledge to make a rational story on 9/11 due to political tripe blinding them.

[Calcas]

Good topic but the truth of the matter is that I have yet to see any alternate theory that they can agree on. There are so many fringe groups out there from pffft to ae911 to CIT to Killtown to the LC bunch, etc but they only thing they can postulate is that it didn't happen the way the Govt told us.

They have no evidence, they're simply delusional. They remind me of some of the American Idol contestents you see in the early shows that are horrible. When it's pointed out to them that they can't sing, they simply refuse to believe it.

[Drudgewire]

Good topic but the truth of the matter is that I have yet to see any alternate theory that they can agree on. There are so many fringe groups out there from pffft to ae911 to CIT to Killtown to the LC bunch, etc but they only thing they can postulate is that it didn't happen the way the Govt told us.


It's why there's so much infighting. Regardless of what theory they go with, even beginning to put pieces together requires "evidence" which destroys the other CT theories. Controlled demolition messes up space beams. Remote controlled planes ruins the hologram crowd. Shooting Flight 93 demolishes the "stand down" argument.

In other words, it's better to have a fantasy than to believe the "official story." But for goodness sakes, don't make your fantasy very specific.

[dudalb]

Rummy and Dick Dastardly knew what was coming so they planned some complex war games to confuse the military and sent Chimpy to Florida to read my pet goat.

And your proof is?

[Drudgewire]

And your proof is?


The guy's last name is Dastardly. WHAT MORE DO YOU PEOPLE WANT??!!

[JamesB]

Of course the best narrative is still by Matt Taibbi:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspir acies/2

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of f#####g nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of f#####g nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

[TheLoneBedouin]

My point exactly.
What point? You addressed a question to truthers and were answered by JREFers. Don't expect an answer unless you ask an honest question.

[Corsair 115]

Does anyone know anything about flying?*raises hand* I do! I do!

Though, to be sure, certainly not as much as you do. My knowledge is indirect except for that time I got to try my hand at landing a 737 in an honest-to-goodness Boeing 737 simulator (the benefits of having a father who was the chief flight instructor for the airline).

[GregoryUrich]

Of course the best narrative is still by Matt Taibbi:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspir acies/2

Missed Rummy's final comment:

Rumsfeld: I hope I can keep from saying it was a missle on national television.

[GregoryUrich]

Your "ample evidence". ? You picked the debunked truth movement core crap as your plot.

19 terrorist took 4 planes by killing the pilots in place. The entire mission had to have dead pilots, they are responsible and can disable their plane in seconds. They had to kill the pilots before they transmitted the hijack code and disabled the planes. Does anyone know anything about flying? UBL told us he would kill us. He did it.

9/11 truth lacks the basic skills and knowledge to make a rational story on 9/11 due to political tripe blinding them.

Hijacker1: Look I'm flying.

Hijacker2: Shut up and turn off the transponder.

Hijacker1: Check, now which is the radio button?

Hijacker2: Here it is.

Hijacker1: We have some planes.

Hijacker2: Good thing we killed the pilots before they transmitted the hijack code.

[Corsair 115]

Hijacker1: Look I'm flying.

Hijacker2: Shut up and turn off the transponder.

Hijacker1: Check, now which is the radio button?

Hijacker2: Here it is.

Hijacker1: We have some planes.

Hijacker2: Good thing we killed the pilots before they transmitted the hijack code.Yeah, because in the real world, nobody ever makes a mistake and hits the wrong switch accidentally. :rolleyes:

[GregoryUrich]

Yeah, because in the real world, nobody ever makes a mistake and hits the wrong switch accidentally. :rolleyes:

Yeah, because in the real world the ATCs never take action when a transponder is turned off...and the hijackers were just discussing the fact that they had some planes among themselves.:jaw-dropp

[Corsair 115]

Yeah, because in the real world the ATCs never take action when a transponder is turned off... Yeah, because a transponder going off was always the sign of a highjacking prior to 9/11!

...and the hijackers were just discussing the fact that they had some planes among themselves.Yeah, because ATC guys are psychic and always know what's going to happen before it actually happens!

[eromitlab]

What point? You addressed a question to truthers and were answered by JREFers. Don't expect an answer unless you ask an honest question.

Truthists have a nasty habit of not answering direct questions asked of them that challenge their dogma. Or, they're still at work piecing a narrative together for us from various youtube videos and infowars/whatreallyhappened/911blogger links.

Here's a honest question for you TLB, since you are a truther that has entered this thread asking truthers a question but haven't addressed the OP... do you have a narrative for what happened on 9/11?

[GregoryUrich]

Yeah, because a transponder going off was always the sign of a highjacking prior to 9/11!

Yeah, because ATC guys are psychic and always know what's going to happen before it actually happens!

What do ATCs do when a transponder is turned off?

No, and...

[Disbelief]

Rummy and Dick Dastardly knew what was coming so they planned some complex war games to confuse the military and sent Chimpy to Florida to read my pet goat.

So, did the Bush administration only learn of this while the outgoing Clinton administration did not? Or, does it mean that the Clinton administration also knew, yet they allowed the bushies to let the attack happen? Now, if the repubs knew while the dems did not, you need to provide evidence of when the war games were planned. Then, you have to prove that said games thoroughly confused the military.

[RedIbis]

Oh, no no no. Don't tell me you're playing the old "write a book gambit." From another thread...




And the (more or less predictable) reply was...

Thank you. I was trying to remember when I posted that. My position remains the same.

[Pinch]

Yeah, because in the real world the ATCs never take action when a transponder is turned off...and the hijackers were just discussing the fact that they had some planes among themselves.:jaw-dropp

Do you have any clue how often a transponder stops transponding and has to be reset? Do you know there is no indication in a cockpit that a transponder has stopped transponing until a air traffic controller asks you to recycle? Do you have any idea how many times I had to cycle the transponde on/off swicth from one position to another and then back again or pulled circuit breakers to reset the thing? Do you realize that if ATC went to general quarters everytime a transponder stopped transponding we'd be in a constant state of absolute aeronautical chaos in the skies of the world? Do you realize how absurd it would be if every time a transponder stopped transponding you put on your ITS AN INVASION! hat and called to launch alert fighters from some base somewhere?

More brilliance from the Sky King crowd.

What do ATCs do when a transponder is turned off?

FIRSt off, the ATC do not KNOW that the transponder was "turned off" - all they know is that the previous information is not being displayed anymore. It doesn't have to be "turned off" - it could have gone into a state of electrical or transmission cattywampus, needing the aforementioned re-cycle of switches or circuit breakers to get it going again. Happens all the time.

What DOES an ATC do when the transponder is not transponding? The first thing they do is this:

"Golf Romeo 21, I'm not reading your transponder...recycle, please"

Generally that takes care of things. If there is no answer? The increased levels of actions are initiated, as was the case on 9/11.

[GregoryUrich]

What DOES an ATC do when the transponder is not transponding? The first thing they do is this:

"Golf Romeo 21, I'm not reading your transponder...recycle, please"

Generally that takes care of things. If there is no answer? The increased levels of actions are initiated, as was the case on 9/11.

Exactly. What do they do when the response is "We have some planes"?

[Pinch]

Exactly. What do they do when the response is "We have some planes"?

What would YOU do if you heard a transmission over a radio that didn't seem to make any sense and you had no clue where it came from?

Perhaps say "Calling Center, say again?"

Radio transmissions that a controller hears (or anyone hears, for that matter) come from the ether - there's no indication from which aircraft they are coming from (unless there si somr unique ambient sound that is associated with that particular radio, but that is an accidental occurance, not by design), so the phrasing of your question (i.e. "...when the response is "We have some planes") is awkward at best and non-sensical at worst.

Or perhaps you would have perfect prescient knowledge of everything that was going to happen and you'd put 2 and 2 together and think "transponder goes off, strange radio call 5 minuets later....ITS AN INVASION!!!!"

I have no clue how many times I had the wrong radio selected and ended up transmitting to Washington Center some call like "Base, 107 is 10 minutes out, we're down and up for CADC light" (AND having Center call back "Calling Center, say again?") when I meant to transmit to my squadron's base radio. I shudder to think that radio call, making absolutley no sense to an ATC guy at Center, may have corrosponded with someone's transponder hiccuping at that very moment and I could have started WW3.

[SDC]

Well Pinch, don't the Centers keep SuperDuperMan outfits handy so you can leap into them and fly faster than speeding bullets to the offending planes? http://kitscomics.com/captain/34.htm

Whoa! That takes me back to my ill-spent youth.

[Seymour Butz]

They remind me of some of the American Idol contestents you see in the early shows that are horrible. When it's pointed out to them that they can't sing, they simply refuse to believe it.

This is a great comparison.

[1337m4n]

Thank you. I was trying to remember when I posted that. My position remains the same.

Nobody is asking you to write a book. What we are asking is that you do actual work instead of just pointing out random "anomalies" that you THINK are suspicious. Maybe, for instance, explain how these "anomalies" could POSSIBLY fit into any concievable conspiracy theory. You have never done that and consequently every single one of your posts could be considered off-topic given the title of the subforum.

[CHF]

Exactly what it says on the tin. Truth movement, I challenge you to stop picking at the commonly accepted version of events and produce your own. Tell me what, exactly, went down six years and 363 days ago, and tell me how the "evidence" you've uncovered links into this. Tie the hundreds of loose threads you've spun into something understandable, something that makes even a shred of sense, or admit that your movement is full of it and go back to PrisonPlanet.

Forget it, Jontg.

You're dealing with a group of people led by a theology professor who has specifically told his flock not to form any theories due to how easy it is for us to shoot them down.

Twoofers honestly see nothing wrong with the fact that their "smoking guns" do not add up to anything coherent so they're quite happy JAQing off for another seven years.

[Dr Adequate]

Thank you. I was trying to remember when I posted that. My position remains the same. And did pretending that you were being asked to "write a book" deceive anyone last time you tried it on?

[Tippit]

Exactly what it says on the tin. Truth movement, I challenge you to stop picking at the commonly accepted version of events and produce your own. Tell me what, exactly, went down six years and 363 days ago, and tell me how the "evidence" you've uncovered links into this. Tie the hundreds of loose threads you've spun into something understandable, something that makes even a shred of sense, or admit that your movement is full of it and go back to PrisonPlanet.

I don't know what happened. I do know I've been lied to repeatedly, the Bushes vacation with the Bin Ladens, and I don't believe the NIST account of what happened to WTC 7.

[RedIbis]

And did pretending that you were being asked to "write a book" deceive anyone last time you tried it on?

And in your estimation how long would such an account be? We are talking about, arguably, the most complex day in American history.

[Calcas]

I have no clue how many times I had the wrong radio selected and ended up transmitting to Washington Center some call like "Base, 107 is 10 minutes out, we're down and up for CADC light" (AND having Center call back "Calling Center, say again?") when I meant to transmit to my squadron's base radio. I shudder to think that radio call, making absolutley no sense to an ATC guy at Center, may have corrosponded with someone's transponder hiccuping at that very moment and I could have started WW3.

I can relate.

In my younger days as an ATC at an executive airport, I was working ground control and it was fairly slow. I picked up a handset and called a local restaurant to order lunch. By inadvertently clicking (and locking) my headset transmitter, guess who heard my order?

Holy schnikes! Somebody is ordering the "number 3 special"...it must be code for an invasion!

[Jontg]

Of course we've been lied to, most everyone on this board knows that. I love how you bleat about us believing in the "official version" when the commonly accepted take on 9/11 is anything but. The official story, among other things, states that the hijackers had ties to Saddam Hussein, and that we found WMDs in Iraq; I sincerely doubt that anyone on this site believes the crap our administration spews about the current war. Someday, I sincerely hope they'll all get dragged before the ICC and hung--but it will be for their war crimes, their systematic human rights violations, and their utter disregard for international law. The fact that they are scum is not permissible evidence in a court of law, and it's certainly not compelling enough to start a revolution over.
As for the bin Ladens, they disowned Osama years ago, and while a few members are likely still in touch, on the whole he hates them as much as he hates us; like most of the Saudi oil magnates, they sold out to America, and that makes them just as vile in the sight of God. I do believe we should keep a close eye on them, and in fact I'd be willing to bet some of them are watched, but I won't accuse every single one of them of lying about their connections to him with only circumstantial evidence.
And the NIST report, it's important to remember, is an industry document; even if there are problems with the report, it's much more likely to protect various corporate entities from liability than to cover up an inside job. Besides, none of the proposed motives make sense; what idiot erases data by blowing up the building it's kept in? The same things that apply to evidence of demolition would apply to computers, flash drives, even discs; you'd be surprised to know how badly you have to smash up a storage device to render the data in it irretrievable, and something's bound to survive. You'd be much better off just taking a sledgehammer to them.

[1337m4n]

And in your estimation how long would such an account be? We are talking about, arguably, the most complex day in American history.

South Park did it in two sentences.

All I had to do was have explosives planted in the base of the towers. Then on 9/11 we pretended like four planes were being hijacked when really we just rerouted them to Pennsylvania, then flew two military jets into the World Trade Center filled with more explosives, then shot down all the witnesses of Flight 93 with an F-15 after blowing up the Pentagon with a Cruise missile.

Amazing, Trey Parker and Matt Stone--comedians--are better at this than you. You are sad.

[GregoryUrich]

So, did the Bush administration only learn of this while the outgoing Clinton administration did not? Or, does it mean that the Clinton administration also knew, yet they allowed the bushies to let the attack happen? Now, if the repubs knew while the dems did not, you need to provide evidence of when the war games were planned. Then, you have to prove that said games thoroughly confused the military.

Let me get this straight. The previous adminstration somehow had a say in the actions of the Bush administration?:jaw-dropp

If the Commission used their subpoena power effectively and asked the right questions we would know what happened. Instead the rolled over to obstruction by NORAD and the FBI. We don't know what happened but I think we have a right to know.

[TheLoneBedouin]

Truthists have a nasty habit of not answering direct questions asked of them that challenge their dogma. Or, they're still at work piecing a narrative together for us from various youtube videos and infowars/whatreallyhappened/911blogger links.

Here's a honest question for you TLB, since you are a truther that has entered this thread asking truthers a question but haven't addressed the OP... do you have a narrative for what happened on 9/11?

Jontg was being dishonest by pretending his question was answered by skeptics, when, in fact, it was sarcastically answered by JREFers. I will give you the benifit of the doubt and assume you are honest.

First, I would like to make two important points:

-No one on either side of the issue can tell you exactly what happened, so the question in the OP is disingenuous.

-Therefore, without a full investigation with access to primary evidence, any complete explanation must be treated as a very speculative hypothesis.

Jim Hoffman's "Attack Scenario 404" (http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/scenario404.html) seems plausible, though I consider CIT's Pentagon scenario much more plausible than Hoffman's.

Hypothetical Attack Scenario 404
last updated: 6/1/6
Attack Scenario


Breach of rule 4 removed.

[PhantomWolf]

Hypothetical Attack Scenario 404
last updated: 6/1/6
Attack Scenario

Quoted breach of rule 4 removed.

I got bored so likely missed most things, but the parts highlighted in red are either dumb, provably incorrect, impossible, or all three. Blue are my comments on other stupid bits.

[GlennB]

Just to link two elements of the above, namely the personnel requirements and Flts 11 and 175 , where the WTC flights would supposedly be taken over by a rogue autopilot system and navigated into the towers.

Having spent 2 decades writing software, this sounds to me like an "upgrade" that would conflict heavily with the basic principles of the autopilot, and would take scores of coders a long time to write. And I would so want to give it a thorough independent test before going live. And then we could mention the installation of the nerve gas that would incapacitate the crew and passengers, the faking of phone calls and several other major incidental considerations that will spring to mind shortly.

I suspect that with this element alone we are running into a cast of hundreds. And that is assuming that these planes could, theoretically, be taken-over by the autopilot at all.

[PhantomWolf]

And that is assuming that these planes could, theoretically, be taken-over by the autopilot at all.

Which, if I'm understanding the aircraft guys I have read on the topic right, you can't for the 757 and 767 since they aren't fly-by-wire so the systems aren't computerised in such a way they can be re-written, you'd have to replace the entire auto-pilot and control system.

[PhantomWolf]

Hmmm, here's another issue. According to pilot Kent Wien here (http://www.gadling.com/2008/05/02/plane-answers-when-do-pilots-use-the-autopilot/) autopilots in 757's and 767's can't be used below 1000 feet. ooops.

edited to add. 11 could have been flown in using the autopilot as it hit above 1000 feet, but 175 couldn't have as it hit below 1000 feet. Obviously 77 hit well below 1000 feet.

[Disbelief]

Let me get this straight. The previous adminstration somehow had a say in the actions of the Bush administration?:jaw-dropp

Where did I say that? Let me spell it out for you, sinice you apparently have trouble if it is not formulaic.

Scenario 1: In 8 years, the Clinton administration was unable to uncover a plot to attack on US soil. However, the Bush administration was able to uncover this plot in under 8 months, decide how they could benefit from it and spin it to the public so they buy the official story.

Scenario 2: The Clinton administration knew about the attacks, let the Bush administration know, but agreed that it would be for the benefit of the US to allow it to happen.

Scenario 3: The Clinton administration knew about the attacks, let the Bush adminstration know and laid out plans for combatting the threat. The Bush administration did nothing but use the attacks for political gain while the Clinton camp (which voted for war) did not use this foreknowledge against the nRepublicans.

Scenario 4: The Clinton administration knew about the attacks, did not let the Bush administration know and let the attacks happen in hopes of destroying the Republican party.

Scenario 5: Neither administration knew what was going to happen besides vague threats of attack on US soil. With very little intelligence information to work with, nineteen hijackers were able to exploit holes in the defense system and wreak havoc.

If the Commission used their subpoena power effectively and asked the right questions we would know what happened. Instead the rolled over to obstruction by NORAD and the FBI. We don't know what happened but I think we have a right to know.

So, how will subpoena power help find out what really happened? How will the threat of perjury force someone to speak up, when they are already willing to let thousands of their countrymen die? Are NORAD and the FBI part of your conspiracy now?

[beachnut]

Let me get this straight. The previous adminstration somehow had a say in the actions of the Bush administration?:jaw-dropp

If the Commission used their subpoena power effectively and asked the right questions we would know what happened. Instead the rolled over to obstruction by NORAD and the FBI. We don't know what happened but I think we have a right to know.
You think when Clinton takes over the whole government changes? Very scientific of you. Your lack of understanding of 9/11 stems from your lack of knowledge on the a broad range of topics. Add NORAD and flying to your list.

You lack of research and knowledge on 9/11 is indicative or your claim of "ample evidence" in your 9/11 truth woo petition signing. You have zero evidence as reflected in your post. Your thermite fantasy roots say it all as you don't have any scenario for 9/11 except for implications of blaming the government and being an apologist for terrorist.

[beachnut]

-No one on either side of the issue can tell you exactly what happened, so the question in the OP is disingenuous.

-Therefore, without a full investigation with access to primary evidence, any complete explanation must be treated as a very speculative hypothesis.

Jim Hoffman's "Attack Scenario 404" (http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/scenario404.html) seems plausible, though I consider CIT's Pentagon scenario much more plausible than Hoffman's.

Wrong, 19 terrorist took 4 planes and hit buildings until, unlike you, the passengers on Flight 93 figured out 9/11 in minutes and stopped them! So you have taken 7 years and are still clueless, you hand pick the big stupid idea, scenario 404, so full of fantasy only someone on meth could make it up.

You missed the investigations? Research again, you missed a lot in 7 years.

Both scenarios are very dumb, you can't support either with logic or evidence. If you understood Hoffman's 404, you would not use it as an example for you want of a fantasy idea on 9/11.

As Flight 77 swoops toward the Pentagon after a spectacular spiral dive, the program switches its transponder on, this time with a code identifying itself as a friendly F-16. What code would that be super truth man? What code does our drug induced scenario king of woo think is the code? A code for an F-16? This is proven wrong by RADAR data and ATC, FAA, and the military. So Hoffman's scenario would be caught right away. Hoffman is the one with implications of lies as his only product.

CIT, the worse investigation team in the world debunked by their own witnesses.

What code do you have for Hoffman's story? Code?

[TheLoneBedouin]

Which, if I'm understanding the aircraft guys I have read on the topic right, you can't for the 757 and 767 since they aren't fly-by-wire so the systems aren't computerised in such a way they can be re-written, you'd have to replace the entire auto-pilot and control system.
Not according to Boeing.

Hmmm, here's another issue. According to pilot Kent Wien here (http://www.gadling.com/2008/05/02/plane-answers-when-do-pilots-use-the-autopilot/) autopilots in 757's and 767's can't be used below 1000 feet. ooops.

edited to add. 11 could have been flown in using the autopilot as it hit above 1000 feet, but 175 couldn't have as it hit below 1000 feet. Obviously 77 hit well below 1000 feet.

While the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft are not "fly-by-wire" in the same sense as the more recent 777's; according to Boeing, they can be flown entirely under the control of their Flight Management Computer Systems (FMCS):

"A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system ensures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload.

The precision of global positioning satellite system (GPS) navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer."
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/a...background.html

Boeing also provides information on the ease of reprogramming various systems including the FMCS:

"Airplane systems that can be modified with loadable software are standard on several later-model Boeing airplanes (see table 1). This feature allows operators to change the configuration of loadable systems without physically modifying or replacing hardware components. Benefits include the ability to meet new requirements, incorporate design improvements, and correct errors. In addition, software often can be loaded just in the time required to turn an airplane around for the next flight. A major advantage of changing system functionality without changing hardware is the reduced number of line replaceable unit (LRU) spares both operators and Boeing must keep in stock."
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/a...background.html

[GlennB]

Boeing also provides information on the ease of reprogramming various systems including the FMCS:

"Airplane systems that can be modified with loadable software are standard on several later-model Boeing airplanes (see table 1).....

Hmmmm .... by following your very own links I see that 767's don't have this FMCS reprogramming facility. Weren't both WTC jets 767's ??

747's and 757's alone are mentioned in this respect.

And - as a matter of interest - at what point in the 757's service was this facility added?

Surely you're not trying to pull the wool over people's eyes here, eh? I'd find that hard to believe.

[JoeyDonuts]

How would you know what the transponder code is for a friendly F-16?

Think about it this way. If any aircraft out there was able to squawk the mode of a friendly military aircraft, then most of our air defense technology goes right down the crapper.

Military aircraft squawk IFF modes that can only be received and decoded by other friendly US units with the appropriate hardware - US Navy warships, etc.

Oh, and by the way - the exact way that these modes work and their coding and such is CLASSIFIED. So, which Twoofer would like to go down for espionage for having unauthorized access to classified material? I'm just giving your argument the benefit of the doubt. In all reality, you don't know what the heck you're talking about.

[Disbelief]

Bump for Gregory

Will you answer post 48?

[GregoryUrich]

Where did I say that? Let me spell it out for you, sinice you apparently have trouble if it is not formulaic.

Scenario 1: In 8 years, the Clinton administration was unable to uncover a plot to attack on US soil. However, the Bush administration was able to uncover this plot in under 8 months, decide how they could benefit from it and spin it to the public so they buy the official story.

Scenario 2: The Clinton administration knew about the attacks, let the Bush administration know, but agreed that it would be for the benefit of the US to allow it to happen.

Scenario 3: The Clinton administration knew about the attacks, let the Bush adminstration know and laid out plans for combatting the threat. The Bush administration did nothing but use the attacks for political gain while the Clinton camp (which voted for war) did not use this foreknowledge against the nRepublicans.

Scenario 4: The Clinton administration knew about the attacks, did not let the Bush administration know and let the attacks happen in hopes of destroying the Republican party.

Scenario 5: Neither administration knew what was going to happen besides vague threats of attack on US soil. With very little intelligence information to work with, nineteen hijackers were able to exploit holes in the defense system and wreak havoc.

So, how will subpoena power help find out what really happened? How will the threat of perjury force someone to speak up, when they are already willing to let thousands of their countrymen die? Are NORAD and the FBI part of your conspiracy now?

Around 70 of 94 key warnings documented in mainstream media (http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&complete_911_timeline_key_events=complete_911_time line_key_warnings) came after Bush had taken office. The warnings and knowledge became more specific after that time. Compare to 24 diffuse warnings in 8 years. The Clinton administration was concerned that something was up and Richard Clarke tried to communicate this to the Bush administration.

The ones who will speak up are the ones who were just following orders and may still not be aware of the implications. I suspect NORAD and the FBI are covering up incompetence.

That's my take on it anyway.

[funk de fino]

Not according to Boeing.

The autopilot system in these aircraft can be overridden by the pilot by pushing on the stick because they are not fly by wire.

Remote control of these aircraft is a joke. They would have to be extensively modified and the crew would notice the mods.

Remote control does not = Autopilot

[KTB]

And in your estimation how long would such an account be? We are talking about, arguably, the most complex day in American history.

Come on, such a cop-out. I've heard this a million times. No one even wants to try...
It doesn't take more than a few lines, you can write it in list format if you want.
All we are asking for is some set of circumstances that tie together logically.
The "official version" in condensed format as an example (all errors mine...)

- a group of terrorists (al qaida) decided to hit america because (read the reasons)
- they decided to hijack four planes (easy, hijackings have occurred sucesfully often before 9/11)
- they decided to ram these planes into four large and symbolic targets (easy also, they didn't plan on some of the buildings collapsing)
- presto, the story condensed. As you can see it is logically very easy, requires a minimum amount of participants and is self consistent.

So a similar story of what you think happened. That contains all the beliefs you may have (CD, missiles, no planes, holograms, nukes, space beams, different politicians and agencies involved etc.) so that they tie together logically. You don't have to prove any of these, just a story that is consistent.

I know that you just say that "I'm just asking questions", but why is it that neither you or anybody else has come up with something like this? Why do you think that is? You even have people who have written actual books about this so that isn't even the answer!
If it's so hard to come up with a logical plan in hindsight how do you think that anybody (least of all the US gubmint) could come up with a plan so devious and masterfull?

[KTB]

Small bump.
I think this thread is the most important one to get some answers from the truth movement for a change.
Other people have had to accommodate their endless "just asking questions" silliness for years now, so how about it's their turn now?
So how about it Red? Any insight?
Don't be scared, your first attempt on this can be quite general and contain errors, we won't scald you for those. The first round is free :)

[jaydeehess]

Not according to Boeing.



While the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft are not "fly-by-wire" in the same sense as the more recent 777's; according to Boeing, they can be flown entirely under the control of their Flight Management Computer Systems (FMCS):

"A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system ensures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload.

The precision of global positioning satellite system (GPS) navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer."
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/a...background.html

Boeing also provides information on the ease of reprogramming various systems including the FMCS:

"Airplane systems that can be modified with loadable software are standard on several later-model Boeing airplanes (see table 1). This feature allows operators to change the configuration of loadable systems without physically modifying or replacing hardware components. Benefits include the ability to meet new requirements, incorporate design improvements, and correct errors. In addition, software often can be loaded just in the time required to turn an airplane around for the next flight. A major advantage of changing system functionality without changing hardware is the reduced number of line replaceable unit (LRU) spares both operators and Boeing must keep in stock."
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/a...background.html

According to whom? Not only do the links appear to be broken but I see that they are not from Boeing but 911research.com

Furthermore as pointed out autopilot does not equal remote control and Flight 77 (Pentagon) did not have a GPS ( so much for pinpoint accuracy)

[KTB]

What's with the constant spamming of off-topic bickering?
Why can't one truther just come up with some kind of idea and post it. Finally. Stop "just asking questions" for just one second.

(not specifically targeted at the message I replied to, but you get the point. The question for this thread is quite simple, but apparently not simple enough for truthers because of the constant derailing)

[jaydeehess]

Hoffman is an idiot. I started reading Senario 404 and it did not take long to come to that conclusion. Witness the following statement from senario 404
" The bombs detonate when the barometric trigger senses a cabin pressure corresponding to an altitude of 28,000 feet"

A "cabin pressure corressponding to 28,000 feet" Well if cabin pressure was at that at 28,000 feet you would not need the opiate "decapacitating gas" (Hoffman's words, is "decapacitating" a real word?). At 28,000 feet one would be only 1000 feet shy of the summit of Mt.Everest! Everyone would be groggy and fuzzy headed, asleep, unconscious or dead already.

[PhantomWolf]

What's with the constant spamming of off-topic bickering?
Why can't one truther just come up with some kind of idea and post it. Finally. Stop "just asking questions" for just one second.

(not specifically targeted at the message I replied to, but you get the point. The question for this thread is quite simple, but apparently not simple enough for truthers because of the constant derailing)

You have to realise that Truthers don't want to stop asking questions, if they actually come up with a theory then they have to make it fit facts that they don't have and defend it with evidence they don't have. They aren't interested in the truth, they are only interested in shooting holes in the "Government Story" so they can thus declare it dead and then they can simply install their "It was an inside job" claim as the default. They prefer to muddy the waters, not clear them up because they know full and well that when the real facts are known, their fantasy evaporates. This is why they "just ask questions". They work at getting into more and more detail until they get an "I don't know" and then jump up and go "Uhuh! If you don't know that bit, then the rest of the explanation is invalid!" They are nothing more than masters of smoke and mirrors, liars and deceivers, and you'll never get a straight answer out of any of them.

[KTB]

Well that's the conclusion one must come to, agreed.

But are these people actually that deluded that they don't realize this themselves? I mean the "acolytes", not the people making money off of books etc. Don't they find it even curious that no one has come up with a coherent theory? Not the Jones's, not DRG, nobody. And these people have vested their whole life on this.
If they want to "just ask questions" why not ask some of these people "what's your theory anyway, just curious"?

I mean they are so morbidly certain of eg. "the towers HAD to be an CD" that I don't know what to think of their mental state. A normal person can conclude that at least there is doubt and that the "official version" is at least plausible. And then from there on move on to forming a logical theory.
I mean bickering about CD/no CD for seven years? These people have probably already forgotten how it all started for them and now can't "lose face", so a low self esteem or something? Truly curious.

[PhantomWolf]

I suspect that for a lot the line of thinking starts out with the idea that the Iraq war is because of 9/11, so if they can make 9/11 not what it seems, the war is illgel and they can demand it's end. Add in an unhealth amount of Bush hatred along with hate for anyone with more money then them, a major dash of ignorance and stir it all up, you have the basis for most Truthers.