FREE TAPATALK APP

Oystein · 13th January 2012, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by silver birch

I can only reply to this with a saying I came across years ago
b. s. baffles brains.

Ok.

Usually we expect people to reply with facts, logic and reason.
I hear you are saying that you cannot. You can only reply by quoting a condescending phrase.
I guess that says it all.

twinstead · 13th January 2012, 02:55 PM

yup, perhaps a terrorist wouldn't have bothered carrying a passport. Who knows? But it is not suspicious in the least that he WOULD be. Maybe he forgot to leave it at home?

Oystein · 13th January 2012, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by silver birch

although, it does seem odd to me, that they left the 'how to fly an airliner guide' in the car at the airport.

Moving goal post again?

We first have to conclude the passport issue.

By the way, the man whose passport was found, Suqami, was one of the few (or only?) of the highkackers who did not have a US drivers license. Did you know that? You should. That fact was linked to and I also think mentioned in this thread a few days ago.

How would you identify yourself at the airport when you are a foreigner in the USA and travel internally and don't have a US ID card?

Oystein · 13th January 2012, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by silver birch

I'm quite prepared to concede any points in a discussion on this forum, however, I fail to find anything incredulous about not believing a passport survived the fire that cremated the hijacker, fell to ground through the fireball and was handed in as evidence.

Man, do you even know what the word "incredulous" means? You just contradicted yourself in one sentence!

Originally Posted by silver birch

why not question the incredulity of the 84% of Americans who do not beleive the official story either?
(poll carried out by CNN and new york times)

And there you try to move goal posts again! Stop that! It makes you look more and more insecure!

Oystein · 13th January 2012, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by garethdjb

I think he may be getting confused with the flight manuals that were found in Marwan al-Shehhi's Florida hotel room? I'm not aware of any being recovered from vehicles.

Abdul Aziz al-Omari's passport was recovered from Mohammed Atta's luggage left behind at Logan airport. So presumably al-Omari was able to board without a passport.

Many of the hijackers had US drivers licenses. Suqami did not.

Justin39640 · 13th January 2012, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by silver birch

millions of people did not see the north tower hit live on tv, because it was not shown until the next day. why was there only that ONE video of the north tower hit if there were millions of people in new york, which would mean many cameras.
why are there witnesses who claim to have seen an explosion in the north tower and not a plane hit it, jennifer oberstein for one?
why was it necessary to plant fake witnesses who have been identified as actors- gary welz, and mark humphrey, who was interviewed on fox news. fox news, by the way, is owned by media mogul and zionist rupert murdoch, who was recently labelled on tv station channel 4, here in the UK, as beyond evil.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzPIde6Wj3w
HONESTLY

I argue that at least a million people saw it live in the metro NY area with their own eyes. Every skyscraper's windows facing the towers were packed with people watching the north tower burn. Everyone in Brooklyn were watching from the streets and rooftops. Queens and Staten Island as well. Let's not forget NJ is right across the Hudson (Jersey city is right there but you can get a good view from pretty far north and south). My friend watched it hit from the observation deck in Lincoln Center's office skyscraper along with what he estimated to be 150 to 200 others. I've met lots of people who saw the first impact as well.

FYI: on an average working day (just like 9/11/01), Manhattan Island has about 8 million people on it. That's just Manhattan....

twinstead · 13th January 2012, 03:25 PM

It is supremely obvious that silver birch has never been to New York

Justin39640 · 13th January 2012, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by twinstead

It is supremely obvious that silver birch has never been to New York

Indeed. I have the same suspicion about the majority of other truthers.

triforcharity · 13th January 2012, 03:48 PM

I think (personally, I have no fact or figures to say for certain) but I believe that 8mil is alot.

2 mil? Yeah, certainly.

twinstead · 13th January 2012, 03:50 PM

Anybody who has even been in a large city would think that faking two planes crashing into two of its largest buildings in front of its entire population is ludicrous.

Oystein · 13th January 2012, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

I think (personally, I have no fact or figures to say for certain) but I believe that 8mil is alot.

2 mil? Yeah, certainly.

Easy to find out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan

About 1.6 million people live in Manhattan (see Demographics), but another 1.3 million commute daily into Manhattan to swell population to 2.9 million (see Economy).
8 million is the population of NYC total (all five burroughs). The Metropolitan aea has 18 million.

When you estimate how many people have seen the second plane crash, you need to remember that UA175 came from the south, south-west (don't remember the exact direction) and that very likely many people looking at the towers from the north never saw the plane coming and are only witness to the fireball. I think spectators in Jersey City and Brooklyn had a much better chance of actually seeing the approaching plane than most people in Manhattan itself.

Justin39640 · 13th January 2012, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

I think (personally, I have no fact or figures to say for certain) but I believe that 8mil is alot.

2 mil? Yeah, certainly.

I could have sworn I read somewhere it was 8 between commuters etc. Still there's a lot of eyeballs that had a good view of it. Many more than a few thousand for the second impact.

Sabretooth · 13th January 2012, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by silver birch

why not question the incredulity of the 84% of Americans who do not beleive the official story either?
(poll carried out by CNN and new york times)

84% of Americans live in their Mom's basement?!

Who woulda thought

Sabretooth · 13th January 2012, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by silver birch

however, I fail to find anything incredulous about not believing a passport survived the fire that cremated the hijacker, fell to ground through the fireball and was handed in as evidence.

There is a simple test that you...yes, you!...can try right in your backyard!

Build yourself a bonfire. Size isn't important, but make sure you got something significant.

Now, take some paper, ball it up, and throw it through the flames.

Try as many times as you like. Keep a tally of how many paper balls start on fire...then get back to us.

sheeplesnshills · 13th January 2012, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by silver birch

(which david ray griffin has called a 571 page lie).

And why should we care what a theologian has to say to say on the subject? If you want to know about the various brands of sky spook, he's your man but when it comes to science and engineering its usual to go with people with relevant expertise.....like NIST, Purdue etc.

Robrob · 13th January 2012, 09:03 PM

You know, there are a thousand mundane reasons why a passport might survive unscathed. The truthers' ignoring them in deference to their fantasy speaks volumes.

Sharpshooter fallacy.

silver birch · 14th January 2012, 06:38 AM

how many pages have we spent discussing whether or not the passport could have survived?
a waste of time.
because the passport is a red herring, there is no evidence the hijackers were on the plane. there is no evidence the plane was hijacked.
there is more proof that the plane was not hijacked, from the fact that the hijack code, which pilots are trained to transmit to the ground control was not received from any of the 4 planes with a total of 8 pilots.
there would have been ample time as the door to the cockpit is kept locked in flight and it would only take a few seconds to turn 4 knobs on the squawk box.
pilots have been trained for years how to react in a hijack, and sending the squawk code would have been the first priority.
how stupid do you think pilots are?
the first thing isreali pilots are trained to do is put the plane in a steep dive and throw hijackers off balance.

bynmdsue · 14th January 2012, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by silver birch

the first thing isreali pilots are trained to do is put the plane in a steep dive and throw hijackers off balance.

That's nice. How about British pilots? Or French ones? Japanese? Actually none of those matter because we're talking about American pilots. How are they trained?

Oystein · 14th January 2012, 06:51 AM

Originally Posted by silver birch

how many pages have we spent discussing whether or not the passport could have survived?
a waste of time.

Before you move goal posts again, you need to be more clear if you retract your claim that foreigners carrying a passport on an internal flight is suspicious, or not. Because that is at this point incumbent upon you. You have been unable to give any reasons whatsoever why a foreigner should not have his passport on him if the very purpose of a passport is to be on a traveller abroad for ID purposes, such as might arise when boarding a plane, renting a car etc.

Originally Posted by silver birch

because the passport is a red herring, there is no evidence the hijackers were on the plane. ...

Bare Assertion Logical Fallacy.
End then running away from your own argument about passports.
The passport IS part of the evidence that the hijackers were in the plane, although not a necessary one. It corroborated the obvious. The fact of hijackers on planes would be established beyond all reasonable doubt even without passports found.

carlitos · 14th January 2012, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by silver birch

how many pages have we spent discussing whether or not the passport could have survived?
a waste of time.
because the passport is a red herring, there is no evidence the hijackers were on the plane. there is no evidence the plane was hijacked.
there is more proof that the plane was not hijacked, from the fact that the hijack code, which pilots are trained to transmit to the ground control was not received from any of the 4 planes with a total of 8 pilots.
there would have been ample time as the door to the cockpit is kept locked in flight and it would only take a few seconds to turn 4 knobs on the squawk box.
pilots have been trained for years how to react in a hijack, and sending the squawk code would have been the first priority.
how stupid do you think pilots are?
the first thing isreali pilots are trained to do is put the plane in a steep dive and throw hijackers off balance.

Your knowledge of American and Israeli pilot training procedures is no doubt on par with your knowledge of visiting countries outside of Britain, logical fallacies, the 'shift' key and such.

Oystein · 14th January 2012, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by silver birch

...there is no evidence the plane was hijacked.
there is more proof that the plane was not hijacked, from the fact that the hijack code, which pilots are trained to transmit to the ground control was not received from any of the 4 planes...

Upon second thought, I think this is more interesting. Silver, can you agree to debate this topic now, and stick to this topic, until you and I have presented our evidence and our logic?
If you indicate that you are not willing to debate claims that you make on this forum, then I will know that you are a troll. Of which I honestly am not sure yet.

If you are willing to engage in this topic of "planes were not hijacked because no hijack code was squawked", I would first ask you to state what you believe DID happen most likely with these flights:

Do you believe that planes were flown into the twin towers?
If yes: Do you believe these planes were commercial flights AA11 and UA175?
If yes: How were they flown into the towers, since you say they were not hijacked?

tsig · 14th January 2012, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by silver birch

I can only reply to this with a saying I came across years ago
b. s. baffles brains.

What's this, argument by half remembered quote?

LSSBB · 14th January 2012, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by silver birch

how many pages have we spent discussing whether or not the passport could have survived?
a waste of time.
because the passport is a red herring, there is no evidence the hijackers were on the plane. there is no evidence the plane was hijacked.
there is more proof that the plane was not hijacked, from the fact that the hijack code, which pilots are trained to transmit to the ground control was not received from any of the 4 planes with a total of 8 pilots.

This was all debated on this thread, especially post 216 and before. Essentially, the pilots couldn't sqawk the code because they were busy being murdered.

000063 · 14th January 2012, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by silver birch

how many pages have we spent discussing whether or not the passport could have survived?
a waste of time.
because the passport is a red herring, there is no evidence the hijackers were on the plane.

Tickets, security cameras.

Quote:

there is no evidence the plane was hijacked.

I don't think their normal flight plans involved crashing into buildings.

Quote:

there is more proof that the plane was not hijacked, from the fact that the hijack code, which pilots are trained to transmit to the ground control was not received from any of the 4 planes with a total of 8 pilots.

All of which were killed in seconds by armed lunatics bursting into their cockpits. They spent most of the time, y'know, trying not to die. Unsuccessfully.

Quote:

there would have been ample time as the door to the cockpit is kept locked in flight and it would only take a few seconds to turn 4 knobs on the squawk box.

This is the equivalent of a teenager writing a story that combines stuff from Modern Warfare and Zelda and Dragonball Z just because they're all cool, regardless of whether it makes sense.

You have no source for this claim. It is false.

Quote:

pilots have been trained for years how to react in a hijack, and sending the squawk code would have been the first priority.

Without considerable training or mental conditioning, the root command of every capable human being on the planet in a life-threatening situation is "don't die".

Quote:

how stupid do you think pilots are?
the first thing isreali pilots are trained to do is put the plane in a steep dive and throw hijackers off balance.

And people in France eat snails. I live in England. Most people here do not eat escargot. And that's assuming you're claim is true.

You're throwing anything that sounds plausible to you into the conspiracy pot again, without considering if it plays well with the other ingredients.

beachnut · 14th January 2012, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by silver birch

how many pages have we spent discussing whether or not the passport could have survived?

It is a known fact things survive aircraft crashes. You lost this argument if you claim a passport can't survive an aircraft crash. You are batting zero.

Originally Posted by silver birch

a waste of time.

Only for you since you seem to be a poor typists. And even less of a waste of time for you since you did not know things survive aircraft accidents, you did ZERO research, you saved time being ignorant of the topic, all of 911 you have done ZERO rational research. Zip

A waste of time! Not for you, you make it up as you go, no time looking up anything!@

Originally Posted by silver birch

because the passport is a red herring,

The passport is evidence you can't use to support you idiotic claims! It proves you are wrong, it proves a hijacker was real. More like a murderer, since they took the plane to kill, not hijack, you are confused and can't form rational thoughts.

You think your lies are evidence, you can't figure out the passport is evidence.

Originally Posted by silver birch

there is no evidence the hijackers were on the plane.

Wrong again, DNA on all of the Flight 93 murderers. You failed again.

Originally Posted by silver birch

there is no evidence the plane was hijacked.

Off flight plan, off altitude, not talking to ATC, etc, etc.
The crew reported the plane was taken over... oops, you don't do any research; you don't waste time for sure.

Originally Posted by silver birch

there is more proof that the plane was not hijacked,

Why are you always wrong? Sorry, off course, off flight plan, off altitude, not talking to ATC, etc. You keep messing up out of ignorance.

Originally Posted by silver birch

from the fact that the hijack code, which pilots are trained to transmit to the ground control was not received from any of the 4 planes with a total of 8 pilots.

You are not a pilot. We would tell ATC we were hijacked on the RADIO. We talk. If we can't talk and we are alive, we could set the code when we are ready to tell ATC.

On 911 pilots were strapped into seats facing forward when murderers came in and killed them. Shoulder harnesses and seat-belts, unable to stand and turn to fight, they died when their throats were cut from behind, in a surprise attack. Can't set code or talk when you are dead.

you lost this one too

On Flight 93 we hear the pilots screaming... good sign they were under-attack. The crews on each plane and passengers reported what they knew to the ground. Your research is crap.

Originally Posted by silver birch

there would have been ample time as the door to the cockpit is kept locked in flight and it would only take a few seconds to

You don't know the door was locked. The pilots would call ATC and talk on the radio. You don't know pilot procedures, you have no clue on this. Ignorance makes you make up lies and spew nonsense.

Originally Posted by silver birch

turn 4 knobs on the squawk box.
pilots have been trained for years how to react in a hijack,

Sorry, we talk first. We tell ATC we are being hijacked. In this case the call would be, "we are being killed", and only flight 93 was able to scream. Good job making fun of the dead by being completely ignorant on pilot procedures and reality. Good job

Why do we talk first? Setting the code for hijack would be a covert method, and ATC would be alerted, and they would want us to set a normal code. If we could not tell ATC on the Radio, we can set the hijack code, and they would be alerted to move traffic if needed. There will be no instant intercept, no shoot down, etc.

Originally Posted by silver birch

and sending the squawk code would have been the first priority.

Wrong, talking to ATC is the first priority, we tell them we are being attacked or hijacked. If we are dead, we don't do much. You have no clue.

If ATC was super busy and we could not get their attention because we would be "stepping on" their radio transmission (do you have a clue), we could set the code for hijacking and get priority. You should do some research, this make you look real dumb on a lot of issues!

Originally Posted by silver birch

how stupid do you think pilots are?

Several orders of magnitude less than your claims, and delusions.

Originally Posted by silver birch

the first thing isreali pilots are trained to do is put the plane in a steep dive and throw hijackers off balance.

They have locked doors, very secure locked doors; no need to throw hijacker off balance, they can't hijack the plane. Source please.

You don't know pilots tell ATC on the radio they are hijacked, you are not a pilot, you wasted zero time researching your claims. Wow, is there anything you do know?

silver birch · 14th January 2012, 11:02 AM

[quote=000063;7932210]Tickets, security cameras.

I don't think their normal flight plans involved crashing into buildings.

All of which were killed in seconds by armed lunatics bursting into their cockpits. They spent most of the time, y'know, trying not to die. Unsuccessfully.

could a lunatic armed with a very short bladed knife, (the official story, not a gun) break through a locked door and murder someone in under 2 or 3 seconds. because that is the time some pilots have said it would take them to set the squawk to 7500?
how many able bodied grown men do you think would be on an average 767 flight? you tell me.
could a lunatic armed with a short bladed knife even succeed in breaking through a locked door with these men throwing luggage from the overhead rack?
is it not possible one of the men would have the chance to grab his wrist and prevent him using the knife?

DGM · 14th January 2012, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by silver birch

. because that is the time some pilots have said it would take them to set the squawk to 7500?

What would have happened if the pilot did manage to "squawk 7500"? Would the events of 9/11 not happened?

applecorped · 14th January 2012, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by DGM

What would have happened if the pilot did manage to "squawk 7500"? Would the events of 9/11 not happened?

Quick! To the DeLorean!!!

Travis · 14th January 2012, 11:23 AM

Why do you think the door was locked?

Doors were generally not locked pre 9/11.

A W Smith · 14th January 2012, 11:24 AM

[quote=silver birch;7932278]

Originally Posted by 000063

Tickets, security cameras.

I don't think their normal flight plans involved crashing into buildings.

All of which were killed in seconds by armed lunatics bursting into their cockpits. They spent most of the time, y'know, trying not to die. Unsuccessfully.

could a lunatic armed with a very short bladed knife, (the official story, not a gun) break through a locked door and murder someone in under 2 or 3 seconds. because that is the time some pilots have said it would take them to set the squawk to 7500?
how many able bodied grown men do you think would be on an average 767 flight? you tell me.
could a lunatic armed with a short bladed knife even succeed in breaking through a locked door with these men throwing luggage from the overhead rack?
is it not possible one of the men would have the chance to grab his wrist and prevent him using the knife?

Show us evidence that the doors were even locked. Show us evidence that any US mainland aircraft hijackers have been overpowered pre 9/11. So far all you have shown here is a basket full of incredulous assumptions, And short bladed knives? Are you aware that many box cutters have break away blades that can extend two inches?
http://img.ehowcdn.com/article-page-...rs-800x800.jpg
Are you aware how fatal these knives can be?

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2011/1...cutter-murder/

http://arklatexhomepage.com/fulltext?nxd_id=6084

in the hands of an 11 year old
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasebo_slashing

silver birch · 14th January 2012, 11:33 AM

[quote=beachnut;7932265]It is a known fact things survive aircraft crashes. You lost this argument if you claim a passport can't survive an aircraft crash. You are batting zero.

Only for you since you seem to be a poor typists. And even less of a waste of time for you since you did not know things survive aircraft accidents, you did ZERO research, you saved time being ignorant of the topic, all of 911 you have done ZERO rational research. Zip

A waste of time! Not for you, you make it up as you go, no time looking up anything!@

The passport is evidence you can't use to support you idiotic claims! It proves you are wrong, it proves a hijacker was real. More like a murderer, since they took the plane to kill, not hijack, you are confused and can't form rational thoughts.

You think your lies are evidence, you can't figure out the passport is evidence.

Wrong again, DNA on all of the Flight 93 murderers. You failed again.

Off flight plan, off altitude, not talking to ATC, etc, etc.
The crew reported the plane was taken over... oops, you don't do any research; you don't waste time for sure.

Why are you always wrong? Sorry, off course, off flight plan, off altitude, not talking to ATC, etc. You keep messing up out of ignorance.

You are not a pilot. We would tell ATC we were hijacked on the RADIO. We talk. If we can't talk and we are alive, we could set the code when we are ready to tell ATC.

On 911 pilots were strapped into seats facing forward when murderers came in and killed them. Shoulder harnesses and seat-belts, unable to stand and turn to fight, they died when their throats were cut from behind, in a surprise attack. Can't set code or talk when you are dead.

you lost this one too

On Flight 93 we hear the pilots screaming... good sign they were under-attack. The crews on each plane and passengers reported what they knew to the ground. Your research is crap.

You don't know the door was locked. The pilots would call ATC and talk on the radio. You don't know pilot procedures, you have no clue on this. Ignorance makes you make up lies and spew nonsense.

Sorry, we talk first. We tell ATC we are being hijacked. In this case the call would be, "we are being killed", and only flight 93 was able to scream. Good job making fun of the dead by being completely ignorant on pilot procedures and reality. Good job

Why do we talk first? Setting the code for hijack would be a covert method, and ATC would be alerted, and they would want us to set a normal code. If we could not tell ATC on the Radio, we can set the hijack code, and they would be alerted to move traffic if needed. There will be no instant intercept, no shoot down, etc.

Wrong, talking to ATC is the first priority, we tell them we are being attacked or hijacked. If we are dead, we don't do much. You have no clue.

If ATC was super busy and we could not get their attention because we would be "stepping on" their radio transmission (do you have a clue), we could set the code for hijacking and get priority. You should do some research, this make you look real dumb on a lot of issues!
Several orders of magnitude less than your claims, and delusions.

first of all- 'we tell them we are being attacked' so you are an airline pilot then. perhaps you could tell me about your experiences of being hijacked, I would love to hear them.
the squawk transmits over the transponder, which is telemetry which is not the same frequency as voice.
so in a matter of life and death, when every second counts, its still too bad mannered to squawk without asking first, I see.

the new pearl harbour revisited, page 177-
the 9/11 commission did acknowledge that sending the code would have been standard procedure, writing,
FAA guidance to controllers on hijack procedures assumed that the aircraft pilot would notify the controller via radio OR by sqawking a transponder code of 7500- the universal code for a hijack in progress.

applecorped · 14th January 2012, 11:35 AM

[quote=silver birch;7932349]

Originally Posted by beachnut

It is a known fact things survive aircraft crashes. You lost this argument if you claim a passport can't survive an aircraft crash. You are batting zero.

Only for you since you seem to be a poor typists. And even less of a waste of time for you since you did not know things survive aircraft accidents, you did ZERO research, you saved time being ignorant of the topic, all of 911 you have done ZERO rational research. Zip

A waste of time! Not for you, you make it up as you go, no time looking up anything!@

The passport is evidence you can't use to support you idiotic claims! It proves you are wrong, it proves a hijacker was real. More like a murderer, since they took the plane to kill, not hijack, you are confused and can't form rational thoughts.

You think your lies are evidence, you can't figure out the passport is evidence.

Wrong again, DNA on all of the Flight 93 murderers. You failed again.

Off flight plan, off altitude, not talking to ATC, etc, etc.
The crew reported the plane was taken over... oops, you don't do any research; you don't waste time for sure.

Why are you always wrong? Sorry, off course, off flight plan, off altitude, not talking to ATC, etc. You keep messing up out of ignorance.

You are not a pilot. We would tell ATC we were hijacked on the RADIO. We talk. If we can't talk and we are alive, we could set the code when we are ready to tell ATC.

On 911 pilots were strapped into seats facing forward when murderers came in and killed them. Shoulder harnesses and seat-belts, unable to stand and turn to fight, they died when their throats were cut from behind, in a surprise attack. Can't set code or talk when you are dead.

you lost this one too

On Flight 93 we hear the pilots screaming... good sign they were under-attack. The crews on each plane and passengers reported what they knew to the ground. Your research is crap.

You don't know the door was locked. The pilots would call ATC and talk on the radio. You don't know pilot procedures, you have no clue on this. Ignorance makes you make up lies and spew nonsense.

Sorry, we talk first. We tell ATC we are being hijacked. In this case the call would be, "we are being killed", and only flight 93 was able to scream. Good job making fun of the dead by being completely ignorant on pilot procedures and reality. Good job

Why do we talk first? Setting the code for hijack would be a covert method, and ATC would be alerted, and they would want us to set a normal code. If we could not tell ATC on the Radio, we can set the hijack code, and they would be alerted to move traffic if needed. There will be no instant intercept, no shoot down, etc.

Wrong, talking to ATC is the first priority, we tell them we are being attacked or hijacked. If we are dead, we don't do much. You have no clue.

If ATC was super busy and we could not get their attention because we would be "stepping on" their radio transmission (do you have a clue), we could set the code for hijacking and get priority. You should do some research, this make you look real dumb on a lot of issues!
Several orders of magnitude less than your claims, and delusions.

first of all- 'we tell them we are being attacked' so you are an airline pilot then. perhaps you could tell me about your experiences of being hijacked, I would love to hear them.
the squawk transmits over the transponder, which is telemetry which is not the same frequency as voice.
so in a matter of life and death, when every second counts, its still too bad mannered to squawk without asking first, I see.

the new pearl harbour revisited, page 177-
the 9/11 commission did acknowledge that sending the code would have been standard procedure, writing,
FAA guidance to controllers on hijack procedures assumed that the aircraft pilot would notify the controller via radio OR by sqawking a transponder code of 7500- the universal code for a hijack in progress.

I'm convinced.

silver birch · 14th January 2012, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by DGM

What would have happened if the pilot did manage to "squawk 7500"? Would the events of 9/11 not happened?

why do you ask such a stupid question?
I was making the claim that not recieving the hijack code was proof the planes were not hijacked. therefore there must be an alternative explanation for the events of 9/11.

George152 · 14th January 2012, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by twinstead

It is supremely obvious that silver birch has never been to New York

Or anywhere else!

George152 · 14th January 2012, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by silver birch

why do you ask such a stupid question?
I was making the claim that not recieving the hijack code was proof the planes were not hijacked. therefore there must be an alternative explanation for the events of 9/11.

You don't know how the code is entered do you?
Or how long it takes?
and since those hijacking the various aircraft would know enough to prevent the aircrew doing so...

triforcharity · 14th January 2012, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by silver birch

could a lunatic armed with a very short bladed knife, (the official story, not a gun) break through a locked door

Pre-911, quite often, the door to the cockpit was open. In fact, pre-911, I myself have taken my kids to see the cockpit. Again, you're ignorant of how things were pre-911.

Originally Posted by silver birch

and murder someone in under 2 or 3 seconds. because that is the time some pilots have said it would take them to set the squawk to 7500?

A licensed, credible pilot has already told you they don't do that first. They talk to ATC first via the radio.

Could you do anything other than struggle to breathe with your throat slashed?

Originally Posted by silver birch

how many able bodied grown men do you think would be on an average 767 flight? you tell me.

Speculation, and irrelevant.

Originally Posted by silver birch

could a lunatic armed with a short bladed knife even succeed in breaking through a locked door with these men throwing luggage from the overhead rack?

Yes, as proof, they did. BTW, you're poisoning the well. Assuming facts not in evidence also. Proof that the door was locked?

Originally Posted by silver birch

is it not possible one of the men would have the chance to grab his wrist and prevent him using the knife?

Not when everyone was in the back of the plane. But, don't let facts get in your way.

twinstead · 14th January 2012, 11:53 AM

Good god the incredulity is strong with this one.

triforcharity · 14th January 2012, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by silver birch

why do you ask such a stupid question?
I was making the claim that not recieving the hijack code was proof the planes were not hijacked. therefore there must be an alternative explanation for the events of 9/11.

What about the phone calls and radio calls from the passengers reporting that the plane was hijacked?

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Not to mention, the ol' fashioned "Texas Sharpshooter " logical fallacy.

I am going to assume you've never really read up on the events of 911, except on CT websites. Ie: Alex Jones, PFFFT, and others. Am I correct?

bynmdsue · 14th January 2012, 11:55 AM

It's never entered into his head to grab a stewardess and threaten to cut her throat if the rest of you passengers don't move to back of the plane. And being suicide hijackers they also would not do something as despicable as lie about having a bomb.

silver birch · 14th January 2012, 11:59 AM

[quote=000063;7932210]Tickets, security cameras.

in the uk, just after 9/11, we were shown cctv pictures of 2 of the hijackers boarding.
what we are not told, it was the WRONG airport, it was a connecting flight from portland, there are no cctv pictures of hijackers boarding at boston.

13th January 2012, 02:55 PM	#1682
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,596	yup, perhaps a terrorist wouldn't have bothered carrying a passport. Who knows? But it is not suspicious in the least that he WOULD be. Maybe he forgot to leave it at home?
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

13th January 2012, 03:20 PM	#1686
Justin39640 Illuminator Join Date: May 2009 Location: New York Posts: 3,665	Originally Posted by silver birch millions of people did not see the north tower hit live on tv, because it was not shown until the next day. why was there only that ONE video of the north tower hit if there were millions of people in new york, which would mean many cameras. why are there witnesses who claim to have seen an explosion in the north tower and not a plane hit it, jennifer oberstein for one? why was it necessary to plant fake witnesses who have been identified as actors- gary welz, and mark humphrey, who was interviewed on fox news. fox news, by the way, is owned by media mogul and zionist rupert murdoch, who was recently labelled on tv station channel 4, here in the UK, as beyond evil. www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzPIde6Wj3w HONESTLY I argue that at least a million people saw it live in the metro NY area with their own eyes. Every skyscraper's windows facing the towers were packed with people watching the north tower burn. Everyone in Brooklyn were watching from the streets and rooftops. Queens and Staten Island as well. Let's not forget NJ is right across the Hudson (Jersey city is right there but you can get a good view from pretty far north and south). My friend watched it hit from the observation deck in Lincoln Center's office skyscraper along with what he estimated to be 150 to 200 others. I've met lots of people who saw the first impact as well. FYI: on an average working day (just like 9/11/01), Manhattan Island has about 8 million people on it. That's just Manhattan....
	__________________ "I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus Last edited by Justin39640; 13th January 2012 at 03:24 PM.

13th January 2012, 03:25 PM	#1687
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,596	It is supremely obvious that silver birch has never been to New York
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

13th January 2012, 03:28 PM	#1688
Justin39640 Illuminator Join Date: May 2009 Location: New York Posts: 3,665	Originally Posted by twinstead It is supremely obvious that silver birch has never been to New York Indeed. I have the same suspicion about the majority of other truthers.
	__________________ "I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus Last edited by Justin39640; 13th January 2012 at 03:31 PM.

13th January 2012, 03:48 PM	#1689
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,605	I think (personally, I have no fact or figures to say for certain) but I believe that 8mil is alot. 2 mil? Yeah, certainly.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

13th January 2012, 02:55 PM	#1681
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,929	Originally Posted by silver birch I can only reply to this with a saying I came across years ago b. s. baffles brains. Ok. Usually we expect people to reply with facts, logic and reason. I hear you are saying that you cannot. You can only reply by quoting a condescending phrase. I guess that says it all.

13th January 2012, 02:59 PM	#1683
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,929	Originally Posted by silver birch although, it does seem odd to me, that they left the 'how to fly an airliner guide' in the car at the airport. Moving goal post again? We first have to conclude the passport issue. By the way, the man whose passport was found, Suqami, was one of the few (or only?) of the highkackers who did not have a US drivers license. Did you know that? You should. That fact was linked to and I also think mentioned in this thread a few days ago. How would you identify yourself at the airport when you are a foreigner in the USA and travel internally and don't have a US ID card?

13th January 2012, 03:03 PM	#1684
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,929	Originally Posted by silver birch I'm quite prepared to concede any points in a discussion on this forum, however, I fail to find anything incredulous about not believing a passport survived the fire that cremated the hijacker, fell to ground through the fireball and was handed in as evidence. Man, do you even know what the word "incredulous" means? You just contradicted yourself in one sentence! Originally Posted by silver birch why not question the incredulity of the 84% of Americans who do not beleive the official story either? (poll carried out by CNN and new york times) And there you try to move goal posts again! Stop that! It makes you look more and more insecure!

13th January 2012, 03:07 PM	#1685
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,929	Originally Posted by garethdjb I think he may be getting confused with the flight manuals that were found in Marwan al-Shehhi's Florida hotel room? I'm not aware of any being recovered from vehicles. Abdul Aziz al-Omari's passport was recovered from Mohammed Atta's luggage left behind at Logan airport. So presumably al-Omari was able to board without a passport. Many of the hijackers had US drivers licenses. Suqami did not.

13th January 2012, 03:50 PM	#1690
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,596	Anybody who has even been in a large city would think that faking two planes crashing into two of its largest buildings in front of its entire population is ludicrous.
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

13th January 2012, 04:29 PM	#1691
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,929	Originally Posted by triforcharity I think (personally, I have no fact or figures to say for certain) but I believe that 8mil is alot. 2 mil? Yeah, certainly. Easy to find out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan About 1.6 million people live in Manhattan (see Demographics), but another 1.3 million commute daily into Manhattan to swell population to 2.9 million (see Economy). 8 million is the population of NYC total (all five burroughs). The Metropolitan aea has 18 million. When you estimate how many people have seen the second plane crash, you need to remember that UA175 came from the south, south-west (don't remember the exact direction) and that very likely many people looking at the towers from the north never saw the plane coming and are only witness to the fireball. I think spectators in Jersey City and Brooklyn had a much better chance of actually seeing the approaching plane than most people in Manhattan itself.

13th January 2012, 04:36 PM	#1692
Justin39640 Illuminator Join Date: May 2009 Location: New York Posts: 3,665	Originally Posted by triforcharity I think (personally, I have no fact or figures to say for certain) but I believe that 8mil is alot. 2 mil? Yeah, certainly. I could have sworn I read somewhere it was 8 between commuters etc. Still there's a lot of eyeballs that had a good view of it. Many more than a few thousand for the second impact.
	__________________ "I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus

13th January 2012, 07:40 PM	#1693
Sabretooth No Ordinary Rabbit Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Wyoming, NY Posts: 6,218	Originally Posted by silver birch why not question the incredulity of the 84% of Americans who do not beleive the official story either? (poll carried out by CNN and new york times) 84% of Americans live in their Mom's basement?! Who woulda thought
	__________________ -------------------------------------- Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

13th January 2012, 07:49 PM	#1694
Sabretooth No Ordinary Rabbit Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Wyoming, NY Posts: 6,218	Originally Posted by silver birch however, I fail to find anything incredulous about not believing a passport survived the fire that cremated the hijacker, fell to ground through the fireball and was handed in as evidence. There is a simple test that you...yes, you!...can try right in your backyard! Build yourself a bonfire. Size isn't important, but make sure you got something significant. Now, take some paper, ball it up, and throw it through the flames. Try as many times as you like. Keep a tally of how many paper balls start on fire...then get back to us.
	__________________ -------------------------------------- Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

13th January 2012, 07:59 PM	#1695
sheeplesnshills Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 3,706	Originally Posted by silver birch (which david ray griffin has called a 571 page lie). And why should we care what a theologian has to say to say on the subject? If you want to know about the various brands of sky spook, he's your man but when it comes to science and engineering its usual to go with people with relevant expertise.....like NIST, Purdue etc.

13th January 2012, 09:03 PM	#1696
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660	You know, there are a thousand mundane reasons why a passport might survive unscathed. The truthers' ignoring them in deference to their fantasy speaks volumes. Sharpshooter fallacy.
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660

14th January 2012, 06:38 AM	#1697
silver birch Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 226	how many pages have we spent discussing whether or not the passport could have survived? a waste of time. because the passport is a red herring, there is no evidence the hijackers were on the plane. there is no evidence the plane was hijacked. there is more proof that the plane was not hijacked, from the fact that the hijack code, which pilots are trained to transmit to the ground control was not received from any of the 4 planes with a total of 8 pilots. there would have been ample time as the door to the cockpit is kept locked in flight and it would only take a few seconds to turn 4 knobs on the squawk box. pilots have been trained for years how to react in a hijack, and sending the squawk code would have been the first priority. how stupid do you think pilots are? the first thing isreali pilots are trained to do is put the plane in a steep dive and throw hijackers off balance.
silver birch Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 226

14th January 2012, 06:42 AM	#1698
bynmdsue Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,385	Originally Posted by silver birch the first thing isreali pilots are trained to do is put the plane in a steep dive and throw hijackers off balance. That's nice. How about British pilots? Or French ones? Japanese? Actually none of those matter because we're talking about American pilots. How are they trained?

14th January 2012, 06:51 AM	#1699
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,929	Originally Posted by silver birch how many pages have we spent discussing whether or not the passport could have survived? a waste of time. Before you move goal posts again, you need to be more clear if you retract your claim that foreigners carrying a passport on an internal flight is suspicious, or not. Because that is at this point incumbent upon you. You have been unable to give any reasons whatsoever why a foreigner should not have his passport on him if the very purpose of a passport is to be on a traveller abroad for ID purposes, such as might arise when boarding a plane, renting a car etc. Originally Posted by silver birch because the passport is a red herring, there is no evidence the hijackers were on the plane. ... Bare Assertion Logical Fallacy. End then running away from your own argument about passports. The passport IS part of the evidence that the hijackers were in the plane, although not a necessary one. It corroborated the obvious. The fact of hijackers on planes would be established beyond all reasonable doubt even without passports found.

14th January 2012, 07:04 AM	#1700
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,617	Originally Posted by silver birch how many pages have we spent discussing whether or not the passport could have survived? a waste of time. because the passport is a red herring, there is no evidence the hijackers were on the plane. there is no evidence the plane was hijacked. there is more proof that the plane was not hijacked, from the fact that the hijack code, which pilots are trained to transmit to the ground control was not received from any of the 4 planes with a total of 8 pilots. there would have been ample time as the door to the cockpit is kept locked in flight and it would only take a few seconds to turn 4 knobs on the squawk box. pilots have been trained for years how to react in a hijack, and sending the squawk code would have been the first priority. how stupid do you think pilots are? the first thing isreali pilots are trained to do is put the plane in a steep dive and throw hijackers off balance. Your knowledge of American and Israeli pilot training procedures is no doubt on par with your knowledge of visiting countries outside of Britain, logical fallacies, the 'shift' key and such.

14th January 2012, 07:09 AM	#1701
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,929	Originally Posted by silver birch ...there is no evidence the plane was hijacked. there is more proof that the plane was not hijacked, from the fact that the hijack code, which pilots are trained to transmit to the ground control was not received from any of the 4 planes... Upon second thought, I think this is more interesting. Silver, can you agree to debate this topic now, and stick to this topic, until you and I have presented our evidence and our logic? If you indicate that you are not willing to debate claims that you make on this forum, then I will know that you are a troll. Of which I honestly am not sure yet. If you are willing to engage in this topic of "planes were not hijacked because no hijack code was squawked", I would first ask you to state what you believe DID happen most likely with these flights: Do you believe that planes were flown into the twin towers? If yes: Do you believe these planes were commercial flights AA11 and UA175? If yes: How were they flown into the towers, since you say they were not hijacked?

14th January 2012, 07:14 AM	#1702
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 27,242	Originally Posted by silver birch I can only reply to this with a saying I came across years ago b. s. baffles brains. What's this, argument by half remembered quote?

14th January 2012, 07:48 AM	#1703
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelor's Grove Cemetery Posts: 4,737	Originally Posted by silver birch how many pages have we spent discussing whether or not the passport could have survived? a waste of time. because the passport is a red herring, there is no evidence the hijackers were on the plane. there is no evidence the plane was hijacked. there is more proof that the plane was not hijacked, from the fact that the hijack code, which pilots are trained to transmit to the ground control was not received from any of the 4 planes with a total of 8 pilots. This was all debated on this thread, especially post 216 and before. Essentially, the pilots couldn't sqawk the code because they were busy being murdered.
	__________________ "Things that never happened before happen all the time." (Scott Sagan, 1993) "Put down the Wite-Out and step away from the dictionary." (000063, 2012) "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." (John Kenneth Galbraith, 1971)

14th January 2012, 10:19 AM	#1704
000063 Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Not America. Posts: 4,739	Originally Posted by silver birch how many pages have we spent discussing whether or not the passport could have survived? a waste of time. because the passport is a red herring, there is no evidence the hijackers were on the plane. Tickets, security cameras. Quote: there is no evidence the plane was hijacked. I don't think their normal flight plans involved crashing into buildings. Quote: there is more proof that the plane was not hijacked, from the fact that the hijack code, which pilots are trained to transmit to the ground control was not received from any of the 4 planes with a total of 8 pilots. All of which were killed in seconds by armed lunatics bursting into their cockpits. They spent most of the time, y'know, trying not to die. Unsuccessfully. Quote: there would have been ample time as the door to the cockpit is kept locked in flight and it would only take a few seconds to turn 4 knobs on the squawk box. This is the equivalent of a teenager writing a story that combines stuff from Modern Warfare and Zelda and Dragonball Z just because they're all cool, regardless of whether it makes sense. You have no source for this claim. It is false. Quote: pilots have been trained for years how to react in a hijack, and sending the squawk code would have been the first priority. Without considerable training or mental conditioning, the root command of every capable human being on the planet in a life-threatening situation is "don't die". Quote: how stupid do you think pilots are? the first thing isreali pilots are trained to do is put the plane in a steep dive and throw hijackers off balance. And people in France eat snails. I live in England. Most people here do not eat escargot. And that's assuming you're claim is true. You're throwing anything that sounds plausible to you into the conspiracy pot again, without considering if it plays well with the other ingredients.
	__________________ No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. ... That's how you present credible arguments in written form. -ergo, on me giving him a 2 digit number I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language--words even. - ergo

14th January 2012, 10:51 AM	#1705
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,949	Originally Posted by silver birch how many pages have we spent discussing whether or not the passport could have survived? It is a known fact things survive aircraft crashes. You lost this argument if you claim a passport can't survive an aircraft crash. You are batting zero. Originally Posted by silver birch a waste of time. Only for you since you seem to be a poor typists. And even less of a waste of time for you since you did not know things survive aircraft accidents, you did ZERO research, you saved time being ignorant of the topic, all of 911 you have done ZERO rational research. Zip A waste of time! Not for you, you make it up as you go, no time looking up anything!@ Originally Posted by silver birch because the passport is a red herring, The passport is evidence you can't use to support you idiotic claims! It proves you are wrong, it proves a hijacker was real. More like a murderer, since they took the plane to kill, not hijack, you are confused and can't form rational thoughts. You think your lies are evidence, you can't figure out the passport is evidence. Originally Posted by silver birch there is no evidence the hijackers were on the plane. Wrong again, DNA on all of the Flight 93 murderers. You failed again. Originally Posted by silver birch there is no evidence the plane was hijacked. Off flight plan, off altitude, not talking to ATC, etc, etc. The crew reported the plane was taken over... oops, you don't do any research; you don't waste time for sure. Originally Posted by silver birch there is more proof that the plane was not hijacked, Why are you always wrong? Sorry, off course, off flight plan, off altitude, not talking to ATC, etc. You keep messing up out of ignorance. Originally Posted by silver birch from the fact that the hijack code, which pilots are trained to transmit to the ground control was not received from any of the 4 planes with a total of 8 pilots. You are not a pilot. We would tell ATC we were hijacked on the RADIO. We talk. If we can't talk and we are alive, we could set the code when we are ready to tell ATC. On 911 pilots were strapped into seats facing forward when murderers came in and killed them. Shoulder harnesses and seat-belts, unable to stand and turn to fight, they died when their throats were cut from behind, in a surprise attack. Can't set code or talk when you are dead. you lost this one too On Flight 93 we hear the pilots screaming... good sign they were under-attack. The crews on each plane and passengers reported what they knew to the ground. Your research is crap. Originally Posted by silver birch there would have been ample time as the door to the cockpit is kept locked in flight and it would only take a few seconds to You don't know the door was locked. The pilots would call ATC and talk on the radio. You don't know pilot procedures, you have no clue on this. Ignorance makes you make up lies and spew nonsense. Originally Posted by silver birch turn 4 knobs on the squawk box. pilots have been trained for years how to react in a hijack, Sorry, we talk first. We tell ATC we are being hijacked. In this case the call would be, "we are being killed", and only flight 93 was able to scream. Good job making fun of the dead by being completely ignorant on pilot procedures and reality. Good job Why do we talk first? Setting the code for hijack would be a covert method, and ATC would be alerted, and they would want us to set a normal code. If we could not tell ATC on the Radio, we can set the hijack code, and they would be alerted to move traffic if needed. There will be no instant intercept, no shoot down, etc. Originally Posted by silver birch and sending the squawk code would have been the first priority. Wrong, talking to ATC is the first priority, we tell them we are being attacked or hijacked. If we are dead, we don't do much. You have no clue. If ATC was super busy and we could not get their attention because we would be "stepping on" their radio transmission (do you have a clue), we could set the code for hijacking and get priority. You should do some research, this make you look real dumb on a lot of issues! Originally Posted by silver birch how stupid do you think pilots are? Several orders of magnitude less than your claims, and delusions. Originally Posted by silver birch the first thing isreali pilots are trained to do is put the plane in a steep dive and throw hijackers off balance. They have locked doors, very secure locked doors; no need to throw hijacker off balance, they can't hijack the plane. Source please. You don't know pilots tell ATC on the radio they are hijacked, you are not a pilot, you wasted zero time researching your claims. Wow, is there anything you do know?
	Last edited by beachnut; 14th January 2012 at 10:53 AM.

14th January 2012, 11:02 AM	#1706
silver birch Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 226	[quote=000063;7932210]Tickets, security cameras. I don't think their normal flight plans involved crashing into buildings. All of which were killed in seconds by armed lunatics bursting into their cockpits. They spent most of the time, y'know, trying not to die. Unsuccessfully. could a lunatic armed with a very short bladed knife, (the official story, not a gun) break through a locked door and murder someone in under 2 or 3 seconds. because that is the time some pilots have said it would take them to set the squawk to 7500? how many able bodied grown men do you think would be on an average 767 flight? you tell me. could a lunatic armed with a short bladed knife even succeed in breaking through a locked door with these men throwing luggage from the overhead rack? is it not possible one of the men would have the chance to grab his wrist and prevent him using the knife?
silver birch Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 226

14th January 2012, 11:12 AM	#1707
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,525	Originally Posted by silver birch . because that is the time some pilots have said it would take them to set the squawk to 7500? What would have happened if the pilot did manage to "squawk 7500"? Would the events of 9/11 not happened?
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

14th January 2012, 11:22 AM	#1708
applecorped Rotten to the Core Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 10,829	Originally Posted by DGM What would have happened if the pilot did manage to "squawk 7500"? Would the events of 9/11 not happened? Quick! To the DeLorean!!!
	__________________ All You Need Is Love.

14th January 2012, 11:23 AM	#1709
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 18,100	Why do you think the door was locked? Doors were generally not locked pre 9/11.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

14th January 2012, 11:24 AM	#1710
A W Smith Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Central Jersey Posts: 7,031	[quote=silver birch;7932278] Originally Posted by 000063 Tickets, security cameras. I don't think their normal flight plans involved crashing into buildings. All of which were killed in seconds by armed lunatics bursting into their cockpits. They spent most of the time, y'know, trying not to die. Unsuccessfully. could a lunatic armed with a very short bladed knife, (the official story, not a gun) break through a locked door and murder someone in under 2 or 3 seconds. because that is the time some pilots have said it would take them to set the squawk to 7500? how many able bodied grown men do you think would be on an average 767 flight? you tell me. could a lunatic armed with a short bladed knife even succeed in breaking through a locked door with these men throwing luggage from the overhead rack? is it not possible one of the men would have the chance to grab his wrist and prevent him using the knife? Show us evidence that the doors were even locked. Show us evidence that any US mainland aircraft hijackers have been overpowered pre 9/11. So far all you have shown here is a basket full of incredulous assumptions, And short bladed knives? Are you aware that many box cutters have break away blades that can extend two inches? http://img.ehowcdn.com/article-page-...rs-800x800.jpg Are you aware how fatal these knives can be? http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2011/1...cutter-murder/ http://arklatexhomepage.com/fulltext?nxd_id=6084 in the hands of an 11 year old http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasebo_slashing
	__________________ 911 resource site by Mark Roberts http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance. Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane? Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.

14th January 2012, 11:33 AM	#1711
silver birch Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 226	[quote=beachnut;7932265]It is a known fact things survive aircraft crashes. You lost this argument if you claim a passport can't survive an aircraft crash. You are batting zero. Only for you since you seem to be a poor typists. And even less of a waste of time for you since you did not know things survive aircraft accidents, you did ZERO research, you saved time being ignorant of the topic, all of 911 you have done ZERO rational research. Zip A waste of time! Not for you, you make it up as you go, no time looking up anything!@ The passport is evidence you can't use to support you idiotic claims! It proves you are wrong, it proves a hijacker was real. More like a murderer, since they took the plane to kill, not hijack, you are confused and can't form rational thoughts. You think your lies are evidence, you can't figure out the passport is evidence. Wrong again, DNA on all of the Flight 93 murderers. You failed again. Off flight plan, off altitude, not talking to ATC, etc, etc. The crew reported the plane was taken over... oops, you don't do any research; you don't waste time for sure. Why are you always wrong? Sorry, off course, off flight plan, off altitude, not talking to ATC, etc. You keep messing up out of ignorance. You are not a pilot. We would tell ATC we were hijacked on the RADIO. We talk. If we can't talk and we are alive, we could set the code when we are ready to tell ATC. On 911 pilots were strapped into seats facing forward when murderers came in and killed them. Shoulder harnesses and seat-belts, unable to stand and turn to fight, they died when their throats were cut from behind, in a surprise attack. Can't set code or talk when you are dead. you lost this one too On Flight 93 we hear the pilots screaming... good sign they were under-attack. The crews on each plane and passengers reported what they knew to the ground. Your research is crap. You don't know the door was locked. The pilots would call ATC and talk on the radio. You don't know pilot procedures, you have no clue on this. Ignorance makes you make up lies and spew nonsense. Sorry, we talk first. We tell ATC we are being hijacked. In this case the call would be, "we are being killed", and only flight 93 was able to scream. Good job making fun of the dead by being completely ignorant on pilot procedures and reality. Good job Why do we talk first? Setting the code for hijack would be a covert method, and ATC would be alerted, and they would want us to set a normal code. If we could not tell ATC on the Radio, we can set the hijack code, and they would be alerted to move traffic if needed. There will be no instant intercept, no shoot down, etc. Wrong, talking to ATC is the first priority, we tell them we are being attacked or hijacked. If we are dead, we don't do much. You have no clue. If ATC was super busy and we could not get their attention because we would be "stepping on" their radio transmission (do you have a clue), we could set the code for hijacking and get priority. You should do some research, this make you look real dumb on a lot of issues! Several orders of magnitude less than your claims, and delusions. first of all- 'we tell them we are being attacked' so you are an airline pilot then. perhaps you could tell me about your experiences of being hijacked, I would love to hear them. the squawk transmits over the transponder, which is telemetry which is not the same frequency as voice. so in a matter of life and death, when every second counts, its still too bad mannered to squawk without asking first, I see. the new pearl harbour revisited, page 177- the 9/11 commission did acknowledge that sending the code would have been standard procedure, writing, FAA guidance to controllers on hijack procedures assumed that the aircraft pilot would notify the controller via radio OR by sqawking a transponder code of 7500- the universal code for a hijack in progress.
silver birch Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 226

14th January 2012, 11:35 AM	#1712
applecorped Rotten to the Core Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 10,829	[quote=silver birch;7932349] Originally Posted by beachnut It is a known fact things survive aircraft crashes. You lost this argument if you claim a passport can't survive an aircraft crash. You are batting zero. Only for you since you seem to be a poor typists. And even less of a waste of time for you since you did not know things survive aircraft accidents, you did ZERO research, you saved time being ignorant of the topic, all of 911 you have done ZERO rational research. Zip A waste of time! Not for you, you make it up as you go, no time looking up anything!@ The passport is evidence you can't use to support you idiotic claims! It proves you are wrong, it proves a hijacker was real. More like a murderer, since they took the plane to kill, not hijack, you are confused and can't form rational thoughts. You think your lies are evidence, you can't figure out the passport is evidence. Wrong again, DNA on all of the Flight 93 murderers. You failed again. Off flight plan, off altitude, not talking to ATC, etc, etc. The crew reported the plane was taken over... oops, you don't do any research; you don't waste time for sure. Why are you always wrong? Sorry, off course, off flight plan, off altitude, not talking to ATC, etc. You keep messing up out of ignorance. You are not a pilot. We would tell ATC we were hijacked on the RADIO. We talk. If we can't talk and we are alive, we could set the code when we are ready to tell ATC. On 911 pilots were strapped into seats facing forward when murderers came in and killed them. Shoulder harnesses and seat-belts, unable to stand and turn to fight, they died when their throats were cut from behind, in a surprise attack. Can't set code or talk when you are dead. you lost this one too On Flight 93 we hear the pilots screaming... good sign they were under-attack. The crews on each plane and passengers reported what they knew to the ground. Your research is crap. You don't know the door was locked. The pilots would call ATC and talk on the radio. You don't know pilot procedures, you have no clue on this. Ignorance makes you make up lies and spew nonsense. Sorry, we talk first. We tell ATC we are being hijacked. In this case the call would be, "we are being killed", and only flight 93 was able to scream. Good job making fun of the dead by being completely ignorant on pilot procedures and reality. Good job Why do we talk first? Setting the code for hijack would be a covert method, and ATC would be alerted, and they would want us to set a normal code. If we could not tell ATC on the Radio, we can set the hijack code, and they would be alerted to move traffic if needed. There will be no instant intercept, no shoot down, etc. Wrong, talking to ATC is the first priority, we tell them we are being attacked or hijacked. If we are dead, we don't do much. You have no clue. If ATC was super busy and we could not get their attention because we would be "stepping on" their radio transmission (do you have a clue), we could set the code for hijacking and get priority. You should do some research, this make you look real dumb on a lot of issues! Several orders of magnitude less than your claims, and delusions. first of all- 'we tell them we are being attacked' so you are an airline pilot then. perhaps you could tell me about your experiences of being hijacked, I would love to hear them. the squawk transmits over the transponder, which is telemetry which is not the same frequency as voice. so in a matter of life and death, when every second counts, its still too bad mannered to squawk without asking first, I see. the new pearl harbour revisited, page 177- the 9/11 commission did acknowledge that sending the code would have been standard procedure, writing, FAA guidance to controllers on hijack procedures assumed that the aircraft pilot would notify the controller via radio OR by sqawking a transponder code of 7500- the universal code for a hijack in progress. I'm convinced.
	__________________ All You Need Is Love.

14th January 2012, 11:40 AM	#1713
silver birch Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 226	Originally Posted by DGM What would have happened if the pilot did manage to "squawk 7500"? Would the events of 9/11 not happened? why do you ask such a stupid question? I was making the claim that not recieving the hijack code was proof the planes were not hijacked. therefore there must be an alternative explanation for the events of 9/11.
silver birch Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 226

14th January 2012, 11:44 AM	#1714
George152 Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hamilton New Zealand Posts: 2,054	Originally Posted by twinstead It is supremely obvious that silver birch has never been to New York Or anywhere else!
	__________________ Unemployment isn't working

14th January 2012, 11:47 AM	#1715
George152 Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hamilton New Zealand Posts: 2,054	Originally Posted by silver birch why do you ask such a stupid question? I was making the claim that not recieving the hijack code was proof the planes were not hijacked. therefore there must be an alternative explanation for the events of 9/11. You don't know how the code is entered do you? Or how long it takes? and since those hijacking the various aircraft would know enough to prevent the aircrew doing so...
	__________________ Unemployment isn't working