911: What makes you suspicious - now with added extra poll option!

[butchersapron]

My post IS edited to hidden, now I've checked, and squeegee still comes up as the first name with an asterisk under users. What does that mean?

Anyway, anyone get a chance to see those links. What about that eyewitness testimony. Does that count as anecdotal evidence?

That's visible only to you.

 

[WouldBe]

Anyway, anyone get a chance to see those links. What about that eyewitness testimony. Does that count as anecdotal evidence?

For the third time yes.

It could not possibly have been a A10 aircraft.

 

[squeegee]

And all the other eye witness evidence and the passengers accounts? Are you going to ignore all that then?

I'm not ignoring it. And I'm not saying its made up either. I'm just saying that all the evidence should be heard at these official inquiries, and the fact that some seem to be ignored, with these eyewitnesses who don't conform to the story saying they have been ignored, makes me suspicious of the government attempting a cover up.

We saw it with the Hutton inquiry, and how the government gets to appoint the judge and set the parameters of the discussion, to protect themselves. That makes me suspicious. What are they hiding? I agree that's conjecture, but you've got to agree that it doesn'r paint the government in a favourable light (US and UK) as harbingers of truth and justice attacked by an evil empire that came out of the blue to destroy our freedoms.

 

[Badger Kitten]

And all the other eye witness evidence and the passengers accounts? Are you going to ignore all that then?

Conspiraloons are not at all interested in eye witness testimony and passenger acounts ,as I now know.

Bloody moving programme, well, the bits with the passenger calls and the relatives was. I wish the loons had been made to watch it. It might shame some of the 9/11, 7/7 armchair pundit internet theorist ''Truth Commissioners'' into realising that spouting swivel-eyed factfree ill-informed tripe can make them look pretty undignified human beings.

But what do I know? I'm a Government agent.

 

[Jazzz]

Oh, well that is a bit complicated, isn't it?



There goes another crap conspiratheory!

It wasn't 'conspiratheory', this was comment from the Washington Post, from their avionics sources. Before we decide they were mistaken, could you produce WouldBe's link demontrating that this was the model transponder used in the four flights? You know, it must have passed me by in this fast-moving thread.

 

[WouldBe]

Don't know about tin foil hats but most of them appear to be wearing electronic blinkers and earphones.

Truth presented, blinkers close and sound blocked out by noise.
Garbage presented, blinkers wide open and volume set to max.

 

[WouldBe]

It wasn't 'conspiratheory', this was comment from the Washington Post, from their avionics sources. Before we decide they were mistaken, could you produce WouldBe's link demontrating that this was the model transponder used in the four flights? You know, it must have passed me by in this fast-moving thread.

All radio / radar equipment has an on / off switch regardless of make an model. It's not healthy having aircraft pumping out radar frequencies when stood at the terminal with people working around the aircraft.

 

[editor]

It wasn't 'conspiratheory', this was comment from the Washington Post, from their avionics sources. Before we decide they were mistaken, could you produce WouldBe's link demontrating that this was the model transponder used in the four flights? You know, it must have passed me by in this fast-moving thread.

Do you still think the calls were faked from Flight 93, Jazzz?

 

[squeegee]

But of course Editor, as you well know, while I understand that the wildest conspiracy theories are not allowed on these boards, I also am open-minded to beliefs about the fact that humanity could be an experiment concocted by an extra-terrestrial race somehow connected to the Sumerian tablets that the Israeli author Zecharia Sitchin translated.

It was this that led to you accusing me of insulting world religions. I did not say I believed it, but i said i was open to the possibility. I think that's the only way to be, and i do not think i am unbalanced for saying it.

You've already questioned my sanity. You will do so again after this post. You either do that or you get abusive. To say you have never attacked me for my 911 beliefs is startling to me.

 

[editor]

All radio / radar equipment has an on / off switch regardless of make an model. It's not healthy having aircraft pumping out radar frequencies when stood at the terminal with people working around the aircraft.

What happens next is that Jazzz keeps on asking more and more arcane questions until he finally arrives at some miniscule, utterly inconsequential detail that by its very nature can't be proved either way, and then proudly declares that as another thing that cast doubts on the official line and 'needs to be explained fully.'

 

[editor]

To say you have never attacked me for my 911 beliefs is startling to me.

That's not what I was saying, so please stay truthful.

I was talking about your piss weak excuse that you had two IDs because you feared I would harass you elsewhere on the boards due to your 9/11 beliefs, despite you being singularly unable to provide a single example.

 

[editor]

But of course Editor, as you well know, while I understand that the wildest conspiracy theories are not allowed on these boards,

I'd say Jazzz's evidence-untouched yarn about the Soham murders was as wild as it gets, along with his claim that all the passengers phone calls were expertly forged by a trained gang of CIA Mike Yarwoods who were able to instantly reproduce the most intimate of conversations between loved ones.

He even produced a link to some gaming technlogy as 'proof'!

Someone being able to instantly mimic the voice of a loved one down to the last detail when they weren't even expected on the flight?

Now that's a wild one!

What do you think?

 

[Jazzz]

All radio / radar equipment has an on / off switch regardless of make an model. It's not healthy having aircraft pumping out radar frequencies when stood at the terminal with people working around the aircraft.

So, you aren't actually claiming that the transponder you pictured was the model used in flights on 9-11.

 

[editor]

So, you aren't actually claiming that the transponder you pictured was the model used in flights on 9-11.

And here's what I said in action!

How about you prove that the transponder didn't have an off switch like the ones illustrated? It makes perfect sense to me that an off switch would be desirable.

Now, about these faked phone calls...

 

[editor]

In fact, how about you find a transponder without an 'off' switch?

I've just googled five of them and on every one there's a great big 'off' switch...

 

[WouldBe]

So, you aren't actually claiming that the transponder you pictured was the model used in flights on 9-11.

I never claimed that pic was from one of the flights. It was just the first clear pic of an IFF CDU I could find.

But here is a quote from Avionics magazine discussing what modifications need to be made in the wake of 9-11.

Besides disabling the transponder by switching the unit to "standby" on the control panel

So even the US gov and aircraft industries acknowledge that there is an on/off switch on the center console for the IFF and needs to be removed.

 

[Jazzz]

Conspiraloons are not at all interested in eye witness testimony and passenger acounts ,as I now know.

As you are relatively new to the topic of 9-11 here you would be unaware that there are many eyewitness accounts which run against the official narrative. In particular, many refer to bombs going off in the WTC; plenty refer to there being no fire of any significance in the South Tower. Actually I am somewhat offended by your remark, as when William Rodriguez (the 'last man out of the WTC alive') came over here to speak, this poster went to listen, while editor and others ridiculed the whole event.

On 9/11, Rodriguez single-handedly rescued fifteen (15) persons from the WTC, and as Rodriguez was the only person at the site with the master key to the North Tower stairwells, he bravely led firefighters up the stairwell, unlocking doors as they ascended, thereby aiding in the successful evacuation of unknown hundreds of those who survived. Rodriguez, at great risk to his own life, re-entered the Towers three times after the first, North Tower impact at about 8:46 A.M., and is believed to be the last person to exit the North Tower alive, surviving the building's collapse by diving beneath a fire truck. After receiving medical attention at the WTC site for his injuries, Rodriguez spent the rest of 9/11 aiding as a volunteer in the rescue efforts, and at dawn the following morning, was back at Ground Zero continuing his heroic efforts.

What would you say about people ridiculing William Rodriguez, badger kitten?

 

[editor]

As you are relatively new to the topic of 9-11 here you would be unaware that there are many eyewitness accounts which run against the official narrative.

But, back the topic under discussion: do you still think the calls were faked from Flight 93, Jazzz?

(I won't bother asking why you choose to selectively ignore all the other eye witness accounts)

 

[WouldBe]

So, you aren't actually claiming that the transponder you pictured was the model used in flights on 9-11.

From what I have found 767's use Rockwell avionics.

Here is their IFF system. The CDU is the box on the left.

Which suprise, suprise has an OFF setting on the left hand switch.

 

[Jazzz]

Well from that picture - I stared at it for a few seconds, attempting to imagine I was in the pressure situation of hijacking an aircraft, surrounded perhaps by a mass of unfamiliar stuff - I would agree with the Washington Post's comment that switching it off would be far from obvious (note that you felt it necessary to post which part was the 'CDU' and where the off switch was located). A bright big red button on the top would be obvious. Four of these things were turned off in four different locations of the aircraft before any of the cabin crew were able to punch in a 'hijack' code - something they would all presumably have been trained and drilled to do. While maybe not impossible, this is something that seemed and remains highly peculiar.

 

[butchersapron]

Pathetic.

 

[WouldBe]

Well from that picture - I stared at it for a few seconds, attempting to imagine I was in the pressure situation of hijacking an aircraft, surrounded perhaps by a mass of unfamiliar stuff - I would agree with the Washington Post's comment that switching it off would be far from obvious (note that you felt it necessary to post which part was the 'CDU' and where the off switch was located). A bright big red button on the top would be obvious. Four of these things were turned off in four different locations of the aircraft before any of the cabin crew were able to punch in a 'hijack' code - something they would all presumably have been trained and drilled to do. While maybe not impossible, this is something that seemed and remains highly peculiar.

1. The box in that photo on the right doesn't even exist in the cockpit of an aircraft it is buried in the bowels of the aircraft.

2. There is only one IFF CDU on an aircraft not 4. There may be 4 transponders on an aircraft but these include the voice transponders as well and again the CDU's for these are all located in the center console.

3. One of the 'hyjackers' purchased 767 simulator software and a flight instruction manual and video. So would have had plenty of time before hand to find out exactly where all the controls were.

 

[editor]

Well from that picture - I stared at it for a few seconds, attempting to imagine I was in the pressure situation of hijacking an aircraft, surrounded perhaps by a mass of unfamiliar stuff - I would agree with the Washington Post's comment that switching it off would be far from obvious (note that you felt it necessary to post which part was the 'CDU' and where the off switch was located).

Good grief. This is getting desperate.

So do you agree with the rest of the Washington Posts equally unqualified opinions on other matters relating to 9/11, or is it exclusively just this one specific opinion?

And if so, why?

Oh, and about those faked calls....

 

[Jazzz]

But, back the topic under discussion: do you still think the calls were faked from Flight 93, Jazzz?

(I won't bother asking why you choose to selectively ignore all the other eye witness accounts)

I don't 'selectively ignore' eyewitness accounts, that's something you do. When you challenged me in a previous thread to come out with eyewitness accounts of bombs in the WTC, and I came up with loads, I wasn't the one who then went on to completely ignore them. Or do you now think there were bombs in the WTC?

You should ask yourself why, when you feel it necessary to defend the official story, always call upon the phone calls from flight 93. They are 'soft' evidence, not hard - and in any event, not evidence at all when it comes to flights 77, 11 and 175 - the ones that did the damage.

However, my guess about the calls from flight 93 was that they weren't faked. In fact I think the purpose of that flight may have been to generate those calls.

 

[Jazzz]

2. There is only one IFF CDU on an aircraft not 4. There may be 4 transponders on an aircraft but these include the voice transponders as well and again the CDU's for these are all located in the center console.

3. One of the 'hyjackers' purchased 767 simulator software and a flight instruction manual and video. So would have had plenty of time before hand to find out exactly where all the controls were.

Thanks WouldBe, I accept that with prior research turning them off is quite doable in a pressure situation. However I still find it strange that they managed to get to them before any one of the pilots on the four aircraft were able to broadcast 'hijack' on them, and when this is something that they couldn't have thought would help their cause (again, this isn't something that is impossible, simply a peculiarity).

 

[laptop]

1. The box in that photo on the right doesn't even exist in the cockpit of an aircraft it is buried in the bowels of the aircraft.

That's why the OFF switch is on the box in the cockpit, pictured left.

Anyway, every cockpit has a bank of circuit-breakers and anyone can obtain the documentation for what kit is on what circcuit. For safety reasons there are multiple power-supply circuits and the arrangement is such that pilots can turn off some kit while still being able to fly the plane. Also for safety reasons, these circuit-breakers must remain accessible to the pilots.

If you knew how common it was for pilots to have to do a cold reboot in mid-flight by pulling said circuit-breakers, you'd take the train more often.

 

[Lock&Light]

Bin/ban, I suggest.

 

[editor]

However, my guess about the calls from flight 93 was that they weren't faked.

So you're now withdrawing your earlier claims about expert impersonators who were supposedly capable of producing perfect imitations of calls between loved ones, yes?

And you agree that all the documented calls from all the planes were authentic?

In fact I think the purpose of that flight may have been to generate those calls.

So what exactly does that mean, please?

 

[butchersapron]

It would be interesting to know what evidence changed your mind from your previous firmly held position jazz. What made you change your mind (and offer up another eqaully stupid scenario). Did you come up with it yourself?

 

[editor]

It would be interesting to know what evidence changed your mind from your previous firmly held position jazz. What made you change your mind (and offer up another eqaully stupid scenario). Did you come up with it yourself?

At one point he was claiming to have found a machine that was supposedly capable of doing instant impersonations!

Needless to say, it was bollocks.