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

[laptop]

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

So what exactly does that mean, please?

* Drums fingers on desk waiting for answer *

(Shaping up to be best. conspiracy. theory. ever.)

 

[butchersapron]

M'lud may i change the prosecutions case mid-trial, reverse it, attack my own evidence from the same case that i put earlier, and then make the evidence i had previously attacked as unreliable the central pivot of my case - and bascially make some new charges up?

What do you mean no?

 

[editor]

Wow. A conspiratorial phone call generating flight.

Just when I thought Jazzz had run out of utterly bonkers claims related to 9/11, he pulls this one out of the bag!

Can't wait to read about this one!





....and see the evidence, natch!

 

[editor]

M'lud may i change the prosecutions case mid-trial, reverse it, attack my own evidence from the same case that i put earlier, and then make the evidence i had previously attacked as unreliable the central pivot of my case - and bascially make some new charges up?

What do you mean no?

Aw. You're nitpicking!

 

[laptop]

Look, I've already made up this stunning new theory. And it is stunning.

* tap *

* tap *

* tappitty-tap tapp *

 

[WouldBe]

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

My reply was in responce to Jazzz's point that I had to point out which of the 2 boxes was the CDU.

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.

I'm fully aware of this being an ex avionics engineer. However while there are backup powers supplies there is only one circuit breaker and power circuit to each bit of kit.

There should be no reason for a pilot to turn bits of kit off by using the circuit breakers there should be switches on the control panels to either switch off a bit of kit or to select a back-up system.

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.

Have you got a link to that info? As most commercial aircraft are fly by wire these days, if you reset the flight control computer you would loose control of all the flight controls i.e. elevators, ailerons and rudder.

 

[Hanfstaengl]

For me the most suspicious thing was the time and date, are the perpetrators into numerology or is it bluff?

 

[bristol_citizen]

For me the most suspicious thing was the time and date, are the perpetrators into numerology or is it bluff?

What's all this about then?

 

[WouldBe]

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,

There is no 'panic' or 'hijack' button on an IFF CDU but this is still being considered in the wake of 9-11.

The hijack code for the IFF is 7500. In the pic I posted there is no keypad to enter this code simply a rotary dial which has to be turned until the display reads 7500. Only then would ATC be aware from the IFF that the flight had being hijacked. It's a lot harder in a struggle to accurately turn a knob to read 7500 than it is for the hijacker to turn the other knob to off.

As the radio CDU's are located right next to the IFF CDU it would be very easy to turn these to OFF as well preventing a the pilots giving a vocal hijack warning over the radio.

Presumably these were disabled to prevent airforce jets being scrambled (early enough) to intercept the aircraft while ATC tried to work out what was going on up in the air.

 

[WouldBe]

What's all this about then?

Presumably that 911 is the emergency telephone number in the USA. Just as 112 is the emergency number in europe. Unfortunately the explosives were intercepted for the Madrid bombing so maybe that's why the Madrid boms went off 1 month later.

 

[bristol_citizen]

Presumably that 911 is the emergency telephone number in the USA. Just as 112 is the emergency number in europe. Unfortunately the explosives were intercepted for the Madrid bombing so maybe that's why the Madrid boms went off 1 month later.

Is that the sound of straws being clutched I hear?

 

[WouldBe]

Is that the sound of straws being clutched I hear?

You asked what the numerology thing was about. I gave a plausible answer. Whether that explanation has anything to do with the chosen dates or not I have no idea.

 

[snadge]

You asked what the numerology thing was about. I gave a plausible answer. Whether that explanation has anything to do with the chosen dates or not I have no idea.

entertainment on tap

 

[Hanfstaengl]

Only the dates and locations of the attrocities can be treated at fact, the most suspicious thing about these facts is that there is a suggestion of numerology.

 

[WouldBe]

Only the dates and locations of the attrocities can be treated at fact, the most suspicious thing about these facts is that there is a suggestion of numerology.

Which was brought up by you.

 

[detective-boy]

...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.

Ah, yes. And it was all going so well ... until one of them got overexcited and was heard to say "And this is me!" and launch into some appalling singing shortly before the line went dead ...

 

[bristol_citizen]

Only the dates and locations of the attrocities can be treated at fact, the most suspicious thing about these facts is that there is a suggestion of numerology.

Could you tell me which version of numerology is concerned with coincidences of events with phone numbers please?

 

[laptop]

Have you got a link to that info? As most commercial aircraft are fly by wire these days, if you reset the flight control computer you would loose control of all the flight controls i.e. elevators, ailerons and rudder.

www.pprune.org - unfortunately you'll have to read a lot of the Technical forum and the accident discussions in the Rumours forum.

A few of the reports - and though it's necessarily an anonymous forum, it seems probable that most of the people making them are actual pilots - involve pulling circuit-breakers precisely to reboot the fly-by-wire computers. At 30,000 feet you have time to do this...

 

[TAE]

Look, I've already made up this stunning new theory. And it is stunning.

* tap *

* tap *

* tappitty-tap tapp *

Not as good as my hypothesis that america doesn't actually exist!

 

[sparticus]

Well, that was interesting, if a litle over-sentimental.

So Sparticus, what did you think of it?

I assume a 'truth-seeker' like you must have watched it because , as you said, no one "genuinely interested" in "9/11 truth" would have missed an opportunity to see a film stuffed full of direct eye witness testimony.

After hearing the first hand evidence from the people on the ground who spoke to their loved ones on Flight 93 and I am in abslutely no doubt that the plane was indeed hijacked by terrorists.

The relatives discussed at considerable length the conversations they had with their loved ones, so that disgusting conspirayarn that the calls were somehow all faked by an instant CIA Mike Yarwood Team can be safely laughed out of town.

I've even lost my slight suspicions that the plane might have been shot down as the conversations from the relatives (who have also heard the last ten minutes of the cockpit tapes) were entirely consistent with the story of the passengers trying to overpower a suicidal pilot.

There was also eye witness testimony from the crew of a passing light aircraft and an eye witness account from someone on the ground who saw the plane crash all of which fits with the general story.

Hi Ed

Glad you saw it. I watched and recorded it. However it leaves all the main questions raised by campaigners (for a further inquiry) unanswered

Just lost a longer post so here is my shorter version of the questions I have about flight 93. Pick a particular area and I will provide more detail

1) Questions about the hijacker's identities (for example questions re Jared ) and suspicions about Florida flight schools and hijacker behaviour

2) Intelligence failures (2)

3) Air defense failures and failure to follow standard operating procedures This to me is the most glaring area. By 9.28 clear signs ua93 is hijacked, 9.30 all doubt removed when transponder turned off. Everyone including cheney, rumsfeld, FAA and NORAD were all talking to each other. That's over 30 minutes to intercept the plane. What has nver been satisfactorily explained is why NORAD would not be able to track, hear air traffic radio, talk directly to FAA and USAF all in real time from the time a communications bridge was established. The re are various accounts of when this was achieved, but according to Richard Clarke it was in place by 9.30. All this supposed chatter between air traffic controllers ('doh, do you think we should think about scambling some planes?') is nonsensical.

NORAD supposedly can track multiple ICBMs but US air defenses are supposedly thrown off by the disablement of a transponder

4) Lack of transparency and openness in the subsequent investigations, why not release all the tapes in full, why not rebuild the plane wreckage and allow independent analysis. Why the constant obfuscation and blocking of inquiries. Why the glaring gaps, questions and contradictions in the various versions of the official account of the air defense response

5) No hijack warning from any of the planes. Why is this?

6) Dispute over time of crash and reports of the sound of wind rushing in (mentioned on the film once) cast considerable doubt over the final minutes especially since the full tape has never been released and there are questions about why the tape ends early at 10.02. Seismic evidence places the impact at 1006

Reports (and here) of sightings of a small jet, possibly military plane based on eye witness descriptions, that tallies with the possibility that the plane was shot down. This is further supported by photos of the crash site and reports of the debris scattered over many miles, with one report of a major engine component found over a mile away

Other anomalies: under occupancy on the flight, the number of last minute changes, report of UA93 landing due to bomb scare

That'll do. So despite all the schumltz, the film failed to answer the most glaring questions raised by researchers and it must have known it was avoiding do so. As I've said before for 9/11 to be an inside job does not require that all of the more 'outlandish' theories to be true.

 

[WouldBe]

NORAD supposedly can track multiple ICBMs but US air defenses are supposedly thrown off by the disablement of a transponder

That's because ICBM's come down from above and are easilly tracked by radar. An aircraft flying just above the tree tops is below radar and cannot be seen by normal radar systems. This is the whole purpose of AWACS so you can get a radar system up in the air to look down so that low flying aircraft cannot be hidden.

5) No hijack warning from any of the planes. Why is this?

Because it is very easy to turn off all the transponders. In fact they are the first reachable controls as you enter through the cockpit door.

 

[WouldBe]

www.pprune.org - unfortunately you'll have to read a lot of the Technical forum and the accident discussions in the Rumours forum.

A few of the reports - and though it's necessarily an anonymous forum, it seems probable that most of the people making them are actual pilots - involve pulling circuit-breakers precisely to reboot the fly-by-wire computers. At 30,000 feet you have time to do this...

I've not had chance to look at this yet but if it's true then

While it may be OK at 30,000 feet the point at which the computer will be under most load will be at take-off and landing. If the thing freezes then you certainly won't have time to reset it.

 

[Jazzz]

That's because ICBM's come down from above and are easilly tracked by radar. An aircraft flying just above the tree tops is below radar and cannot be seen by normal radar systems. This is the whole purpose of AWACS so you can get a radar system up in the air to look down so that low flying aircraft cannot be hidden.

But the official account used to hold that flight 93 flew at 30,000ft - has that changed? In any case, it certainly wasn't flying under radar when control was lost.

 

[WouldBe]

But the official account used to hold that flight 93 flew at 30,000ft - has that changed? In any case, it certainly wasn't flying under radar when control was lost.

First I've heard that it was flying at 30,000 ft

That's why all the witnesses put it just above the tree tops and having to pull up to avoid flying into a hill. Which puts it well below radar level.

 

[editor]

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.

Still waiting for an explanation of this bizarre claim...

 

[brixtonvilla]

What if Flight 93 was shot down? What would that prove/suggest, exactly? Trying to see how this fits in with MIHOP/LIHOP conspiracies, but I can't see the significance.

 

[WouldBe]

What if Flight 93 was shot down? What would that prove/suggest, exactly? Trying to see how this fits in with MIHOP/LIHOP conspiracies, but I can't see the significance.

It would suggest that there was no LIHOP / MIHOP scenario as it would defeat the object of the operation.

 

[editor]

It would suggest that there was no LIHOP / MIHOP scenario as it would defeat the object of the operation.

Indeed - especially as Jazz is claiming that the entire 'purpose' of the flight may have been "generate" the calls from passengers.

Can't wait for the explanation!

 

[sparticus]

Because it is very easy to turn off all the transponders. In fact they are the first reachable controls as you enter through the cockpit door.

That doesn't hold. The hijack alert is within easy reach of the pilot and in the case of flight 93 the reports of the transponder being switched off were after the reports of a struggle being heard by air traffic controllers

 

[sparticus]

What if Flight 93 was shot down? What would that prove/suggest, exactly? Trying to see how this fits in with MIHOP/LIHOP conspiracies, but I can't see the significance.

1) Demonstrates they are capable of lying and covering up the facts upto 4 years after the event. Shoots a hole in the whole, "well they wouldn't be able to cover-up such a major incident" line

2) If they know that the passengers are about to tackle the hijackers and they are possibly succeeding in regaining control, then why would they shoot it down unless .....