*The evidence for the 'hijack' theory of 9-11
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
- Status
I was 'babbling on' about the fact that your confident statement that the Global Hawk did not exist prior to 9/11 was patently incorrect, even according to a source you yourself posted here. If I wasn't clear, I was basically trying to say that you were both incorrect and that you had little excuse for making the mistake.
And now you've committed the same 'error' of interpretation as WouldBe a few posts up. I responded to him - you could try reading that, I guess.
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1247248#post1247248 is the answer to the only relevant question - or rather misperception - I can see.
I think you know that there are no known examples of the technology being used in passenger jets prior to 9/11. I fail to see the relevance of the question - particularly when no poster here has claimed that it was.
There were no known examples of nuclear bombs being dropped on cities prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If you insist that nothing can possibly happen without a precise precedent, I fear your experience of the world will be forever stuck within an insoluble chicken-and-egg conundrum.
editor
hiraethified
Thank you.
Now tell me if a commercial passenger aircraft has been remotely flown anywhere in the world since 9/11 using this bijou, easily-concealed system.
If the answer's no, perhaps you could explain why this fabulous life-saving, terrorist-busting technology has been kept so mysteriously quiet since its triumphant debut on 9/11?
Or perhaps the answer's more simple: an undetectable system to remotely control large passenger aircraft simply wasn't in existence by 9/11.
Therefore there is no proof whatsoever to support the theory that the 9/11 aircraft were flown by remote control.
editor
hiraethified
Another major flaw in your argument.
Hiroshima was not a one-off use of the technology. It was repeated immediately afterwards, and then many times over by a host of different countries.
In the two long years since 9/11, the amazing technical feat of these supposed remote controlled passenger aircraft has never been repeated, despite the fact that such incredible technology could prevent further terrorism, considerably add to an aircraft's safety and bring immense commercial benefits.
In fact, the best they've come up with since 9/11 is a chunky guided missile of a plane, jam-packed with electronics that could never be concealed on a plane (not that there's any proof that it would be capable of flying a large aircraft)
So with no proof that the planes were ever remotely controlled in the first place and no proof of the existence of an easily-concealed, ground crew-fooling, pilot-baffling bolt-on remote control system capable of flying a large commercial passenger plane, I'd say there's no the tiniest shred of evidence to support this daft theory.
How about you?
Oh dear. Let's take this slowly.
I have never claimed that there was any proof of the theory that the planes were remote-controlled. I have been a declared sceptic on this from the beginning, but I am sufficiently aware of my lack of knowledge, as opposed to belief, to know that I, personally, cannot make a definitive statement. Unless I can prove to my own satisfaction that it was actually impossible, I remain agnostic.
Some posters have proved to their own satisfaction that it didn't happen because they believe that the technology did not exist at the time - which would make it impossible. Unfortunately, the premise is demonstrably untrue. You are still, apparently, claiming that it did not exist prior to 9/11, when we know from the industry reports that it did. It was publically unveiled in June 2003 - production contracts were issued in March 2001 and June 2001 - test flights appear to have been occurring at least as early as 1998.
This is an argument against the 'proof' offered by people who argue that it didn't happen because the technology did not exist at the time. It is simply pointing out that their argument rests on a faulty premise. There is a fairly obvious difference between demonstrating that an argument is logically unsound and demonstrating that it's conclusion is incorrect.
You seem to think that if the technology was used in passenger planes on 9/11, it would have been used in passenger planes since. I don't quite get this point. Do you mean would have been used in other hijackings since? Or do you mean that 9/11 would have been used as a platform to launch the new technology - as some kind of spectacular advertising coup? Bush has anounced that they are looking at using it in passenger planes as an anti-hijacking measure - I linked to the story somewhere in this monstrous thread - I have no idea what the time-frame for this plan would be, the story implied it was still at the planning stage.
editor
hiraethified
Sorry, I must have missed that.
Could you provide me with a credible link that shows commercial passenger aircraft actually being remotely flown via a ground crew/pilot-undetectable, package prior to 9/11?
I've yet to see anything on that: perhaps you could help me?
And I would have thought my point about the technology (if it existed) not being used since 9/11 was obvious: if this awesome technology existed, why haven't all planes got it fitted as standard, over two years later?
After all, it would stop all hijackings dead in their tracks - as soon as a plane was hijacked, surely the plane would automatically switch to this incredible full 'remote control'.
note: this is not a 'conspiracy' site! never mind 1998/2001 - they've been doing it since the fifties!
Now the question as to whether this technology is present in the commercial fleet is not of great concern to me, as I don't believe the aircraft which hit the WTC/Pentagon were passenger airliners.
editor
hiraethified
Entirely relevant to the claims being made here, but your wriggle is duly noted and the pointlessness of these threads once again amply illustrated.
If 'they' had the capability to accurately fly commercial passenger aircraft by remote control using a unit so teensy weensy small that it evaded the attention of the entire ground staff (who methodically check a plane before take off) as well as the flying crew, why has their been no mention of this remarkable invention in the two years after 9/11?
editor
hiraethified
What?!!!! So what were they, Dr J?
And - crucially - exactly what happened to the crew and passengers after their planes took off? Where are they? Were they all murdered? Where? How?! And what happened to all the the planes?
And what about the phone calls? And eye witness accounts? And TV footage?
Your theories get more and more bizarre with each and every post.
editor
hiraethified
I'm afraid my head has filled with fresh information over the months, thus pushing out your old nuggets of information.
So please remind me: what happened to all the planes and what happened to all the passengers? How did they swap the planes over without the air controllers spotting it?
Presumably your fascinating theory means that the passengers phone calls were faked, the passengers murdered and the planes destroyed elsewhere with the air controllers deceived, the relatives deceived, and of course, the sensational use of these ne'er seen before and ne'er seen since remote controlled passenger aircraft?
Is that about it?
Well, I must admit you aren't far off! I'd be happy to refresh your memory but it is a diversion for this thread, which is a call for evidence for the utterly preposterous official theory, which involves hijackers that pass through cameras unobserved, miraculous passports, Black Boxes that vanish from entirely from three flights and leave no data on the fourth, cellphone calls that have never been made before, planes that crash through walls leaving holes not as big as their cross-section.. to name a few details... oh, musn't forget the hijackers that are still alive!
So I'll present my theory on a new thread, but as some posters have moaned about the volume of 9-11 threads lately, and with some justification, let's wait until a couple have dropped off the boards.
.. do stay interested!
So I'll present my theory on a new thread, but as some posters have moaned about the volume of 9-11 threads lately, and with some justification, let's wait until a couple have dropped off the boards.
.. do stay interested!
editor
hiraethified
Why so reticent?
I'm sure your fascinating tale of ne'er seen before remote control technology, incredible vanishing planes, amazing vanishing passengers and miraculously faked phone calls will prove better than any bedtime story.
And what's more, it's entirely on topic for this thread, so let's hear it!
If it's not evidence FOR the 'hijack' theory of 9-11, or a response commenting on evidence presented by someone else, it's not 'on topic'.Not that any of these threads have managed to stay on topic for very long, and it is tough to work out which one you're on at any given time (well ... without checking the window header, anyway.)
editor
hiraethified
I see you're once again charging in to 'advise' me on how I should be posting and what is and isn't on-topic.
DrJ is proposing that the official version is all lies (hence this thread), so I'm asking him what he thinks really happened. And that's ON TOPIC. Got it? (and it's a damn sight more on topic than you butting in with your tedious little pearls of wisdom).
There's already more than enough 9/11 threads here right now, and I have no intention of starting one a brand bew every time a thread veers one degree off the subject title - no matter what you think.
So unless you've got anything relevant to add to this discussion, please keep your off-topic attacks to yourself because they're boring the arse off me.
This thread was intended to consider the strength and weaknesses of the official version of events, and it would be a diversion to switch attention to another theory.
But perhaps editor is always right, because it's his website?
no-one has asked anyone to start a brand new thread, and even I'm growing a little weary of all this right at the moment.
But perhaps editor is always right, because it's his website?
no-one has asked anyone to start a brand new thread, and even I'm growing a little weary of all this right at the moment.
Quite frankly, no. Look, nice try at diverting this thread into the same as all the others, but it isn't happening.
I need not dance to your tune, which is the same cacophony on every thread, and I'm not the only poster who is sick of it. I will be happy to present my theory on a new thread but only when others have dropped off the boards.
If you have decided to censor future threads, that's your business but I'll say this - damn poor show mate.
editor
hiraethified
So it's a 'damn poor show' allowing you to freely use these boards to post up thousands of your dodgy 9/11 conspiracy claims, and it's a 'damn poor show' if I dare ask you to explain what you believe actually happened on 9/11?
Clearly, providing a free forum, run and administered in my own time and at my own expense isn't enough for you.
You're entitled to your opinion about how I run these boards of course, and, as usual, I won't be stopping you expressing your viewpoint, but it rather begs the question: what do you do for me, DrJ?
It seems like I'm doing all the providing and you're doing all the moaning....
In The Guardian today...
Michael Moore is now questioning the credibility of the official story for 9-11.
Answers please, Mr Bush
Michael Moore is now questioning the credibility of the official story for 9-11.
Answers please, Mr Bush
editor
hiraethified
In The Guardian today...
In fact, I can't see anything in that article that supports your evidence-free, conspiracy-tastic version of events, only support for the 'cock-up' theory.
Try as I might, I couldn't find any references to disappearing planes, disappearing passengers, faked phone calls, remote control aircraft and the WTC being hit by guided missiles or exploded from within.
In fact, I can't see anything in that article that supports your evidence-free, conspiracy-tastic version of events, only support for the 'cock-up' theory.
I'm really confused now. I know about the hijack theory, and I know some of Dr. J's theory, I also know that a lot of people think that the USG knew it was going to happen and did nothing to stop it , but what is the "cock-up" theory?
ftp,
My understanding of the "cock up" theory, is that the USG could and really should have done much, much more to prevent the attacks. This did not happen due to one or more "cock ups" within the administration.
No conspiracies, no USG involvement, complicity or deliberate inaction. Merely an unintentional "cock up", or series thereof, by the USG.
Implausible perhaps, but it's another "theory"
Woof
My understanding of the "cock up" theory, is that the USG could and really should have done much, much more to prevent the attacks. This did not happen due to one or more "cock ups" within the administration.
No conspiracies, no USG involvement, complicity or deliberate inaction. Merely an unintentional "cock up", or series thereof, by the USG.
Implausible perhaps, but it's another "theory"
Woof
It sounds like the "buck-passing" theory to me, and indeed strikes me as pretty implausible.
Thanks for that.
<passes the dog a rubber bone>
editor
hiraethified
Since when were government/military incompetence, bungling, fuck ups and subsequent attempts to cover up the aforementioned 'implausible'?
History's littered with such events and such a theory is a damn sight more plausible than ne'er-before-seen remote controlled passenger aircraft using invisible technology smashing into US buildings in unprecedented acts of self destruction.
Etc etc etc etczzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Bush had much to gain from the attacks going ahead, a point made by Paul Donovan
He also bemoans the fact that journalists seem so have become "parrotts of the official truth."
At the very moment that the planes hit the WTC, a minuted FBI meeting was discussing "what would happen if a plane hit a skyscaper", theres every reason to believe that they had wind of the threat, and could and should have had the airforce on full alert.
Cock-ups sometimes happen when bosses deliberately suppress information or veto actions which might prevent a disaster. Leaders have been known to "sacrifice" citizens for large-scale political gain.
He also bemoans the fact that journalists seem so have become "parrotts of the official truth."
At the very moment that the planes hit the WTC, a minuted FBI meeting was discussing "what would happen if a plane hit a skyscaper", theres every reason to believe that they had wind of the threat, and could and should have had the airforce on full alert.
Cock-ups sometimes happen when bosses deliberately suppress information or veto actions which might prevent a disaster. Leaders have been known to "sacrifice" citizens for large-scale political gain.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
