WTC attacks - the alternative thread

[fela fan]

But thanks for yet another of your personal interjections.

As useful as ever.

You're most welcome. That's me, full of usefulness... . It's what i do best.

I had some useful questions just above your post.

Any answers?

 

[editor]

there they were, all these passengers on this flight, and with all their mobiles turned off (as is the rule for flights), they get to hear about other planes getting hijacked.

How did they get to know this fact?

FFS: how many more times do you need have to have this answered?

Read. And learn.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080117/

 

[Jazzz]

Initial reports were that a 'private jet' had hit the north tower. So at that point it would be nothing more than a tragic accident.

Actually, there was a military emergency from the time that air traffic control lost contact with that flight, let alone when it ploughs into the WTC. But let's suppose you are right.

What do you then do when a second plane hits the WTC and Andrew Card, your advisor, then comes into your classroom photo op, and tells you 'America is under attack'? Remember that in a few minutes two more planes are about to be hijacked, and the world trade centre is about to crash...

A) Get immediately picked up physically by secret service agents and taken to a secure military installation where you are both safe and able to authorize the defence necessary for your country

B) continue listening to seven year olds telling you a story about a pet goat for another half an hour where you won't have a fucking clue what is going on

Which would you do?

.... And which did Bush do?

You have to agree this is totally insane.

 

[fela fan]

FFS: how many more times do you need have to have this answered?

Read. And learn.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080117/

I am truly flabbergasted! I just simply cannot believe you tout that as evidence of these phone calls being real. That reads worse than a poorly contructed novel. Reagan would have been considered far too good an actor to feature in such a C grade movie.

I stuggled to find one bit to quote, but here:

"“Well, there was an elderly woman named Hilda Marcin,” says Longman. “Once a man tried to snatch her purse, and she beat him over the head with her umbrella. She wasn’t afraid to stand up for herself.”"

So, evidence of the great kind of folk on this particular flight!!

It's absolutely fucking amazing.

And since you've read the transcripts of these phone calls, did any of them mention that the pilots were now out of the cockpit and sitting at the back of the plane with them?

And 40 people storming the cockpit in single file? Battering down the door with a food trolley?

That report is the most incredible thing i've read that is supposed to pass as news and/or reality that i can remember in ages.

I did read and learn mate. I learnt that i shall never believe anything that MSNBC write.

I am now seriously beginning to think those phone calls are not what they tell us they were. What a fucking story!!!!!

 

[fela fan]

Which would you do?

.... And which did Bush do?

You have to agree this is totally insane.

Hey mate, did you read that link editor provided immediately above your post?? Coz it's the most incredible thing i've read in bloody ages!!

I am really really flumoxed that this report can be taken seriously. It is straight out of a dreadful novel. American heroes and all that stuff. It's a western!!

 

[editor]

I am now seriously beginning to think those phone calls are not what they tell us they were. What a fucking story!!!!!

Far better to believe in the drivel you soak up from fantasy conspiracy sites, eh?

I suppose the BBC are lying too, along with all the relatives of those who died because fela fan - and his band of internet fantasy writers - know better.

Seeing as this thread is once again going the way of all 9/11 threads before it, I can't see much point in keeping it around.

Seeing as you're so obsessed with repeating your 'you know better' mantra, isn't there another bulletin board available for you to type this kind of tedious nonsense?

I'm bored with it.

 

[fela fan]

Far better to believe in the drivel you soak up from fantasy conspiracy sites, eh?

I suppose the BBC are lying too, along with all the relatives of those who died because fela fan - and his band of internet fantasy writers - know better.

Seeing as this thread is once again going the way of all 9/11 threads before it, I can't see much point in keeping it around.

Seeing as you're so obsessed with repeating your 'you know better' mantra, isn't there another bulletin board available for you to type this kind of tedious nonsense?

I'm bored with it.

I don't read any other sites, just urban. Never mind 'soak' them up.

If i get bored with a thread, i concentrate on contributing to other threads that interest me. Why not do the same?

I do hope you keep the thread for a while longer, coz i'd like to know what other posters think of that link from msnbc that you quoted.

Coz if that's evidence, then i definitely must be a conspiricist!!

 

[fela fan]

It would be a shame to lose the thread, just as 'evidence' is being put forward to back the USG theory. This needs discussing. It is different to the other 911 threads, coz we're trying to ascertain any reasons to accept the official theory of what happened. If the reasons are good enough, i'm flexible enough to change my beliefs. Nothing yet so far mind.

Anyways, i've now put that link into my favourites. I definitely wanted to keep that. It's a peach.

What do others think of that report from msnbc??

 

[Jazzz]

The hard job was done by the airlines pilots i.e. taking off and gaining height. The last minute revision may have simply been to check where the 'autopilot disengage' swithch was.

As I have said else where, the pilot of the plane that hit the north tower appears to have navigated by following route 49 W to Albany and then route 23 S to NYC. Hardly the navigational skills of an expert pilot.

The pilot of the plane that flew into the south tower of the WTC very nearly missed it. Again hardly the skills of an expert pilot.

If someone can pinpoint the pentagon on a map of Washington (mapquest doesn't show it), I have severe doubts about the so called eye witnesses that described the aerial manouvers of flight 77.

What about the guys in air traffic control? Do you doubt them too?

At 500 miles per hour, Flight 77 was rocketing toward what is known as P-56, protected air space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol.

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," O'Brien said. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." newsmax

Hani Hanjour somehow managed to descend 6000ft in two minutes while performing a 270-degree hairpin turn, hitting the Pentagon with a horizontal approach. Astonishing stuff, from a man who was forbidden to fly a single-engine Cessna! This interview with the controllers also reveals that they had no idea that the blip on their screens was flight 77, entirely consistent with a switch of planes.

 

[editor]

What do others think of that report from msnbc??

Of course, if you'd bothered to read what I wrote (and read the information when I posted the same thing yesterday), you would have understood that I presented that link to provide you with an answer to your the oft-repeated question as to how the passengers got to hear of the 9/11 attacks.

I've no interest in msnbc's emotive style of writing, but if you've got a single shred of evidence to suggest that any of the people who took the calls were lying, I'd be delighted to hear it.

But I guess I'll be waiting forever for that one, eh?

 

[Jazzz]

If i get bored with a thread, i concentrate on contributing to other threads that interest me. Why not do the same?

I'm sure that's what editor meant, he surely isn't so petty as to bin threads simply because he recieves the kind of flak that the rest of us posters have to take on the chin.

That would be really childish, and I am confident editor is bigger than that.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Not quite. It's been suggested that it might be technically possible, although no-one's managed to produce a single example of a remote controlled passenger aircraft in action.

Except, of course, for this one (Boeing 720 in 1984):

The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled
Vehicle Facility. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14
flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs,
69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway.

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/CID/index.html

If we disgard for a moment the (somewhat arbitary) distinction of 'passenger' aircraft, we can look back as far as 1946 and beyond for precedent regarding 'remote control', and plenty since.

That would suggest that it's more difficult than some would suggest. For it to be used in 9/11 and work perfectly, first time without anyone even noticing anything about it stretches credibility to the limit.

Based on the available evidence, I respectfully disagree.

Seeing as 9/11 was over two years ago, you would have thought that this technology would now be widely available if it were so easy to implement.

Personally, I feel it is quite wrong to assume that because we are not party to the such information, such a thing does not exist.

As I have stated many times before: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

I consider it quite arrogant to assume that were a system such as RoboLander (dated 12/11/01) already implemented, we - the 'general public' - would be fully aware of it.

Airlines would be queueing up to install such a marvellous, reliable and presumably cheap anti-hijacking feature, but they're not. Why not?

Again, are you personally privvy to the decisions taken in the higher echelons of the air transport industy? Is anyone here?

One thing that we should consider is the fact that if the existance of such a thing were widely known, many airline pilots (at least, the few that I personally know) would refuse point-blank to fly the aircraft. The fear is that if such a system (capable of effectively taking control from the hands of the pilot) were to suffer a security compromise or technical failure, the potential for hijacking/disaster would actually be increased.

Significantly, the Rediess team report conceded that these various automatic or remote control concepts are "technically feasible." It can be done.

The major challenges, the study says, involve aircrew acceptance (since the concept involves the ultimate loss of pilot discretion and command authority)
http://www.aviationtoday.com/sia/20020301.htm

I find it quite disturbing that seemingly intelligent people are prepared to base their conception of 'reality' solely on what they are told (particularly through mainstream media channels), rather than what they are able to discover and deduce for themselves. Perhaps a little more on this later...

Short of the USG having an advanced, detailed, updated, cross-referenced and comprehensive voice archive on every one of its citizens (and a squadron of perfect Impressionists to hand), there is no way that they could have faked the calls of passengers who hadn't intended to be on that flight.

I'm glad that you choose to describe it in the terms I have highlighted above, as this description (as I hope to demonstrate) is not far from what is documented to exist.

Obviously, good, solid, irrefutable and well sourced information regarding the SIGINT infrastructure and capabilities of the worlds greatest super-power is not quite as readily available (to us, at least) as information regarding commercial avionics, so this will probably take me a little more time and effort to parse and present for your consideration.

Anyway, to start you off on the quest for information, let us first deal with the potential for the NSA to gain access to calls and record them.

The curiously named 'Digital Telephony and Communications Privacy Improvements Act of 1994' passed by congress on Oct 7th of that year made it mandatory that the telcos make all their infrastucture 'wiretap friendly'.

http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/6.805/student-papers/fall94-papers/cohen-digital-telephony.html

I believe that to be technically and humanly impossible. But I'll be fascinated to hear your thoughts on how such personal, deep and emotional conversations between close family members and partners could be faked so convincingly that not one person who received a call has ever doubted them.

Following up on some bits and pieces posted by Bernie G on another thread, I have recently been 'feeding my head' with various information regarding the capabilities, conception, planning and execution of what are termed 'Psycological Operations' (PSYOP). There is absolutley masses of info out there, not all of it the most 'readable' or easily digestable I'm sure, but a few lines of this stood out:

PsyOp Operations in the 21st century by Gary L. Whitley, USAWC Strategy Research Project, US Army War College, 2000

Page 10 (as printed on page - or page 21 of the pdf) contains reference to the term "Simulated and reproduced voices.." Is this a reference to an 'electronic Mike Yarwood'? Further reading will perhaps reveal more...

(sidenote: U75'er may find this one interesting, as it discusses PSYOP in relation to the Internet).

Viewed from the perspective (and with a growing understanding) of PSYOP methods and tecniques, you can gain some interesting insights into all sorts of things - everything from an episode of 'Friends' to the output of the AP newswire looks a little different (indeed sometimes quite sinister) when viewed through such a filter.

What occurs to me now, is that using 'emotional' appeals and arguments regarding the events of September 11th 2001 only serves to demonstrate the effectiveness of the PSYOP techniques I keep reading about.

As do the 128 uses of the word 'conspiracy/ies' (currently still on yor server) you have made.

 

[editor]

Despite your admirable trawling of the web, I still see not a shred of credible evidence to support the notion that the USG were able to simultaneously fake a host of deeply personal phone calls - of up to 26 minutes - from passengers, some of whom weren't even supposed to be on the flight.

Vague references to "Simulated and reproduced voices.." are worthless, unless they specify a means by which such deeply personal information on millions* of passengers could be reproduced so convincingly as to fool their nearest and dearest.

I think the 'faked calls' scenario is a total non-starter, and proof of the desperate lengths some people will go to in a feeble attempt to get their wafer-thin conspiracy stories to stick together.

(slight edit to increase the figure to 'millions')

 

[Jazzz]

I guess that means that editor has finally conceded the plausibility of computer controlled modified passenger aircraft!!!

.... good work backatcha!!!

wonders will never cease.

 

[editor]

I guess that means that editor has finally conceded the plausibility of computer controlled modified passenger aircraft!!!

You're joking, right?

One custom designed aircraft stuffed full of specialist equipment for carefully monitored tests (with a screwed up landing, despite 14 test runs) is a world away from your fantasy tale of vanishing aircraft, inch perfect remote control passenger planes, invisible equipment, disappearing passengers and pilots, holographic planes and CIA Mike Yarwood departments.

I've no doubt that it would be technically possible to get a passenger plane stuffed full of specialist equipment and prepared carefully beforehand to fly remotely.

I have every doubt that the hijacked passenger aircraft involved in 9/11 were remotely controlled and I have even more doubts about your ludicrous tale of planes being switched mid air and passengers being dumped and killed... where exactly?

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

I've no doubt that it would be technically possible to get a passenger plane stuffed full of specialist equipment and prepared carefully beforehand to fly remotely.

For the purposes of clarification, do you agree with WouldBe's statement:

Is it possible with existing hardware? Yes quite probably

(here)

And if not, perhaps indicate on exactly what basis you reject it?

 

[Irish Bandit]

If the hijackers names were removed from the published passenger manifests out of respect for those killed as you suggest then that means the original manifests must have been edited versions... so where are the original versions?

This may come as a surprise to you but not everything is available on the internet. The original passenger lists are probably in the possesion of the FAA.

And on a comical note the most commonly quoted source of the passenger lists by conspiracy theorists is at CNN.com. Take a look at the URL. Notice the word 'victims' in there?

Where are the eye-witness statements from ground staff confirming the presence of the 'hijackers' at all of the airports on the morning of September 11?

Where is the CCTV footage showing them passing through the airports in question?

The FBI are not required to release evidence for the amusement of conspiracy theorists. You seem to think this is the first time in history investigators haven't told the public everything but unless they intend to prosecute (which they can't) then they don't have to.

 

[editor]

And if not, perhaps indicate on exactly what basis you reject it?

You'll have to help me out here: which remote control planes are we talking about:

1. the 'guided missile' planes that were supposedly swapped for the real planes mid flight? (with the original planes magically disappearing and the passengers presumably slaughtered somewhere or another)
2. the holographic planes containing no passengers and hijackers?
3. the original planes containing the passengers and pilots who were rendered helpless by the remote control?
4. the original planes that contained the hijackers, pilots and passengers?

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

You'll have to help me out here: which remote control planes are we talking about:

1. the 'guided missile' planes that were supposedly swapped for the real planes mid flight? (with the original planes magically disappearing and the passengers presumably slaughtered somewhere or another)
2. the holographic planes containing no passengers and hijackers?
3. the original planes containing the passengers and pilots who were rendered helpless by the remote control?
4. the original planes that contained the hijackers, pilots and passengers?

How about 'any Boeing 757 or 767 aircraft owned and operated by either American Airlines or United Airlines at the time of the attacks'.

 

[bigfish]

The original passenger lists are probably in the possesion of the FAA.

I know!

Why don't you drop them a line to see if you can confirm your opinion and then get back to us?

 

[Irish Bandit]

I know!

Why don't you drop them a line to see if you can confirm your opinion and then get back to us?

So you've only just realised the passenger lists released by the media were lists of victims (so as a result wouldn't include the hijackers) and not quite the smoking gun you thought they were.

How embarrassing.

 

[WouldBe]

Sorry for quoting this in full but Fela asks several questions and his quote needs to be read unedited-

Wouldbe, i'm interested in your answer to this:

there they were, all these passengers on this flight, and with all their mobiles turned off (as is the rule for flights), they get to hear about other planes getting hijacked.

How did they get to know this fact?

And another question: we are told many of the calls were made from the plane phones, which editor has said are at the back of the plane. So far as i know, every hijacked flight has hijackers patrolling the plane making sure passengers stay exactly where they are. So how could this plane have the passengers queuing up to make phone calls at the back of the plane?

And, bearing in mind the small passenger load, how could so many of the passengers make lengthy calls on their mobiles without escaping the gaze of the hijackers?

There would have been at least five hijackers (based on 19 on four flights), and for sure you cannot fit five extra people in a small cockpit. So why were the hijackers allowing all these passengers to use their mobiles and politely queue up at the back of the plane to use the plane phone?

[Perhaps the passengers weren't afraid of hijackers holding boxcutters...?]

Firstly you state there were all these passengers, by this I am assuming you mean the fully loaded plane after the others have been switched. Then you later state bearing in mind the small passenger load

Which is it? a full plane or a lightly loaded one. Your not only cofusing yourself but me as well.

All their mobiles turned off This may well be 'the rules' but has been proved by posters on here and the experimenter on Dewdneys website, these rules are often ignored.

they get to hear about other aircraft being hijacked Why do they need to know about 'other' aircraft being hijacked? If you believe Dewdneys version they were told by the USG agents and an apparent hijacker removed from the aircraft at Harrisburg airport.

If the aircraft were actually hijacked it would be bloody ovious what was going on.

plane phones at the back While reasearching this it would appear that several versions of aircraft actually have satellite phones in each of the arm rests, so there would be no need to 'sneak to the back' or queue up.

 

[editor]

How about 'any Boeing 757 or 767 aircraft owned and operated by either American Airlines or United Airlines at the time of the attacks'.

If you want a specific answer, please provide a specific - and pertinent - scenario please.

 

[WouldBe]

Actually, there was a military emergency from the time that air traffic control lost contact with that flight, let alone when it ploughs into the WTC.

There couldn't be a military emergency without NORAD springing into action, which according to the conspiracy theory they did not do. So which is it?

ATC did not lose contact with the flight, thats why we have flight path details for all the flights except 77.

Wrt to Bush's actions, isn't hindsight a wonderful thing and who knows what he thinks anyway.

 

[WouldBe]

What about the guys in air traffic control? Do you doubt them too?
Hani Hanjour somehow managed to descend 6000ft in two minutes while performing a 270-degree hairpin turn, hitting the Pentagon with a horizontal approach. Astonishing stuff, from a man who was forbidden to fly a single-engine Cessna! This interview with the controllers also reveals that they had no idea that the blip on their screens was flight 77, entirely consistent with a switch of planes.

With all aircraft in US airspace being forced to land at the nearest airport I'm supprised they had time to notice they would certainly have had their work cut out.

If the Pentagon is where I think it is, just west of the Potomac, then virtually half way between there and the white house is Ronal Regan international airport. So the radar would have been covered in blips of aircraft of all shapes and sizes coming into land and not all aircraft have IFF. In fact almost NO small aircraft have IFF fitted.

As for not being safe to fly a 757 like that I don't think that would have bothered the terrorists in the slightest.

Edit: According to Dewdney, if the IFF is turned off the ATC have no idea what height the aircraft is flying at, so how did ATC know the plane descended 6000ft in 2 minutes?

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

If you want a specific answer, please provide a specific - and pertinent - scenario please.

American Airlines flight 11, a Boeing 767, which crashed into the North tower of the World Trade Centre at 8.46 am on 11/9/01.

If you disagree with WouldBe's statement [that I have quoted above] regarding remote control of this aircraft, on what basis do you disagree?

 

[WouldBe]

For the purposes of clarification, do you agree with WouldBe's statement:

Is it possible with existing hardware? Yes quite probably

I thought this might cause some confusion when I answered the question. Let me try and clarify.

The digital Flight Control System certainly makes it easier to remote control/ automate a flight.

Even though we have already seen that the EICAS and the FCC can be 'software loadable' this doesn't mean that you can just bung in a floppy disk and away you go. The entire system runs on bi-directional data links but this doesn't mean that this is a potential point of control. e.g. there is a bi-directional link between your PC and printer but you can't use the printer as an input device to control the PC. Even with the FCC, just because you can load a new version of software easily doesn't mean you can load data as well. All computer systems do a syatems check when powered up including a memory test, which if it does a destructive test means your data would be lost when the system was re-booted.

Without having access to more details of the system I couldn't say for certain if it is possible.

In the case of 9/11 I doubt very much that it was.

 

[editor]

If you disagree with WouldBe's statement [that I have quoted above] regarding remote control of this aircraft, on what basis do you disagree?

I repeat: which version of events are you asking me about?

There's been several versions of these 'remote control planes' and unless you offer me some specific details of which scenario you think is the most likely, then I'm not inclined to waste my time producing a long list to cover every possible and improbable scenario.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

I repeat: which version of events are you asking me about?

There's been several versions of these 'remote control planes' and unless you offer me some specific details of which scenario you think is the most likely, then I'm not inclined to waste my time producing a long list to cover every possible and improbable scenario.

This is getting funny.

Using any 'version' you care to choose (it can involve Wile E. Coyote for all I care) please explain upon what basis you reject the technical possibility of taking remote control of any of the aircraft in question using the existing hardware, if indeed you still do.

Or you can just concede that it indeed is technically possible.

I really can't see why you are having such a problem articulating a response, it seems a fairly simple question to me. You have asked me many times why I consider it to be possible, I have spent a long time researching and retrieving information to answer your question, which I have presented.

Now all I ask is that you either accept the answers I have given, or if you reject them, tell me on what basis.

Demanding that I construct some elaborate theory around such technical possibilities in the hope that I'll slip up and provide you with a crack to wriggle out of simply isn't going to work.

 

[editor]

This is getting funny.

You're telling me it is.

Why are you refusing to express an opinion on what you think is the most likely scenario? You tell me what you think really happened and then I'll be delighted to offer my opinion on the matter.

Why do you expect me to furnish you with an A-Z of my opinions on every one of the multitude of theories expressed thus far?

I'm not interested in wasting my time over the 'possibilities' of holographic missiles, thanks.