HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Offbeat » Creative Speculation (Group) » Does Spooked911 Post Anyw...

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 11:31 PM

Does Spooked911 Post Anywhere?

Didn't he have a blog or something? Like the Nutty Scientist or something?

I still don't know who is enforcing the moon blockade, and I've been totally roped in by this mars lander fakery.

58 replies, 5669 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 58 replies Author Time Post
Reply Does Spooked911 Post Anywhere? (Original post)
jberryhill Aug 2012 OP
zappaman Aug 2012 #1
LARED Aug 2012 #2
Ohio Joe Aug 2012 #3
eomer Aug 2012 #4
zappaman Aug 2012 #5
jberryhill Aug 2012 #6
zappaman Aug 2012 #7
apocalypsehow Aug 2012 #8
Bolo Boffin Aug 2012 #13
LARED Aug 2012 #9
Codeine Aug 2012 #10
Frank_Norris_Lives Aug 2012 #11
zappaman Aug 2012 #12
Frank_Norris_Lives Aug 2012 #14
zappaman Aug 2012 #15
Frank_Norris_Lives Aug 2012 #16
LARED Aug 2012 #17
Frank_Norris_Lives Aug 2012 #18
zappaman Aug 2012 #19
LARED Aug 2012 #20
Frank_Norris_Lives Aug 2012 #21
LARED Aug 2012 #22
Frank_Norris_Lives Aug 2012 #23
LARED Aug 2012 #24
zappaman Aug 2012 #25
LARED Aug 2012 #26
Frank_Norris_Lives Aug 2012 #28
LARED Aug 2012 #29
Frank_Norris_Lives Sep 2012 #33
zappaman Aug 2012 #30
LARED Aug 2012 #32
Ghost in the Machine Sep 2012 #37
LARED Sep 2012 #42
Ghost in the Machine Sep 2012 #43
LARED Sep 2012 #44
Frank_Norris_Lives Sep 2012 #34
Frank_Norris_Lives Sep 2012 #40
jberryhill Sep 2012 #49
Ghost in the Machine Sep 2012 #35
Frank_Norris_Lives Sep 2012 #36
Ghost in the Machine Sep 2012 #38
Frank_Norris_Lives Sep 2012 #39
William Seger Sep 2012 #41
Frank_Norris_Lives Sep 2012 #45
William Seger Sep 2012 #46
Frank_Norris_Lives Sep 2012 #47
William Seger Sep 2012 #48
jberryhill Sep 2012 #50
Ghost in the Machine Sep 2012 #51
jberryhill Sep 2012 #52
cpwm17 Aug 2012 #27
Flatulo Sep 2012 #53
Frank_Norris_Lives Sep 2012 #54
Flatulo Sep 2012 #55
AZCat Sep 2012 #56
Flatulo Sep 2012 #57
AZCat Sep 2012 #58
Ter Aug 2012 #31

Response to jberryhill (Original post)


Response to zappaman (Reply #1)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:08 PM

2. The first post is from the future

 

Dated 12/31/2012

gotta love him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #1)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:25 PM

3. I hate to ask but... Would you delete the link to his blog?

I do miss the old Spooked but looking at what he has there now... Fuck the asshole, he is wandering into Holocaust denial and trying to justify that shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ohio Joe (Reply #3)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 07:06 PM

4. I second the request to delete.

Not sure, there's not a time limit on self-delete is there?

Anyway, I also would appreciate it if you would. None of us want to be associated with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ohio Joe (Reply #3)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 01:14 AM

5. Whoa..I did not see that.

Self deleted.
Thanks for the heads up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #5)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 04:20 PM

6. Yeah... I didn't know he'd wandered onto that reservation...


What's goofy is that he claims he's not "denying" the Holocaust, but quibbling over details.

As if it mattered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #6)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 08:22 PM

7. Well, he did once say he believed almost every conspiracy out there

so I guess it was just a matter of time until he hit that particular one.
Still...wtf?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #7)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 02:26 PM

8. It surprises me very little that "spook" has wandered into the Holocaust Denial

swamp: most CT'ers either (a) start out from that position and develop their bullshit theories from there, or (b) come to hold anti-semitic views themselves, as most conspiracy theories are predicated on the belief that "the Jews" are responsible for whatever ills there are in the world. The phony, fraudulent "911 Truth" movement, for instance, is simply brimming with hateful anti-semitic and Holocaust Denying-memes and assertions; anti-semitism is a staple of a large part of the JFK/RFK/MLK assassination conspiracy crowd, though not to the same extent as the phony, fraudulent "911 Truth" movement. Similarly, the "Zeitgeist" silliness reeks with anti-semitic tropes.

I didn't see the content of the material on "spooked's" blog, since the link had already been removed by the time I ran across this thread. But I'm not surprised to hear he's entered such territory: 99% of CT'ers eventually do, all in the name of "just asking questions."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #8)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 04:28 AM

13. I saw the link before it was deleted.

Believe me, it was a sewer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #6)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 09:47 PM

9. Spooked probably always was firmly planted on that reservation as I recall he

 

frequently stepped up to the edge of antisemitic, anti zionist themes but never took the plunge on the old DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ohio Joe (Reply #3)

Sat Aug 25, 2012, 11:52 PM

10. Conspiracy theorists are all anti-Semites.

"Joozdidit" is where it all eventually leads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 03:42 AM

11. Maybe he gave up.....

after the typical DU 9/11 debunkers wouldn't address legitimate questions - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x39597

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frank_Norris_Lives (Reply #11)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 04:38 PM

12. What legitimate questions?

And he didn't give up.
He was thrown off for repeatedly violating the TOS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #12)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 04:57 AM

14. The legitimate question in his post I linked to...

namely, how is it that of 4 hijacked planes, not one plane sent a hijacking signal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frank_Norris_Lives (Reply #14)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 01:12 PM

15. Maybe because the pilots were busy fighting for their lives

while getting their throats cut?
Sending a signal might not have been first on their priorities of things to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #15)

Wed Aug 29, 2012, 02:10 AM

16. The airline pilots

were generally former US Air Force & Navy pilots. Those are people with training out the yinyang, training that teaches you to react without thinking. Even former fighter pilots.

Is it realistic to expect that none of the 8 pilots/co-pilots followed their training? That none of them had 2-3 seconds to react and punch in a 4 number code? If this seems realistic to you then......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frank_Norris_Lives (Reply #16)

Wed Aug 29, 2012, 05:59 AM

17. You do realize that prior to 9/11 pilots were trained to

 

not resist hijackings. Because it was in the best interest of safety to allow the plane to be hijacked. The prevailing thought was that hijackers wanted to land somewhere.

But don't let rational thinking get in the way, it's been a long while since anyone actually tried to promote this meme and I am enjoying the ride down memory lane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LARED (Reply #17)

Wed Aug 29, 2012, 09:31 AM

18. Are proposing that....

Last edited Wed Aug 29, 2012, 10:30 AM - Edit history (1)

activating a signal constitutes resistance? That would be like a bank teller, who is instructed not to resist a robber, being also told not to activate the silent alarm because that would be resistance. Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frank_Norris_Lives (Reply #18)

Wed Aug 29, 2012, 02:16 PM

19. Again....let's suppose someone comes at you with a boxcutter

and is trying to slit your throat.

Do you:
A. Activate a hijacking signal.
B. Fight for your life.
C. Order lunch.

Take your pick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frank_Norris_Lives (Reply #18)

Wed Aug 29, 2012, 06:02 PM

20. No I'm proposing that given the choice

 

between (a) trying to avoid getting having your throat slit or (b) hitting the hijack code, most pilots are going to opt for option A

Seem this to be a difficult concept for you to grasp.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LARED (Reply #20)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 02:39 AM

21. I would hazard to guess that .....

you don't know much about military training or what it brings with it. This training makes people react without thinking. Maybe you just don't have any experience with this so it's presently beyond your ken.

That none of the eight pilots had any warning at all what was transpiring - that eight ex-military pilots all lost their box cutter fights against generally smaller men, that none of the eight had 2 seconds to react with the signal? This gets better all the time.

Your standpoint requires that all eight pilots are surprised from behind and lost their fights. I'll share that with my military colleagues for a good laugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frank_Norris_Lives (Reply #21)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 06:17 AM

22. Have a great day

 

on whatever planet you inhabit.

So the pilots were all military men that should have easily thwarted the attacks, but did not.

So what's your theory?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LARED (Reply #22)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 10:49 AM

23. Can we clarify your standpoint first?

We accept the fact that no hijack signals were heard/received, yes? Your theory is that 8 ex-military pilots in 4 different situations all failed to execute a trained, simple 2-second action because they were all surprised and quickly overpowered by slighter men. Would that be an accurate summary of your standpoint?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frank_Norris_Lives (Reply #23)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 08:24 PM

24. No. I've been through this silliness for years. I can't even remember all the details at this point

 

Why not just offer your explaination and get to the end quickly by telling us what kind of truther are you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LARED (Reply #24)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 08:33 PM

25. Can't wait to hear the explanation.

shall we bet on which kind it is?
I'm thinking hologram planes...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #25)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 09:02 PM

26. I think we are definitely in no planer territory.

 

But I'm thinking plane swapper.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LARED (Reply #24)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 03:33 AM

28. Well, you didn't contest my summary of your viewpoint so...

let's close that by saying most reasonable people would find it highly improbable. So where does that leave us?

I see possibilities:

A) At least one signal was activated, it sent, but was not received
B) At least one signal was activated, but it did not send
C) No signal was activated for reasons other than the great box cutter battles


Possibility A would seem highly improbable - how do you prevent someone from receiving a signal?.

Possibility C: it's relevant that the tapes of flt 93 indicate the pilots were alive outside of the cockpit so they weren't immediately killed, preventing them from squawking the signal. There was also a report of something like mace from one of the planes. A mace attack is bad but ex-military would have been in NBC chambers every couple of years and they make you take your mask off shortly while during that training so having stinging s**t in your face is not immediately incapacitating for a 2-3 second reaction. I still don't see anything preventing them sending a signal.

Possibility B: Relevant here is the fact that there were at least three false electronic hijacking signals that morning from other aircraft that have never been explained. So, we have aircraft falsely sending signals and the real hijacks are not sending any signal. I conclude that something prevented the signal from transmission. There was a ghost in the machine before the hijackers got their hands on the pilots (to whatever extent they did). It would seem to me that someone screwed with the plane's software. That sabotage software is feasible we have seen in the news. A customized virus will do the trick. Someone helped the hijackers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frank_Norris_Lives (Reply #28)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 05:29 AM

29. So does that mean you are an

 

advocate of plane swapping, holographic planes, or something else?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LARED (Reply #29)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 02:58 AM

33. Plane Swapping...

...how curious! Why would one need to swap planes if they're already in the software? The sky's (pardon me here) the limit. One has prevented their hijacking signal from being sent and in fact, while we know that pilots were alive outside of the cockpit, there is really very, very little said over the radios from the planes and except for flt 93 I believe, nothing hijacking-related at all from the others. It would seem their comms are taken down. At the same time there are three other planes that day sending out false hijacking signals, one plane even three times but none of the four hijacked sent any signal. Sowing confusion. Someone was the ghost in several machines and there's no telling how much control over the planes they might have had.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frank_Norris_Lives (Reply #28)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 02:37 PM

30. "It would seem to me that someone screwed with the plane's software."

Well, that's a new one!
But just as much a stretch as all the others!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #30)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 06:39 PM

32. I'm willing to up the odds this a plane swapper truther

 

messing with software seems to lead to messing with radar and other identifiers making plane swapping "possible".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LARED (Reply #32)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 05:25 AM

37. Plane swapping...

I suppose you've never heard of Operation Northwoods in all your years here as a "debunker"? Surely you've read it, haven't you?

8.It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will begin transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.

9.It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.

a. Approximately 4 or 5 F-101 aircraft will be dispatched in trail from Homestead AFB, Florida, to the vicinity of Cuba. Their mission will be to reverse course and simulate fakir aircraft for an air defense exercise in southern Florida. These aircraft would conduct variations of these flights at frequent Intervals. Crews would be briefed to remain at least 12 miles off the Cuban coast; however, they would be required to carry live ammunition in the event that hostile actions were taken by the Cuban MIGs.

b. On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly tail-end Charley at considerable interval between aircraft. While near the Cuban Island this pilot would broadcast that he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down. No other calls would be made. The pilot would then fly directly west at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary. The aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The pilot who had performed the mission under an alias, would resume his proper identity and return to his normal place of business. The pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared.

c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down, a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately 15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart. The pilots returning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods


Wouldn't you agree that if this was possible in 1962, it would most certainly be possible in 2001, given that we have much more sophisticated technology now as opposed to then?

Peace,

Ghost

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost in the Machine (Reply #37)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 10:07 PM

42. On paper it's possible even though Operations Northwoods never occurred

 

It's also possible that Buddhist trained monkeys planted thermite in the WTC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LARED (Reply #42)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 02:47 AM

43. "On paper it's possible even though Operations Northwoods never occurred"

Why didn't Operation Northwoods ever occur? Could it have had anything to do with having a LIBERAL President in office who wouldn't allow it to occur? You remember that man don't you? President John F Kennedy?

Now take a look at who was in office when 9-11 happened, who were also fellow NeoCon PNAC'ers. Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and his Deputy Paul Wolfowitz. Consider the fact that Cheney & Rumsfeld had both held the SECDEF positions before, which would have given them access to the Classified Documents of Operation Northwoods. Also consider the fact that Cheney & Rumsfeld were long time co-conspirators, dating back to 1974-75, when they were conspiring to hush, or discredit Investigative Journalist Seymour Hersh over an article about Operation Ivy Bells. They had plenty of time to cook up 9-11, like an Operation Northwoods Version 2.0, wouldn't you think?

Do you have anything of value to add to this discussion, or do you prefer to stick to silly comments such as "It's also possible that Buddhist trained monkeys planted thermite in the WTC."?

Peace,

Ghost

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost in the Machine (Reply #43)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 06:10 AM

44. Adding actual evidenace to the discussion would be great

 

Do you have any that 9/11 was a covert operation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #30)


Response to zappaman (Reply #30)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 09:08 AM

40. A stretch is believing.....

that 8 pilots in four different situations were all incapable of communicating any warning or alert either via the hijacking code or normal radio, things that take just a few seconds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #30)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 04:54 PM

49. We've seen remote controllers before

IMHO, remote controllers were around before no-planers, and were closely related to the "pod people".

I think the "pods" included remote control mechanisms.

But the "pod people" got really beat up by other Truther schools, and took the remote controllers with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frank_Norris_Lives (Reply #28)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 04:35 AM

35. "There was a ghost in the machine before the hijackers got their hands on the pilots.."

I had absolutely NOTHING to do with the attacks on 9-11!!!



Welcome to DU....

Peace,

Ghost

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost in the Machine (Reply #35)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 05:08 AM

36. Don't guess...

...that you could have been in more planes than one but then, what limits are there on a ghost anyway?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frank_Norris_Lives (Reply #36)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 05:51 AM

38. That's where my name came from... back in my old days of hacking....

I always used to say "there's always a ghost in the machine somewhere". I haven't done it in many, many years, don't have the tools and toys for it anymore, but that's wandering off topic a little anyways.

It's certainly possible to hack into the auto-pilot and override the system and take full control of a commercial airliner, communications and all... or at least it was in 2000 - 2001.

See my post #37 about swapping planes... what's your take on it?

Peace,

Ghost

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost in the Machine (Reply #38)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 09:06 AM

39. If we conclude that the comms were remotely cut via software control, then we must consider.....

...the possibility of full operational control of the aircraft. This would have greatly increased chances of mission success (especially considering these were only somewhat-trained pilots) and, I think, provides the only theory that explains the success of the plane targeting. Namely, the towers were both hit within one floor of the bottom of the sections additionally fire-proofed in the years up to 2001 (don't know what that means but considering each tower had 110 stories or so, that's like a 1 in 100 coincidence) and the precision of the plane hitting the Pentagon with its 7,000 foot tight spiral at 500 knots, circling 3/4 of the building to also hit a recently renovated section (again, don't know the import of that other than the only section to be COMPLETELY wiped out was Naval Intelligence).

With full remote control of the planes, why would you want to swap planes? I see that as all too complicated and unnecessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frank_Norris_Lives (Reply #39)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:00 PM

41. Abject nonsense

A transponder is a simple, self-contained radio receiver/transmitter device that responds when it receives a command. It is not controlled by any software or connected to any other plane systems. And, BTW, nobody could dial four digits into a transponder in two seconds, even if they weren't under attack, and even if that were their number one priority -- neither of which was the case.

> then we must consider the possibility of full operational control of the aircraft.

Absolutely not possible with a standard 757 or 767, so you must further "consider the possibility" that rigging these four planes for remote control was just another step in the Rube Goldberg conspiracy that you imagine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #41)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 08:29 AM

45. Mousetrap! Loved it as a kid! Not required here though.....

1. Mode S transponders were in use.
2. As they are receivers as well as transmitters, they can receive data
3. And yes, they do have software
4. And yes, they do interface with the plane for altitude, suppression, power & antenna.

So a proper reply to 'Abject Nonsense' can only be "Rubbish!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frank_Norris_Lives (Reply #45)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 03:23 PM

46. Yes, Mode S returns pressure altitude

... with a direct feed from the altimeter, and of course it's connected to power and the antenna. I wouldn't call those "systems" but there's no point in quibbling over semantics since the inarguable point is that those feeds do not provide any way to disable the squawk response, as you imagine. No, there is no software in a transponder. To do what you are claiming would require completely replacing the transponders with gimmicked boxes. But hey, I guess that's no big deal if you've already convinced yourself that it's plausible that the perps cooked up such a ridiculously complicated and risky scheme of fake hijackings and controlled demolitions, when something far simpler and less risky (e.g. a few truck bombs) would have accomplished the same presumed purpose. When you propose something that implausible, you need something resembling evidence, and your personal incredulity isn't evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #46)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 03:03 AM

47. No software in a transponder?

...really? "Boeing recommends that its customers acquire software mod kits for their transponders."

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/issue/feature/12731.html

But I'd be interested in how you would explain the false hijacking signals of unrelated planes that day (one plane 3x in fact) if there's no outside manipulation....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frank_Norris_Lives (Reply #47)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 08:31 PM

48. OK, I'll accept that

... and retract my statement. No defense -- I didn't fact-check something I read.

But even if it is possible to upload software (or more technically, firmware) to a transponder, that doesn't make it a remotely plausible scenario. Again, there was simply no need whatsoever for such an elaborate, large and risky scheme when something much safer and less risky would have accomplished the same presumed purpose, so what you're claiming is still nonsense.

I know one plane was actually instructed to squawk 7500 after a text message from the plane included "HJK" which is a also a code for hijacking. Apparently, to avoid alerting the presumed hijacker, the ATC simply instructed the pilot to squawk 7500, and the proper response should have been to inform the ATC that the plane wasn't hijacked. However, the Korean pilot complied. This was about noon ET, so it had no impact whatsoever to the responses to the real hijackings.

I see a few "truther" sites claiming there were two planes squawking, but with no verifiable details, that appears to be a myth. I don't see anyone else claiming three planes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost in the Machine (Reply #38)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 11:31 PM

50. Hey Ghost

How's Merle?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #50)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:59 AM

51. LMAO! :-)

Haven't heard anymore reports, true, false or otherwise...



Peace,

Ghost

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost in the Machine (Reply #51)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:01 AM

52. Musta been a ghost in the radio machine

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frank_Norris_Lives (Reply #21)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 09:41 PM

27. I assume that the pilots would have been wearing seatbelts?

That would put them at a large disadvantage during an assault.

Regardless, it is extremely easy to understand and believe how some hijackers could overtake the pilots. That's certainly not the case for just about anything the "Truthers" claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frank_Norris_Lives (Reply #16)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 02:47 PM

53. Oh, please. The pilots were not Chuck Norris.

I don't care if they were ex SEALs. Having military training means absolutely nothing unless one practices the martial arts nearly every day for decades and lives in a constant state of preparedness. Any one who takes a few classes at the local Y and goes out looking for a bar fight will end up in the emergency room. I know this because I've seen a few guys take this approach as well.

I have plenty of friends who are ex-military, and an 8 year old kid could sucker punch them and they'd fold like a cheap suit. I took Kenpo classes almost every day for over 10 years, and unless you work out intensely, and I mean with a sparring partner, your muscle memory will fade over time. Yeah, you'll remember the techniques, but they will not be as natural as scratching your balls, which they would need to be to avoid having your throat cut from behind while strapped into a chair with your hands on a steering wheel.

Jesus, this kind of wild conjecture really frosts my pineapple.

Unless you can show me that those pilots were actively involved in MMA training right up to time they had their throats slit, your nutty theory will get as much respect from me as it merits, which is to say, none.

However, it has been very pleasant meeting Spook's intellectual heir.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #53)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 09:52 AM

54. I'm afraid you missed the point...

...about the training. I was speaking of their behavior in front of their controls, not martial arts. But you're right. Most retirees look like Harley Davidson ballast in a Toys For Tots ride within a year or two.

But your assumptions go too far when you say that 8 pilots in 4 different situations all had their throats slit while buckled in at the controls. And the tapes from Flt 93 show us that pilots were alive outside the cabin.

You don't have to be Chuck Norris. A carpet knife is not a problem until it's at your throat. It's not even really a stabbing or throwing threat. So imagine you're five feet inside the front door of your home facing an intruder who you've got a three-inch reach on and you're on your turf-you know the space around you intimately. You could instantly grab something in that area for defense. Good grief, even the back of a clipboard is effective against a carpet knife. No martial arts required.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frank_Norris_Lives (Reply #54)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 01:17 PM

55. My Kenpo instructor was a marine combat vet. He's probably about 60 now,

so he's studied various martial arts systems for over 40 years. He settled in on American Kenpo as taught by the late Edmund Parker, for the simple reason that it was developed as an effective defense against common weapons of the street, such as feet, clubs, knives and guns.

He used to always emphasize that the weapon he feared most was the knife, even over guns. The reason he feared the knife so much was that it is so easy to kill or main someone with it, even if the attacker has limited skills. The blade can be swung wildly and can do damage from almost any incoming angle. A gun has a rather narrow cone of effectiveness. Plus it's fairly easy to take a gun away from someone, as the mechanics of the way one grips it lends itself to many different kinds of releases from any direction - up, down, left, right or straight on. You can safely grab the barrel without injury and by squeezing it you can take it out of battery, even a revolver. If the distance between you and a gun-wielding assailant exceeds arm length, you can simply run away. Most untrained shooters can't hit a moving human center of mass from even 10 feet away. If you've ever been to a gun range and fired anything 9 mm or larger, you'll see that it's really hard to hit anything at even 10 to 15 feet, unless you're a naturally gifted shooter.

I believe I could walk into a room armed only with a utility knife and easily kill four to six people before I could be stopped. Add in the element of surprise and the relative positions between the attackers and their victims, and the fact that they had no place to back away to, and I'm afraid your argument doesn't hold up.

You can call my guy and chat with him. He owns East-West Karate in Worcester, Massachusetts. His name is Patrick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #55)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 09:18 PM

56. There's a previous incident that might provide some illumination.

FedEx Flight 705 was an attempted hijacking by someone in the cockpit, but he used a claw hammer rather than a blade. Still - it's remarkable the flight crew was able to stop the hijacker and land the plane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #56)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 09:25 PM

57. Worth noting that it was a three-man crew, and they all sustained severe injuries,

including two with fractured skulls and one with a severed femoral artery. Amazing that they were able to land the plane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #57)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 10:48 PM

58. Yes. The bizarre twists and turns the aircraft made...

are reminiscent of another (not so fortunate) craft's flight over Pennsylvania.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 04:52 PM

31. I hope the Shadow Government didn't get him

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread