Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Two Flight 175 took off from Logan: CONFIRMED

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-08 04:04 PM
Original message
Two Flight 175 took off from Logan: CONFIRMED

Flight 175 lifted off from the runway at 8:13. That's the official story.

But the BTS database has N612UA (Flight 175) taking off at 8:23. However, there was no confirmation for this time anywhere.

I am now able to proudly present an eyewitness for the 8:23 wheels-off time of Flight 175: Steven Miller, US Airways pilot, who was next in line behind Flight 175 to take off from the runway.

More here:

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2008/12/two-flight-175-...

Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-08 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. So you really believe there were two flight 175
that took off 10 minutes apart from the same airport?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. More precisely: I believe

that two planes that were identifiable (or identified themselves) as "United Airlines Flight 175" took both off from Logan within minutes.

One of them had the tail number N612UA. The other one - I don't know yet.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. What do you make of this
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc03.pdf

Seems to me it is consistent with the 9/11 report that states

"United Airlines 175 pushed back from it gate at 7:58 and departed Logan Airport at 8:14. (Note it does not say it took off)

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf pg 7

It seems to me the NTSB flight path study showing the radio transmissions indicate flight 175 pulled back from the gate entered the runway approach about 8:14 and actually took off at 8:22 to 23.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #10
20. research FTW.
Looks like Woody successfully confirmed a minor detail of the 9-11 commission report.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #10
21. The ATC/pilot radio transcript disproves your speculation
Edited on Fri Jan-02-09 11:59 AM by woody b
This Flight 175 here was cleared for takeoff at 8:13:26 and airborne (1200 ft) at 8:14:44:

8:13:26 -- Local Control East: United one seventy-five heavy runway niner cleared for takeoff traffics holding in position on four right.

8:13:32 -- UAL175: Cleared for takeoff runway niner uniteds one seventy five heavy.

8:13:34 -- Local Control East: United one seventy-five heavy contact departure.

8:14:36 -- UAL: Departure Uniteds one seventy-five heavy.

8:14:44 -- UAL175: Approach, United one seventy-five heavy with you out of twelve hundred.

8:14:46 -- Boston Departure Radar: United one seventy-five heavy, Boston departure radar contact. Climb and maintain one four thousand.


http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/16/national/16TEXT-FLIGH...


Somewhere in between, it must have lifted off the runway, isn't it?


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. That is certainly one interpretation.
Edited on Fri Jan-02-09 05:32 PM by LARED
I am not familiar enough with ATC phraseology to know if they are referring to actual conditions or if they are referring to future instructions. Do you?

8:13:26 ..runway niner cleared for takeoff traffics holding in position on four right.

How could they be taking off and holding on four right? what does four right mean?

8:13:32 -- UAL175: Cleared for takeoff runway niner uniteds one seventy five heavy.

Still cleared for take-off on runway 9

8:13:34 -- Local Control East: United one seventy-five heavy contact departure.

8:14:36 -- UAL: Departure Uniteds one seventy-five heavy.


Sounds to me like they are confirming entering the departure stage of a flight.

8:14:44 -- UAL175: Approach, United one seventy-five heavy with you out of twelve hundred.

Is this the first instruction for take-off telling flight 175 that this controller will be with them to (or out of?)1200 feet, where there are handed off to another controller. Sounds that way to me. Why is the word "approach" in the transmission? Are the approaching the runway for takeoff?

Do you know what BIGGO means? BIGGO is used right before 8:23. I don't, but I tend to believe it means you have a go for take-off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Approach: Boston Approach

I'm obviously more familiar with the mechanisms of ATC.

This "Boston Approach" who talks to UA175 at the end of the script is the controller from Boston TRACON - the facility that stands in the middle between Boston Airport and Boston Center(who are responsible for long range traffic).

UA175 is clearly in the air after 8:14.




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. I'm supposed to take your word on this; "that you're obviously
more familiar with the mechanisms of ATC"

Why? Do you have any information on BIGGO?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. You want to tease me, don't you?

I know what "Approach" means in this context. You obviously not. That's all. No need to know what BIGGO is.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. Translation
I have no clue what BIGGO means.

Just admit it's true
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-09 05:28 AM
Response to Reply #39
51. ***sigh***

Okay LARED, this is my last post in this partial dialog of the thread because your insistment doesn't matter at all for the OP.

No, I don't know what BIGGO is and I told you there's no need to know.

Yes, I know what Boston Approach means.

A90 / BOSTON TRACON SOP This document contains our Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for conducting operations within the A90 Boston TRACON. Several positions operate within A90, including Departure and Approach.

In light traffic conditions you may serve as both Departure and Approach. In moderate traffic Departure and Approach may be staffed independently. Heavier traffic conditions suggest an alternative split into North and South Approach divisions with one of those optionally handling Departure, as explained below.

It is required that you learn both Departure and Approach well before attempting to run a split Approach scenario, as the work load and vectoring constraints increase dramatically. Further, it is required that KBOS have a tower in operation before we allow A90 to operate with a split Approach scenario.

http://www.bostonartcc.net/document_library/sops/app.pd...


Fact is, the Approach controller deals with airborne aircraft. He doesn't deal with aircraft taxiing on the ground.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-09 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #35
41. So what does approach mean? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-09 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #27
46. ATC transcripts do seem to suggest the plane was in the air...
(same source at NYT)
8:14:44 -- UAL175: Approach, United one seventy-five heavy with you out of twelve hundred.

8:14:46 -- Boston Departure Radar: United one seventy-five heavy, Boston departure radar contact. Climb and maintain one four thousand.

8:14:51 -- UAL175: One four thousand, United one seventy-five heavy.

8:15:41 -- Boston Departure Radar: United one seventy-five, heavy turn right heading, two one zero.

8:15:45 -- UAL175: Turn two one zero, United one seventy-five heavy.

8:16:51 -- Boston Departure Radar: United one seventy-five, heavy turn right, heading two seven zero.

8:16:54 -- UAL175: Turn to two seven zero, United one seventy-five.

8:17:09 -- Boston Departure Radar: United one seventy-five heavy, contact Boston approach. One two seven point two good day.

8:17:13 -- UAL175: Two seven point two, United one seventy-five heavy. Good day.

8:17:21 -- UAL175: Boston, good morning. United one seventy-five heavy out of eight thousand.

8:17:24 -- Boston Approach: United one seventy-five heavy, Boston approach. Fly heading two seven zero.

8:17:28 -- UAL175: Two seven zero on the heading, United one seventy-five.


I'm no ATC expert, but it certainly reads like the plane is in the air - compass headings and so forth are being discussed. I'm more inclined to believe the discrepancy mentioned in the OP is due to inaccuracy in the BTS database.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-09 05:35 AM
Response to Reply #46
52. Agreed - where's the problem?

Of course the plane in this transcript is in the air after 8:14 (tell LARED, he doesn't believe that).

The problem is, was its tail number N612UA, the Boeing 767 that allegedly hit the South Tower? Obviously not, because N612UA took off at 8:28.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #27
63. OK, here's the official ATC translation from an actual ATC...
Edited on Tue Feb-17-09 12:54 AM by MercutioATC
8:13:26 ..runway niner cleared for takeoff traffics holding in position on four right.

ATC telling the pilot that he's cleared for takeoff on Runway 9 and advising him that another plane is stopped at runway 4R.

8:13:32 -- UAL175: Cleared for takeoff runway niner uniteds one seventy five heavy.

Pilot confirming the takeoff clearance.

8:13:34 -- Local Control East: United one seventy-five heavy contact departure.

Tower controller telling the pilot to contact departure controller.

8:14:36 -- UAL: Departure Uniteds one seventy-five heavy.

Pilot confirming the change to departure controller's frequency.

8:14:44 -- UAL175: Approach, United one seventy-five heavy with you out of twelve hundred

Pilot calling departure controller ("Approach") and telling him he's climbing out of 1200'


A pilot talks to the following sequence of controllers at a large airport:

1) Ground control

2) Tower

3) Approach control (since the plane is departing, he's flying through a "departure" sector. The controller working that sector is the departure controller "contact Departure", but he's also part of the larger approach control "Approach"). In this set of transmissions, "Departure" and "Approach" is the same controller.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. so if I follow, to this extent, woody b is right
This transcript supports that UA 175 (or "a" UA 175) took off at 8:14 or so. (But it's not clear whether these times are synchronized with others.)

Is there a master record of ATC communications that would give us some clue about what happened between 8:23 and 8:28, when USAirways 6805 supposedly took off a few minutes after UA 175?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. Thanks for the input nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #63
66. Thanks a lot, Mercutio

So the takeoff occured somewhere within the "gap" between 8:13:34 and 8:14:36. That's what I'm saying.

Here's, by the way, a list of planes departing/landing after UA 175 (source: BTS):

US 6511.........8:16 (Departure)
Delta 2433......8:16 (Departure)
MQ 5122.........8:17 (Departure)
(US 1728.........8:19) (Arrival)
(MQ 4619.........8:19) (Arrival)

Due to the ATC transcript, we know that runways 4R and 9 were used for departure. So Logan Airport was in the "4R/4L-9/4R/4L" runway configuration modus (meaning that 4L and 4R were used by arriving planes and 4L, 4R and 9 by departing planes). Source:

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/37322/Tax...

This means that there is "no place" for US6805 departing directly after the 8:14-UA175 because US 6511, Delta 2433, and MQ 5122 needed the runways just at that time to take off. So an (anyway unlikely) ACARS malfunction of US6805 can be excluded, and it is safe to say that US6805 took off at 8:28, like the BTS says.

So why did Steven Miller report a United Boeing 767 departing directly before him and identify it as UA175? And why did UA175 send an ACARS takeoff message 8:23, perfectly matching Miller's account?

Is there any other reasonable solution that there were two UA175s?



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-18-09 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. I can absolutely guarantee that there were NOT two UAL175s.
For a couple of reasons:

1) Two planes having the same call sign at the same facility causes problems, so it would have definitely been noticed by ATC.

2) The way our computers work, the primary radar tracks the physical airplane. The flight data computer holds the plane's filed route. The secondary radar picks up the 4-digit discreet code broadcast by the plane's transponder (this code is individually assigned to each flight by ATC and input into the plane's transponder by the pilot).

Since it tracks the plane by flight plan and it ID's the flight plan info by transponder code, the computer will absolutely not allow two active flights with the same call sign to exist in the same facility at the same time.

It's completely impossible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-18-09 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. OK, so? (not rhetorical)
The idea of two 175s doesn't make much sense on its face, and it makes sense to me that in some forms it must be essentially impossible. Do we have enough information to explain what accounts for the apparent discrepancy between the transcript and the database times? If not, what would we need to know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-18-09 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. No idea...
...but it is either an error or a procedural difference in the ways airlines and the FAA record certain times.

We can definitely rule out the "Two UAL175s" theory, however.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-09 05:16 AM
Response to Reply #69
70. fair enough
I suppose there is some hypothetical way in which two different planes could be identified by something/one(s) as UAL175, but it seems like the needless multiplication of entities.

Maybe someone could FOIA all the Logan departure communications (assuming for sake of argument that it hasn't been done already!), and that could shed some light on the sequence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-24-09 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #69
72. No satisfying explanation, too...

because, if we believe 9/11 Commission staffer Miles Kara, United Airlines ACARS records show a takeoff time of 8:14 (see my post #59). Do we have to believe that United received the (automatic) takeoff message 8:14 from the plane, but forwarded (automatically, too) 8:23 to the FAA?

And what about US6805 pilot Steven Miller? Go to my post #59, and you'll realize in what jungle of contradictions we get if we insist on one and only one UA 175.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-24-09 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #67
71. Your guarantee is not satisfying

because it takes for granted that one or both UA 175 were ordinary civilian flights.

We know, however, that the military performed several exercises on that day. In the past, some of these exercises have been designed as realistic hijack scenarios, with Pentagon employees posing as passengers etc. Suspiciously, many of the 9/11 passengers were employees of Raytheon, a company providing the Pentagon with radar systems, electronic devices, etc. Furthermore, the crews of at least some of the flights were replaced last-minute for unknown reasons, fueling the suspicion that they were part of a secret military operation:

http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/03/last-minute-p...

I accept that neither ATC personnel nor computer software accept two planes with identical call signs or transponder codes. But it is perfectly possible that the UA175 that sent the 8:23 takeoff message to its airline used another call sign and/or transponder code when communicating with ATC - exactly because it was part of a secret military exercise, like I said. For the same reasons, it is perfectly possible that controllers were informed that a secret military exercise was going on and therefore accepted the identity change of UA175.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-24-09 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #71
73. "many of the 9/11 passengers were employees of Raytheon"
Woody...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-24-09 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. Bolo?

Not correct? Or what do you want to say?





Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #71
75. Again, impossible.
You propose that there were two UAL175s. One departed under the UAL175 callsign and one under a different callsign. At some point, they were "swapped".

Correct me if I'm not understanding this correctly.

Your scenario is impossible. If the "second" UAL175 departed under a different callsign, it would still be recorded (under that different callsign). If that plane later changed to "UAL175", you end with a net loss of one plane (apart from the crash). Do you think that maybe ATC might wonder where that plane went?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-02-09 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. Don't be so quick with "impossible"
Basically, you understand me correctly. One plane departed under the UA175 callsign (when communicating with ATC/FAA), another one - with tail number N612UA - under a different callsign. N612UA changed its initial callsign UA175 to something else and never changed back. So the "swap" was being conducted at Logan Airport already.

Did ATC wonder where that plane (N612UA) went? Well, let's ask Associated Press from 9/11/01:

A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport because of concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White.

The plane was sitting on a runway at the airport's west end with approximately 200 passengers on board. The mayor had said earlier that the plane was being evacuated, but an airport spokeswoman said the passengers remained inside.

It was unclear whether any passengers had been taken off the plane. A SWAT team and bomb unit were at the scene. However, White said, "As of this moment we do not know that this plane is in stress or duress."

The airplane landed at about 10:45 a.m., but the airport released no information about the plane's intended destination. Normally, planes of this size do not land at Hopkins.

http://de.geocities.com/woody_box2000/ap911.html



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-03-09 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #76
77. "Normally, planes of this size do not land at Hopkins.". Patently absurd.
I work heavy jets in and out of Hopkins every day.

That aside, every plane is positively identified from gate to gate. Changing a callsign is completely impossible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-03-09 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. So you say this AP report is BS?

The quote you're objecting is the most uninteresting and redundant sentence of the whole article, and it doesn't deal with the actual events at Hopkins.

Fact is that the identity of this Boeing 767 out of Boston is unknown until today.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-03-09 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #78
81. I'm saying that the people quoted didn't know what they were talking about.
Things were chaotic that day. Almost all early reports were conflicting.

That doesn't mean there was anything sinister going on.


The OP stated thatit was "CONFIRMED" that two planes with the same callsign took off. I'm telling you that's not even remotely possible
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #75
87. And. . . aren't all of the actual ID's of the planes always known ....
no matter if the signal is turned off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #87
88. That becomes problematic in real-time...
Yes and no. On 9/11, we saw that if a plane turns off its transponder and deviates substantially from its filed flight plan, the computer probably will stop tracking it. However, the primary radar return of the plane is always visible. Therefore, the controller very well might be able to still track the plane and, since everything is recorded, the actual movements of the plane would definitely be able to be tracked upon review.

Is a "swap" physically possible with multiple people conspiring? Perhaps, but the timing would have to be perfect and you'd have to be extremely lucky for the right set of circumstances to occur that would allow that timing to even be possible. You couldn't plan for or create that luck, it'd be an extremely slim chance and it'd be completely random. Regardless, though, the swap would immediately be recognized upon review of the radar tapes.

And a swap on the ground or shortly after takeoff is still completely impossible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #88
91. No -- that wasn't really a question . . . As I understand it, the airline
can always get a return on the plane's ID -- even if the transponder is turned off.

AND, certainly same is true of the military.

That's somewhere stated in all the info on 9/11 -- I just haven't seen it recently!

PLUS, one of the airlines says that TWO of the supposedly hijacked flights were not

scheduled for that day.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #88
92. "impossible"..."absurd"...

Again: taking into account the many military exercises and the enacted secrecy around them, a swap maneuver on the tarmac of Logan needs no "extreme luck" and no "right set of circumstances", just a handful of people amongst airlines/airport personnel/ATC in key positions.

I'd like to stress that I'm not accusing these people of being "in on it". They were only involved in the exercises, not knowing that they would degenerate into mass murder.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #92
96. And weren't the controller tapes confiscated and destroyed --- ????
Edited on Thu Mar-05-09 01:57 PM by defendandprotect
Some of the military controllers' tapes are available, however, and I've noted

that at least one of them becomes immediately suspicious as the real plot over

takes the simulated plot --- where he is pretty much saying, "are we really

supposed to buy this coincidence?"

I come and go from this subject so technically it's a question but I'm quite

sure that was the case -- haven't been back to this subject in a while.

In fact, if there is anything new out there in the last months, I'd appreciate

some direction to it ...??

I have just noticed the "9/11 Widows" reply on the called for "Truth Hearings"

and their stressing that on many of these issues, like 9/11, there is enough

evidence to go further on investigation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #96
97. Interviews of the controllers after the fact by management were destroyed.
Not the recordings of them doing their jobs.

Please focus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #97
99. I've heard the tapes of the military controllers . ..
have you heard any tapes of the civilian controllers?


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #99
103. They exist
I've heard clips of these tapes. Most notably the takeover of 93 as recorded on ATC channels is available.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #103
106. No -- the civilian controller's tapes . .. not the alleged cockpit tapes . . .
which are beyond Disneyland --
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #106
107. I am talking about the civilian controller tapes. They have not been erased.
What was erased was management interviews of ATC personnel which was in violation of their labor contract.

I have heard the civilian controller tapes during the time of the hijacking of 93. Twice during the takeover the cabin mic was keyed and the sounds of the attack were broadcast over the civilian controller channels. They have not been erased. Please get your facts straight and stop spreading factual inaccuracies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #107
110. Destruction of evidence is nothing new in the last 8 years .. . .
I'm sure the courts would not have been able to reach a compromise with the unions

on their "labor contract" vs historic evidence--!!!

How have you heard "civilian controller tapes"?

And what proof is there that they have not been altered?

And where can the rest of the world get to hear the CIVILIAN CONTROLLER TAPES which

you claim to have heard?

Anyone listen to them with you?





Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #110
112. I listened to them before I destroyed them all
And I laughed about having this conversation with one such as yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #112
113. That's what I thought . . . .
and as you foreshadow, maybe you guessed you'll be on ignore?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #110
117. Maybe your Google is broken??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyyXUDUsqqU&feature=rela...

The written transcript was obviously done by a non-controller, but it's mostly correct.

This recording was altered to clip out the dead air...which is why the first controller seems to call for UAL93 repeatedly in rapid sequence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-03-09 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #117
151. Yes, it's a tape, but not what I was talking about . . .
Edited on Fri Apr-03-09 10:22 PM by defendandprotect
However, just dealing with this tape, I think the first question

is who's had access to it? What's the chain of evidence?

I also think that destruction of evidence presented by controllers

is important.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 03:10 AM
Response to Reply #92
115. I'm still waiting...
... for some rational explanation for why they would even bother to have two flights with the same flight number -- even if they could, who were they trying to fool? -- but in the meantime, don't you think the people who "were only involved in the exercises" would have gotten a little suspicious after one of the 175s crashed into the WTC? Or did the plotters just count on them keeping quiet about it?

Conspiracy or no, this whole "two Flight 175s" hypothesis makes no sense whatsoever on any level, Woody.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #115
121. William...

It's not so hard to explain. The original UA175 - the one with the passengers - was predetermined to land at a secret airport. It was to be replaced by another plane (preferably without passengers to avoid any imponderable reactions) whose purpose it was to divert from course and simulate a hijack, i.e. to pretend to be UA 175. This is a variation of the classical Operation Northwoods plot.

Your other question - yes, I think a lot of controllers got suspicious when these horrible events unfolded. But don't you remember the shock the nation was in after the attacks? Do you expect a single controller to come forward with a little oddity he even could not explain to himself to establish a "crazy conspiracy theory"?

The plotters didn't count on the silentness of ATC; that's why they were muzzled and not allowed to give interviews in the immediate aftermath.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
KDLarsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-09-09 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #121
124. So United & American Airlines were involved in the plot?
I wonder what sort of arguments were made to make them hand over their million dollar assets and brand to a plot, which would lead to both companies facing Chapter 7.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-10-09 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #124
127. Where did I state that?

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-10-09 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #127
128. When you stated a hypothesis that requires their cooperation by necessity. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-10-09 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #128
130. Nah - which hypothesis, please?

And please enlighten me why this hypothesis implies a cooperation of the airlines?




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-03-09 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #127
152. I think one of the best examples of what can be done by TPB is in a
post I did yesterday here re the Dorothy Hunt flight ---

and I didn't even put all of the info in -- just a skeleton of all the

plotting and conspiring that went on!!!

But I think it's a good education in how thoroughly things could be

manipulated in Nixon's time --- leave alone what might have been possible

for Bush/Cheney!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-09-09 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #121
125. Again...
Edited on Mon Mar-09-09 05:43 PM by William Seger
It makes no sense to try to have both flights be #175, even if that could be done (and I believe MercutioATC is correct that it couldn't be done, since I can't imagine designing a system that could handle duplicate flight numbers -- that sorta defeats the purpose of having flight numbers). If you wanted to pull a swap, why not just have two planes with different numbers and destinations and just do a clean swap? In fact, swapping planes sounds like a really dumb idea anyway, since you'd still have to get rid of the passengers. Why take the risk of getting caught doing that -- e.g. someone at that "secret destination" blowing the whistle -- when you could just go ahead and crash 175 into the WTC and be done with it?

As for ATCs keeping quiet by being "muzzled," it never ceases to amaze me how little regard for basic human decency 9/11 conspiracists have. The imagined conspirators can cook up any kind of cockamamie scheme to commit mass murder, no matter how convoluted, and somehow intimidate or coerce all the necessary people into going along with it or keeping quite about what they know or accidentally learn. In the real world, I have trouble with the idea that anyone with an IQ above 75 would even attempt to pull off what you're suggesting, because of the rather considerable risk of getting busted just trying to put the team together to do it, not to mention what could go wrong along the way or afterwards. Career civil service and military personnel are not the Wicked Witch's evil monkeys, Woody; they're just ordinary people.

This makes no sense, on any level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-10-09 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #125
129. Again - think wargames

Why take the risk of getting caught doing that -- e.g. someone at that "secret destination" blowing the whistle -- when you could just go ahead and crash 175 into the WTC and be done with it?

Strange question, simple answer. I guess the average pilot doesn't like to commit suicide and kill his passengers by flying the plane into a building.

A pilot taking part in a military exercise where his job is to fly a plane with a simulated hijack and land at a remote airport looks much more likely to me.

As for ATCs keeping quiet by being "muzzled," it never ceases to amaze me how little regard for basic human decency 9/11 conspiracists have. The imagined conspirators can cook up any kind of cockamamie scheme to commit mass murder, no matter how convoluted, and somehow intimidate or coerce all the necessary people into going along with it or keeping quite about what they know or accidentally learn. In the real world, I have trouble with the idea that anyone with an IQ above 75 would even attempt to pull off what you're suggesting, because of the rather considerable risk of getting busted just trying to put the team together to do it, not to mention what could go wrong along the way or afterwards. Career civil service and military personnel are not the Wicked Witch's evil monkeys, Woody; they're just ordinary people.

Again: think wargames!

As Webster Tarpley and others have already outlined, the nature of military exercises brings on elements like secrecy, deception, misinformation etc. which easily can be misused by a small number of ruthless individuals in high positions to perform a crime like 9/11 by little alterations of the original exercise plot. There's no need for hundreds of wicked conspirators.

Believe me, I'm amazed how these ruthless individuals could underestimate the risk of being busted. After all, it's now 7 1/2 years since the attacks. But unmasking documents continue to appear on the surface and reveal important evidence - like the 8:14/8:23 discrepancy.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-10-09 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #125
131. "it couldn't be done, since I can't imagine [it]"
Edited on Tue Mar-10-09 05:09 PM by reinvestigate911
this anti-intellectual fallacy accurately sums up the typical "debunker" mindset (emphasis on the quotes) ... it is the premise for virtually every argument (and ensuing derision) that flows from the pseudo-skepticism which litters this forum. thank you for so succinctly stating it, bill.

you also seem to believe that evil plots require some form of refuge in the consciences of "ordinary people"... yet you fail to comprehend one simple truth: people need to put foods on their table... please take in to consideration how whistle blowers are treated in this country.

and if that's not enough, then consider the following:

... in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X (emphasis added, reinvestigate911)

your personal incredulity or lack of imagination does not refute the evidence.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-10-09 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #131
132. LOL, you're confused... again.
> "this anti-intellectual fallacy accurately sums up the typical 'debunker' mindset"

Uh, no, but I'll make a valiant attempt to explain it to you: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

Woody is certainly making an extraordinary claim, not the least reason being that it doesn't make a lick of sense that anyone WOULD do what he's suggesting, even if they could, and it doesn't make any sense that they would get away with it, even if for some reason they did. And that's even if I assume that there was a plot to swap 175 with another plane; there was no need whatsoever to give the second plane the same flight number. If you don't understand why that's so, that's really not my problem. Perhaps the point is too subtle for you, but I did not offer my considerable disbelief as proof or disproof of anything; I'm not under any burden to prove anything. I was simply trying to give Woody some insight into why very few people are likely to take him seriously, but you and he are perfectly free to ignore that and press ahead.

Nobody is required to "refute the evidence" because there isn't enough evidence here to prove squat, much less something extraordinary. If there are two recorded times for Flight 175 taking off, the most plausible explanation -- by far -- is that at least one of them is wrong, and to refute that explanation Woody is going to need far more convincing evidence than he apparently has. That situation is not improved in the least by bizarre explanations for why the plotters decided on this nonsensical plan to give two flights the same number, and even more bizarre explanations for why nobody said anything when they figured out what happened; but in the end the burden of proof that it actually happened is still on whoever claims it happened.

Does that help?

And speaking of proving extraordinary claims, got any more fraudulent videos of WTC7 being blown up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-03-09 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #131
153. All one has to do is look at "Operation Northwoods" or Nixon's "Huston Plan" . . .
to understand that they don't question they can pull it off --
they're not sitting around asking, how many people do we need now and
where will we get them!

They pretty much know what's going to happen because the CIA/military have
practiced just this kind of crap all over the world! It's long been expected
that sooner or later they would "bring it home."

However, these aren't ever perfect crimes -- it is the cover-ups that are as
important as the crimes.

As for their confidence, IMO, it is the confidence of those who know they will
be relying on murder to keep these things covered up. Are they carrying out
these acts themselves? Of course not. But it has been very obvious since the
days of Nixon that the field is regularly being cleared to keep the way open for
the rise of the reich.

Many examples of all of this come to mind -- but I think a movie made in '72 . ..
Executive Action with Burt Landcaster and Robert Ryan are excellent at showing
the patterns and thinking and importance of coverup.

Additionally, the Dorothy Hunt plane "accident" is another --






Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-11-09 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #121
134. You don't know any controllers, do you, Woody?
We're hired for exactly two psychological traits...efficient problem-solving and assertiveness.

Controllers are some of the most vocal people you'll ever meet. We don't keep quiet...especially with each other...and we can't be intimidated.

I've already explained why your theory is procedurally impossible but, even if it had happened, plenty of other controllers would know about it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-13-09 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #134
136. You have explained nothing

because you keep alleging that I postulate two planes using the same call sign when communicating with ATC. I don't.







Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-13-09 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #136
137. "you keep alleging that I postulate two planes using the same call sign when communicating with ATC"
"you keep alleging that I postulate two planes using the same call sign when communicating with ATC. I don't."

Why don't you state clearly and succinctly what you are postulating? Because you haven't, people are trying to deduce your position and you are mocking them for it. That's the action of a troll. State clearly and succinctly what you think is going on here and then you won't find people mistaking what you think happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-13-09 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #137
138. It's not my fault if you overlook my central posts

See post #5 - a clear and succinct statement:

More precisely: I believe that two planes that were identifiable (or identified themselves) as "United Airlines Flight 175" took both off from Logan within minutes.

This is my thesis in its most general and succinct form.

In posts #66 and #76 I have stressed that I don't claim the two planes used the same call sign when communicating with ATC. But Mercutio ATC keeps insisting (see post #81, f.i.) that my claim is exactly that. Where's the frying pan? :spank:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-15-09 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #138
139. Geez...this is like having Abe Linkman around again.
Why don't you just give me a detailed account of what you think happened (no need to include supporting documentation or explanations...I can read all of that above) and I'll tell you if it's even possible.

This scenario has become so convoluted that all we're missing is a grassy knoll.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-15-09 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #139
141. I was thinking about him just the other day.
I wonder what happened to old "Abe".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-15-09 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #141
142. My snarky response would be "I found him!".
Realistically, though, he must have died.

Nobody with that much crazy in them could have just totally droped out of sight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-15-09 03:22 AM
Response to Reply #142
143. You might be right.
I did a search a while back for some of the old names, but didn't find him. Of course, he could have switched handles (I have a feeling "Abe Linkman" wasn't his real name), but the 9/11 CT community isn't that large - he would have shown up eventually.

People die all the time. Maybe Abe just got old.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-15-09 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #143
144. Abe got served a few granite pizzas in his day.
Edited on Sun Mar-15-09 09:28 AM by Bolo Boffin
He was one of our serial trolls.

ETA: And let me make perfectly clear -- WoodyBox isn't Abe, and I don't think anyone is implying that he is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-15-09 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #144
145. Honestly, I can't keep track.
I stopped worrying about it a while ago, because even if they're returning as sockpuppets they all parrot the same b.s. as brand new posters anyway (with a few bizarre exceptions). The "truth movement", if nothing else, is remarkably resilient. Claims I thought were abandoned years ago will be back, trumpeted as fresh evidence of the conspiracy. I guess when your movement depends on the twin forces of willful ignorance and naivete, that's what happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-15-09 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #145
146. "Claims I thought were abandoned years ago will be back"
Edited on Sun Mar-15-09 10:41 AM by Bolo Boffin
Like favorite verses in the church hymnal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-15-09 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #146
147. I think of it as "recycling"...
but your analogy is probably more apt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-15-09 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #147
148. I call it "rebunking"....
I wish I could claim credit for that phrase.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-03-09 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #139
156. And you don't believe in the "grassy knoll" . . . ???!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-03-09 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #134
154. Obviously, the controllers did try to tell their 9/11 experiences . . .
but weren't those tapes destroyed?

Otoh, cooperation is what they're looking for and they don't always need intimdiation . . .

plus, if and when they face non-cooperation, generally substitutions are made.

On 9/11, as I recall the military tapes, it was quite obvious to at least one outspoken

lad that real hijackings overlapping simulated hijackings were a crock he wasn't ready

to believe -- coincidentally!

Further, without doubt, someone was quite busy making sure that NORAD wasn't going to

respond to any of this in any usual manner. Quite a bit of maneuvering there, eh?


Meanwhile, take a look at Dorthy Hunt's plane crash.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #154
160. Tom Brokaw interviewed the controllers involved on national TV.
They weren't muzzled.

The destroyed tape was just management/controller interviews that violated contract agreements. Those controllers were interviewed before that and have been interviewed since.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #160
168. Destroying evidence isn't a good idea . . . no matter how many
Tom Brokaw's interview controllers on national TV.

Perhaps some day you'll come upon the article by Walter Cronkite talking about
conclusions re the large gaping hole in the right rear of JFK's head. At the
end of this "national TV program" it sounded as though everyone was in agreement
that there was no such thing.

Rather the program was supposed to say just the opposite which Walter Cronkite
well understood. However, cue cards were changed and he was delivering quite a
different message on national TV than what was supposed to be delivered.

Yes, Walter Cronkite is telling us he was betrayed . . . "on national TV" and
because he was betrayed he was thus assisting the betrayal of the public!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #168
169. I'm telling you that controllers are not your average breed of lackey.
They hire us, in part, because we're on the upper end of "assertive". We don't take shit from anybody.

That's useful when dealing with a sky full of pilots, but it also means that we won't sit by while the government says something about an ATC situation that isn't true.

UAL93 went down in my airspace. I've known both of the controllers who worked the plane immediately before the crash for years. Neither of them disputed the official version of what happened to UAL93, but you can bet that they would have if they heard something that wasn't accurate.


The "evidence" that was destroyed was nothing that hadn't been recorded a dozen times.

This is a complete non-issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #88
94. However, if controllers are told one of the planes is under military control ...
and to ignore it -- i.e., part of an exercise -- they would follow instructions.

"National Security supercedes all!"

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #94
95. Yep / nT
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #95
100. Meyers was chin deep in this . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #94
98. Let's say you're correct, and I don't buy that at all...
...but let's say you're correct.

Can you produce any evidence that controllers were told to ignore any plane that was under military control?

No?

Ya got nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #98
101. Focus . . .
Edited on Thu Mar-05-09 01:55 PM by defendandprotect
Why should questioners and challengers have to produce evidence of anything when

we have evidence of a NORAD stand down ....

and comment by a military controller that the coincidence is not believable?

If we have nothing, you have nothing to worry about . . . !!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #101
102. You don't have evidence of a NORAD standdown
You have to produce evidence of your claim because otherwise you are deluding yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #102
105. No -- NORAD has to prove that this was in any way normal procedure . . .
Edited on Thu Mar-05-09 03:11 PM by defendandprotect
How many times were they out every year personally escorting planes gone astray or

other questionable circumstances --- more than 100 times at least --

And, here we have NORAD AWOL. That's the first and last question of all this BS.

Where was NORAD?

And all of the answers are BS.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #105
108. Bullshit. Your claim, your resposibility to support. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #108
111. BS --- Suddenly NORAD NO LONGER REPONDS ---????
Meanwhile, you're saying that NORAD which supposedly was protecting us from

Russian invasian -- Chinese invasion -- was simply fooled and turned around

by Cheney's four simultaneously run mock programs?

In other words, NORAD's being AWOL isn't any mystery -- they're just jerks?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #94
118. Nope.
Our first responsibility is to the safety of the flying public.

That aside, no controller would hide it later if it DID happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-03-09 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #118
155. What was the safety issue and who made the decision on that?
Would they come and ask you if they could do this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #155
161. First, no controllers were told that the planes were part of a military exercise.
Military exercises are always conducted either in sterilized military airspace or on an "as able" basis, putting the safety of civilian airplanes above mission objectives (they can practice in our airspace, but we won't let them do anything that would cause safety issues with civilian aircraft).
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #161
163. Well, unfortunately on 9/11 quite a number of things were not as usual . . .
And you can begin with NORAD not responding ... though these planes flew over
dozens of military bases -- !!!


First, no controllers were told that the planes were part of a military exercise.
Military exercises are always conducted either in sterilized military airspace or on an "as able" basis, putting the safety of civilian airplanes above mission objectives (they can practice in our airspace, but we won't let them do anything that would cause safety issues with civilian aircraft).


And, further, "always" is an odd comment when we are discussing the possibility of
conspiracy -- treasonous/false flag operations.

Additionally, I was pointing out to you that naturally no controller would have been notified --


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #163
164. More of your bullshit, D&P....
NORAD DID respond....why do you keep repeating this factual inaccuracy???
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #163
165. Unusual situation, but ATC procedures were followed normally.
As far as NORAD, you'll have to ask somebody from NORAD. I can only speak to civilian ATC.

Always always always...the flying public's safety comes first. Always. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #165
166. WE have to concern ourselves with what happened with NORAD . . .
That's where the answers are --

And, I don't think the "public's safety comes first" when we fire experienced

controllers -- or when aircraft isn't satisfactorily inspected or maintained.

And how many near-misses have we had in recent years?

Again, "national security" issues aren't going to be handled at the controller

level - if they wanted to get a duplicate plane out, I'm sure they'd have no

problem doing it.

Meanwhile, I have an open mind on all of this, however I generally lean towards

"no planes" -- however, of course, they seem to have had one plane flying over

the WTC towers and then probably moving down to Pentagon and then off to

"explode in a field" -- and, actually, that doesn't look like that happened either!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #166
170. As I said, I won't answer for NORAD.
What I can tell you is that you don't know the procedures like I do. What you suggest is impossible. It has nothing to do with FAA management...controllers are the ones actually dealing with the airplanes and we would see anything out of the ordinary.

If you'd like to give me very specific concerns, I'd be happy to answer them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-06-10 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #166
204. We aren't the only ones concerned about NORAD
Capt. Daniel Davis, U.S. Army Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director. Decorated with the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal for bravery under fire and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam. Also served in the Army Air Defense Command as Nike Missile Battery Control Officer for the Chicago-Milwaukee Defense Area. Founder and former CEO of Turbine Technology Services Corp., a turbine (jet engine) services and maintenance company (15 years). Former Senior Manager at General Electric Turbine (jet) Engine Division (15 years). Private pilot.

Statement to this website 3/23/07:

excerpt: in my experience as an officer in NORAD as a Tactical Director for the Chicago-Milwaukee Air Defense and as a current private pilot, there is no way that an aircraft on instrument flight plans (all commercial flights are IFR) would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control. No way! With very bad luck, perhaps one could slip by, but no there's no way all four of them could!

http://patriotsquestion911.com /

Matter of fact, there are a whole bunch of people with all the right creds on this site questioning the non-response of NORAD as well as other anomalies.

Sorry, woody, for the sidebar.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
cloudbase Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-06-09 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #27
172. Without a Boston terminal area chart
I can't be certain, but the spelling of BIGGO in all caps would indicate that this is the name of an intersection, which is a navigational fix based upon the intersection of two specific radials from two different navigational beacons. All intersections have five-letter names and are denoted on charts in all caps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-03-10 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #172
201. You're probably right

and thanks for the info

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-08 09:21 PM
Response to Original message
2. Mm,, have you talked to this Steven Miller?
If you're just going on the description in the book you cite, then your chain of reasoning is only as accurate as the author's reports of his time estimate. Drawing inferences from hearsay can be misleading, even if there is no ill intention of any party. I suggest you track down captain Miller and ask him directly about his memories of the event. More background or at least some links on how duplicate flight numbers can appear for innocent reasons might help your page as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. No

I'm not "drawing inferences from hearsay", as you incomprehensibly insinuate.

Steve Miller is identifiable by name, job, the plane he flew etc. He delineates a lot of easily verifiable details in the book. Particularly, he meticulously describes how he and his captain Ron Maxwell were waiting for the departure of United 175 next in line. Quoting the book:

On the taxi-out in Boston, they ((the pilots of US Airways 6805)) waited at the runway's hold-short line, where Miller looked up to watch a United Boeing 767 take off, United Flight 175. The final weight and balance calculations from dispatch came over the ACARS at 8:05, and with that in hand, the crew was ready to fly. Wide-body aircraft produce especially powerful wingtip vortices - horizontal, tornado-like winds off the ends of the wings - which require time to dissipate before other aircraft can take off, so he waited the required three minutes after United 175 departed before he received his takeoff clearance.


Do you think Miller doesn't tell the truth here?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Ummm, Woody....
Edited on Thu Jan-01-09 01:37 PM by SDuderstadt
do you believe that "departure time" and "wheels-up" are the same thing? Where, specifically, in the "official story" does anyone state that 175 was "wheels-up" at the time you claim? If I called United to ask what time the flight was supposed to depart, do you think they would tell me what time the plane was expected to actually leave the ground, or would they effectively tell me what time the doors would be closed to boarding? Use your brain. Most of the insidious and nefarious conspiracy claims you make can be easily explained by your difficulty with the nuance of language.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. No

I don't believe that "departure time" and "wheels-up" are the same thing, how do you come to this conclusion?

Did you even bother to read my blog entry?

The wheels-off time of is triggered automatically by a mechanical switcher when the plane loses contact to the ground. The data are sent automatically to the airline via ACARS, and the airline forwards them to the BTS on a regular base. So apparently no human failure is possible.


It is known for years that the wheels-off time for UA175, according to the BTS database, was 8:23. Only now I detected independent confirmation in Lynn Spencer's book: US Airways 6805 had a wheels-off time of 8:28, and the pilot - Steven Miller - stresses that he was next in line behind UA175.

Do you think that after UA175 lifted off from the runway at 8:14 Miller had a 10-minutes break at the hold-short line? Maybe he needed another cup of coffee before starting? :eyes:






Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Woody....
Again, my question is where in "the official story" does anyone claim that UA 175 took off at a time that contradicts the BTS data?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
22. It's the local controller in charge of UA175. See my post #21 (nT)

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. welcome to the dungeon woody b
things get a little snippy here but we survive :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. welcome to the dungeon yourself
woody's been here forever
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. fuck that
I've never spoke with him before so butt the fuck out
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Man, did you happen to read the OP?
I know, I know, you don't give 2 shits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 06:07 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. which has shit all to do with your hissy fits
Edited on Fri Jan-02-09 06:09 AM by boloboffin
Pretty damn low of you to hide behind this tragedy to justify your posting here.

ETA: I mean, it wasn't that hard to click to his personal page and see that he's been here since 2004. The fact that he's got 890 posts is right there in his post. You just wanted another opportunity to attack us here and you took it. And now you're waving dead Palestinians around. I guess we can see what your New Year's resolution was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Not to mention the search function...
which should be second nature for a long-standing member like slad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. thank you bolo
for mentioning something apparently I can not
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Thorandmjolnir Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. Do you ever post anything of substance?
Or do you just find pleasure in posting derogatory comments to other posters?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Twist_U_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-09 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #18
44. Agenda-driven know-nothings
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #18
50. What is oh so very obvious to some
is lost in a sea of delusion to others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-09 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #14
61. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #11
23. Hello

I wasn't very active the last two years or so, nice to meet you now :pals:

I wonder if boloboffin will contribute something constructive to this thread here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. Hi S9B

Thanks, and how are you?

Until now, your prediction is valid...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. You think that there were 2 175's. There is no need to debunk that.
It debunks itself. You have no evidence worth debunking. The more convoluted your explanation become, the more people stay away from your silly theories.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. So when did Flight 175 take off, in your opinion?

Tell me.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. The morning of September 11th. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. 8:14 or 8:23? (nT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. I don't care.
Ask me what time it crashed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. You should care

Denouncing my research as "silly" and at the same time refusing to deal with its details makes you a perfect target for neocon propaganda. They like uncritical guys like you. Look out!




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. But the question is...
... why do you think "both" is a better answer than "one or the other" or "neither?" That's what seems rather silly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-09 05:51 AM
Response to Reply #38
53. "Both" is the natural answer

It is better then "neither" - do you think the ATC/pilot radio transcript is faked? The no-planers are happy to welcome you.

It is better than "one or the other" because there is rock-solid evidence for both planes. To assume that one of them didn't exist would imply that either the ATC/pilot radio transcript is faked, or that ACARS malfunctioned at two planes simultaneously (UA 175 and US 6805), or that Steven Miller is talking his head off.

It is not silly at all because plans for secret militar operations using faked or duplicated aircraft identities have been developed decades ago. Have you ever heard of "Operation Northwoods"?

Boloboffin is aware of that and doesn't want to commit himself to one of the departure times.





Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-09 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #53
56. "rock solid"
Ummmmm....... no it isn't "rock solid."

By "neither," I only mean that neither time is exactly right, not that there wasn't any plane. You and Andre have a very peculiar way of viewing "official" times.

"Both" just doesn't make any sense, even under the assumption that something fishy was going on. Who were the alleged plotters trying to fool? Do you think that everyone who was in a position to notice that there were 2 flight 175s was in on the plot and went along with it? If they weren't, then the plotters took a huge and completely unnecessary risk of getting exposed by having 2 flights with the same number. But if they were all in on it, there wouldn't be any need to call both flights "175" -- they could just swap 175 with another plane in the air.

"Both" has a plausibility somewhere near zero.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-11-09 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #56
57. Think Wargames
Edited on Sun Jan-11-09 11:49 AM by woody b
The 8:14 plane identified himself as "United 175" to the ground controllers. But there is no proof so far that it was N612UA (the tail number that is attached to the plane).

Conversely, N612UA sent an automatic ACARS message to the airline when it took off at 8:23. But there is no evidence that the pilot identified himself as "United 175". If he chose another call sign/flight number, ground controllers wouldn't have been confronted with two "United 175".

It is important to notice that neither the pilots nor the controllers, even if they were privy to the duplication, were "in on the crime". The maneuver might well have been part of one of the numerous exercises, be it "Vigilant Guardian", "Vigilant Warrior", or what else.
Taking part in an exercise is different from being involved in mass murder.

If you think that the "both" departures scenario has a plausibility somewhere near zero, you need to explain to me:

How big is the plausibility that the ATC/pilot transcript is faked or erroneous?

How big is the plausibility of an simultaneous ACARS malfunction on two planes, i.e. that both of the "wheels-off" sensors reacted ten minutes too late?

How big is the plausibility that the man who was in the best position to watch Flight 175's takeoff - sitting in the plane directly behind it - reports erroneously airline (United) and/or type (Boeing 767)?

I have encountered a duplicated Flight 11 at Logan, a duplicated Delta 1989 at Cleveland Hopkins, and a duplicated Flight 93 in the skies over Pennsylvania. Therefore, a duplicated Flight 175 doesn't surprise me at all and is certainly much more plausible than one of these three errors.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mrgerbik Donating Member (652 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #57
114. i just read this now...
i dont know how missed this thread before... thanks for the info :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #114
120. You're welcome

and this thread will stay alive lest interested people like you miss it.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Andre II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-09 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #24
42. I agree
and nice seeing you seatnineb and woody!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. or maybe at least mind his own business
Edited on Fri Jan-02-09 05:20 PM by seemslikeadream
wonder away :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-09 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #23
62. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-09 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #8
40. "Wheels up", "wheels off", "mechanical switcher"... WTF? You're confusing this former airframer.
Edited on Sun Jan-04-09 01:47 AM by cherokeeprogressive
Jet aircraft with retractable landing gear are equipped with "weight on wheels" and "weight off wheels" systems activated by "proximity switches" which are akin to the magnets placed on windows and window frames to activate alarm systems in homes. Moving those magnets apart "opens" the circuit, causing the alarm to be activated. Those same systems are used to activate/de-activate certain systems such as wing lift spoilers, thrust reversers, and landing gear retraction protocols.

In a "weight on wheels" condition, the landing gear cannot be retracted. This used to be a problem with hotshot pilots who placed the landing gear handle in the RETRACT position after going over the hold line but before reaching V2 speed. As the plane accelerated down the runway towards V2 speed it sometimes encountered enough of a difference in the elevation of the runway to extend the struts, thus disengaging the "weight on wheels" proximity switch causing the actuators to begin retracting the landing gear before the plane produced enough lift to fly. Lots of planes wound up skidding down the runway on their bellies because of this.

In a "weight off wheels" condition, the wing spoilers do not rise, which would spoil the lift caused by the airflow over the wings. Thrust reversers are also disabled in a "weight off wheels" condition, among other things, such as the gust locks on naval aircraft with folding wings. Spoilers are those surfaces on top of the wings that rise into the airstream when your aircraft hits the runway during landing.

Both are determined by the length of the landing gear strut, which has a built in shock absorber. When the plane is resting on its weight, the strut is short, bringing the "weight on wheels" proximity switches close enough to close the curcuit. When the plane becomes airborne, the strut is lengthened, hanging at its full length, bringing the "weight off wheels" proximity switches close enough to close the curcuit.

Please explain the difference between "wheels up" and "wheels off" which are both terms you used to support your argument. "Wheels up" is the condition caused by the close relation of proximity switches when the landing gear is "up and locked". During this transition period, the indication in the cockpit is called "barber poled" because of the diagonal lines on the landing gear indicator indicating that the landing gear is neither "down and locked" nor "up and locked".

How much do you know about airplanes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-09 06:23 AM
Response to Reply #40
55. OOPS - an expert has entered the stage

To answer your last question first - my knowledge about airplanes is limited.

But I'm able do read and understand English texts.

I don't know if these "proximity switches" you're talking about are the sensors that are used for ACARS messages.

Thanks for your lengthy explanation, very nice, but I fear it's totally irrelevant to my case.

I just know that the "wheels-off" times in the BTS database are automatically generated by sensors on the aircraft as part of the "Airline Service Quality Performance" (ASQP) data and transmitted via ACARS:

The primary ASQP data elements are the actual ground and flight movement times for each flight: gate departure (gate-out or OUT), takeoff (wheels-off or OFF), landing (wheels-on or ON) and gate arrival (gate-in or IN), collectively known as OOOI times. These data are automatically recorded by aircraft equipped with Aircraft Communication Reporting and Addressing (ACARS) sensors, processed by Aeronautical Radio, Incorporated (ARINC).

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/caft/cwg/opal/codas_do...


Are this ACARS takeoff sensors the same as the "proximity switches"?






Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Theobald Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #8
85. Steve doesn't stress that he was next in line.
"On the taxi-out in Boston, they ((the pilots of US Airways 6805)) waited at the runway's hold-short line, where Miller looked up to watch a United Boeing 767 take off, United Flight 175. The final weight and balance calculations from dispatch came over the ACARS at 8:05, and with that in hand, the crew was ready to fly. Wide-body aircraft produce especially powerful wingtip vortices - horizontal, tornado-like winds off the ends of the wings - which require time to dissipate before other aircraft can take off, so he waited the required three minutes after United 175 departed before he received his takeoff clearance."

Where is the emphasis that he was next in line? There is a clear insinuation that he was next in line, but there is no stressing of that point. (Of course the fact that Steve Miller doesn't actually say anything in that paragraph is also relevant, but is indeed superflous to make my point.)

How many hold short lines are there on the way to the departure runway?
Is there only one hold short line which is used right before take off?
Let's say he was at a hold short line immeditatly in line for take off; is it possible that other planes were directed in front of him? I guess anything is possible, let me rephrase the question to ask is it an occurance that happens regularly at airports?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #85
90. Splitting hairs, anyone?

The context (as quoted by you) implies that he was next in line. Period. No use to split hairs.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Theobald Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #90
109. Keep on obfuscating
I agree, the context of the text quoted implies he was next in line. However you continue to over state your case by claiming, incorrectly, that Steve stressed he was next in line, when there is no evidence to support that, and by saying that Steve said things, when all we have is the interpretation of what someone heard him say.

How many hold short lines are there on the way to the departure runway?
Is there only one hold short line which is used right before take off?
Let's say he was at a hold short line immeditatly in line for take off; is it possible that other planes were directed in front of him? I guess anything is possible, let me rephrase the question to ask is it an occurance that happens regularly at airports?


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-09 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
43. There seems to be acomprehension gap here
This isn't Miller's book, it's a quotation from 'Touching History' by Lynn Spencer (as you point out). I refer to Miller's info as 'hearsay' because it it is presented as reported speech by Spencer. It's not a question of whether Miller is telling the truth, but how reliable Spencer's paraphrasing of him is - which I why I suggested it would bolster your theory to get confirmation from Miller himself, instead of building your theory on a paraphrase rather than a direct quote. This is always a problem when one relies on second-hand sources; and I made clear in my first post that I'm not suggesting dishonesty on anyone'es part.

From looking at the book and your web page, I don't see anything in there which fits your conclusion that "It is out of the question that Miller observed a plane that took off at 8:14." On the contrary, the most likely explanation seems to me to be that there's an error in the time recorded in the BTS.

Is there any Air traffic control transcript or so that confirms the takeoff time of flight 6805 (piloted by Miller) corresponds exactly with that listed in the BTS? Conversely, what flights listed in the BTS took off at 8:14, when a flight identified by ATC as AU175 took off? Is there any air-traffic control data matching the takeoff listed in BTS as Flight 175 at 8:24?

Basically it seems to me that you're saying...

A flight identifying tiself as UA175 took off at 8:14
BTS lists a plane identified as UA175 taking off at 8:23
BTS lists a plane identified as US6805 taking off at 8:28

And you conclude that there were two planes identified as flight 175 and one of those must therefore be fake. Now, it seems to me that if this is the case, there must be some ATC activity relating to the flight that took off at 8:23. After all, it couldn't have just trucked onto the runway and taken off without clearance, or the people in the tower would have been screaming blue murder. So, did the tower clear two different flight 175s? If the first plane wasn't really flight 175, is there a BTS entry for a different plane that matches its takeoff time?


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-11-09 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #43
58. good questions

Now, it seems to me that if this is the case, there must be some ATC activity relating to the flight that took off at 8:23. After all, it couldn't have just trucked onto the runway and taken off without clearance, or the people in the tower would have been screaming blue murder. So, did the tower clear two different flight 175s? If the first plane wasn't really flight 175, is there a BTS entry for a different plane that matches its takeoff time?

You're right, of course, and I'm curious how controllers handled the 8:23 plane. My take - see my post #57 - is that both planes were part of an exercise, and that a few ground controllers knew about that.

And no, there is no BTS entry for a plane taking off at 8:14. Conclusion: the 8:14 plane - the one from the ATC transcript - was not in contact with United Airlines because it didn't send ACARS messages.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Theobald Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-03-09 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #6
80. He does not deliniate anything
Edited on Tue Mar-03-09 03:47 PM by Theobald
The quote you cited is not from Steve miller. It doesn't say 'we waited at the runway's hold short line' it says 'they waited' it also states 'where Miller looked up to watch' not 'I looked up to watch'. So Miller in acutality is not saying anything or deliniating anything.

Which makes it heresay by the very definition of heresay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-03-09 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #80
82. What is the "very definiton of hearsay"?

Do you want to say that whenever a witness is quoted indirectly in an article, it constitutes hearsay, but when he is quoted directly, it does not?

In other words, do you want to say that the use of quotation marks constitutes the difference between hearsay and a credible statement?

If you want to say this, my friend, this constitutes the end of journalism. If you say every indirect quote of (for example) a politician is hearsay, than 99% of journalists are just spreading rumors. Is it that what you want to say?

Steven Miller has told Lynn Spencer about much more than the departure of Flight 175. He has seen the smoke of the burning WTC1 tower; he has seen the second plane crashing into the WTC2 tower; he has landed at La Guardia and drove to Atlantic City afterwards. I have the book not at hand, but I'm pretty sure that all these statements are quoted indirectly, not directly.

If Lynn Spencer was quoting an "unnamed source", I'd tend to agree with you that we're dealing with hearsay. But Steven Miller is not afraid to reveal his name and his job, i.e. his identity.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Theobald Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-03-09 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #82
84. You state -
"He delineates a lot of easily verifiable details in the book. Particularly, he meticulously describes how he and his captain Ron Maxwell were waiting for the departure of United 175 next in line. Quoting the book"

When in actuallity he does not meticulously describe anything. Lynn Spencer did not quote Steve Miller, she describes what happened to him, based upon information that was most likely provided by him. We are dealing with heresay because it is not a quote from Steve Miller. If she has a tape of Steve Miller saying what was quoted above then we would have what I consider testimony from Steve Miller. All we have is Lynn Spencer's interpretation of what he said and what he meant.

http://books.google.com/books?id=HlFXrXcq9X4C&pg=PA99&l...

"After their short stint on the ground, Miller was ready to fly the plane back to New York and looking forward to his opportunity to the more favored and relaxing job of flying the airplane. On the taxi out in Boston, they waited at the runways hold short line, where Miller looked up to watch a Boeing 767 take off, United Flight 175." Quote from book.

Can a runway have multiple hold short lines?
If Miller is at the hold short line while watching flight 175 take off, does that mean his flight is next in line?


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #84
89. Bob Woodward - the master of hearsay???

We are dealing with heresay because it is not a quote from Steve Miller. If she has a tape of Steve Miller saying what was quoted above then we would have what I consider testimony from Steve Miller. All we have is Lynn Spencer's interpretation of what he said and what he meant.

To show you how your definition of hearsay makes journalism practically impossible I transpose your claim to a famous example (excuse me when I correct your little spelling error):

We are dealing with hearsay because it is not a quote from Norman Mineta. If he has a tape of Norman Mineta saying what was quoted above then we would have what I consider testimony from Norman Mineta. All we have is Bob Woodward's interpretation of what Mineta said and what he meant.

And here's the underlying report from the Washington Post, Jan 27, 2002, based on an interview with Norman Mineta:

Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta, summoned by the White House to the bunker, was on an open line to the Federal Aviation Administration operations center, monitoring Flight 77 as it hurtled toward Washington, with radar tracks coming every seven seconds. Reports came that the plane was 50 miles out, 30 miles out, 10 miles out-until word reached the bunker that there had been an explosion at the Pentagon.

Mineta shouted into the phone to Monte Belger at the FAA: "Monte, bring all the planes down." It was an unprecedented order-there were 4,546 airplanes in the air at the time. Belger, the FAA's acting deputy administrator, amended Mineta's directive to take into account the authority vested in airline pilots. "We're bringing them down per pilot discretion," Belger told the secretary.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42754-2002Jan...


It's easy to slam Lynn Spencer for "interpretating" Steven Miller, but according to your logic, Woodward conveys hearsay to the WP readers because he offers no tape of Mineta's account.

Is it this what you want to say? Then, my friend, the WP and the printed media are only hotbeds for hearsay. I have to say I'm not sharing this view.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-31-08 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. Hmmm.... Two flight 175s...
Edited on Wed Dec-31-08 01:42 PM by William Seger
... and two flight 11s, too? But no planes hit the WTC towers. And flights 93 and 77 never took off... The plot thickens...

Aha! I think I've figured it out -- and it's shear genius! Most of what the plotters did on 9/11 was just to drive conspiracy theorists crazy, trying to make sense of it. Good thing there are so many conspiracy theorists who don't get caught in that trap, huh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. "shear genius"?
'nuff said...

Thank the good lord we have you here to expose the quacks with your finely tuned intellect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Twist_U_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-09 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #4
45. snort....
if you cant dazzle em with brilliance baffle em with bullshit
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-09 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. Uh-oh
You haven't been trying to make sense out of all the "truth" coming from the "movement" have you, Twist? That's not good for your mental health. Just pass it along and don't think about it too much, K?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Twist_U_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-05-09 03:39 AM
Response to Reply #47
48. Truth needs no defense, only lies need to be protected.
The only people who are still ignorant WANT to be.
got that? C-gar
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-03-09 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
157. Unfotunately, even if it's disinformation it has to be worked thru . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
49. why would they need 2 x Flight 175s?
did they do a swap?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-09 05:59 AM
Response to Reply #49
54. Yes

I will outline this on my blog the coming days.

The 8:14 Flight 175's purpose was to create a track toward New York and simulate a hijack. Probably no passengers on it.

The 8:23 Flight 175 was a secret flight with passengers, probably part of a military hijack exercise, and I have a specific idea where it landed.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #54
86. Intriguing . . . .
Thanks for answering the other poster, because I'm new to this discussion and couldn't

get relevance of discussion.

And . . . if part of a military exercise, perhaps some of the controllers knew this?

Would have ignored that plane? Passed it on to military control?

Supposedly one of the hijacked planes landed in Cleveland/?

All passengers unloaded there --



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #86
93. Yes, that's basically the direction to be investigated (nT)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #93
104. However . . . .
Edited on Thu Mar-05-09 02:32 PM by defendandprotect
Can you fill me in on what the overall concept is on the use of "duplicate" plane/s?

Steven Miller has told Lynn Spencer about much more than the departure of Flight 175. He has seen the smoke of the burning WTC1 tower; he has seen the second plane crashing into the WTC2 tower; he has landed at La Guardia and drove to Atlantic City afterwards. I have the book not at hand, but I'm pretty sure that all these statements are quoted indirectly, not directly.

If Lynn Spencer was quoting an "unnamed source", I'd tend to agree with you that we're dealing with hearsay. But Steven Miller is not afraid to reveal his name and his job, i.e. his identity.



And, is this where the interview is reported . . . ?
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry...

Miller was leaving from Boston? That would be at least an hour or more to NYC --

The jet fuel would have burned off in the first ten minutes.

And Miller is a new witness who claims to have seen the second plane hit the WTC tower

from his airplane?


And here's an interesting 1 minute video re these alleged flights ---

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/752033/9_11_wtc_unbeleava... /
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #104
122. Duplication

was the key element of the 9/11 plot and necessary to "get rid" of the passengers. The 8:23 UA 175 was a super-secret flight, but it pops up a few times in the course of the morning. I'm positive its existence will be proven in the future.

I have to correct you - A Boston-La Guardia flight doesn't take an hour; without delays, it may last only 35-40 minutes. Miller's timeline is consistent, I've checked it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-03-09 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #122
159. A lot to catch up on . ..
Edited on Sat Apr-04-09 12:02 AM by defendandprotect
Unfortunately my list of posts doesn't seem to want to report on dungeon replies!

Basically, I like to see anyone's idea honestly looked at and followed and not bullied off
the field -- and I find your idea very interesting. Though, truth be told, I probably lean
more to the "no planes" theory.

Coming to the "duplication" . . . even a "no planes" concept requires at least ONE PLANE
to be flown around, especially close to the Pentagon. I recall reading somewhere that
there was a plane reported "missing." Whether military or commercial, I don't recall if
it was mentioned. Plane found -- seemingly returned -- later that day. IMO, there is
quite a knot to be untangled re flights that weren't actually scheduled, flights that
may be duplicates -- and the flight that landed in Cleveland. And, could the "duplicate"
have been the first flight 175 which took off?

I have to correct you - A Boston-La Guardia flight doesn't take an hour; without delays, it may last only 35-40 minutes. Miller's timeline is consistent, I've checked it.

My daughter went to college in Boston and flew regularly to and from Newark.
Most times she had arrived early and was waiting for us--!!
Rarely did her whole trip, getting off and finding luggage exceed an hour.
Miller's flight is supposedly leaving at 8:28 . . . ?
Even allowing 35 minutes -- and it could be 30 minutes . . . that's just 8:58.

Planes hit WTC towers at 8:40 and 8:56.

They also made some weird turns, if I recall correctly . . . ?

In reflecting back on other conspiracies, it seems that almost immediately many people
knew the outlines of what had happened and generally those responsible. I think we've
been very fortunate that so many dedicated themselves to finding the truth -- and
I'm confident that that will happen again re 9/11. Sadly, one of the truths we have
to face about political violence in the past is that no one seems to have the power to
bring the truth to its logical conclusion - prosecution.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
59. Interesting new source: 9/11 Commission memo
According to this recently published paper

http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-01098.pdf

UA 175 sent an ACARS wheels-off message at 8:14 ("nose wheel strut extension").

This confirms what I'm saying: that the "wheels-off time" is triggered automatically by a mechanical sensor. But it doesn't confirm the time 8:23, instead, it matches the ATC/pilot transcript.

Pretty odd, isn't it? What choices do we have now?

Either (Scenario A) the 9/11 Commission is right in saying that the plane sent the wheels-off message 8:14 to United Airlines headquarters. In this case, it follows inevitably that

- when United Airlines transmitted the ACARS data to the BTS, the 8:14 was somehow changed to 8:23 (I'd like to stress that the probability for such a change in an automated process is infinitesimal)

AND

- that Steven Miller, who demonstrably took off at 8:28, is telling fairy tales when he says that a Boeing 767 of United took off immediately before him *** (see footnote)

AND

- that the erroneous United/BTS transmission coincidentally matches Steven Miller's erroneous account.



Or (Scenario B) the BTS database correctly reflects 8:23 as the point when UA 175 lifted off. In this case, it follows that the 8:14 in the 9/11 Commission memo is erroneous. Tracking back the information flow, we find that David Knerr, manager of United, provided Commissioner Miles Kara with the ACARS data. So

- either Kerr submitted the wrong datum 8:14 to Kara

OR

- Kara (as the person responsible for the memo) got the correct datum 8:23, but for some reason it was substituted by 8:14 in the memo.


I can't help; Scenario B looks much more realistic to me. How do you think?



***(I've already mentioned the theoretical possibility that Miller observed a non-domestic United 767 and falsely thought it was UA 175; non-domestic flights are not registered by the BTS. However, the daily number of non-domestic United 767's scheduled to depart from Logan was certainly small to very small, so this is also a coincidence of infinitesimal probability.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Theobald Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-03-09 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #59
79. I'm missing where you have testimony
from Steve Miller that flight 175 took off immediately before him. The only thing you have is Lynn Spencer saying that Steve Miller's plane took off after flight 175. Nowhere in the book does she quote Steve Miller as saying he took off after flght 175. "so he waited the required three minutes after United 175 departed before he received his takeoff clearance." That statement reads to me that Steve Miller's plane, flight 6805, was the next in line after the departure of flight 175, which would back up your assertion. However, no where in the book does she actually quote Steve Miller actually saying that, we only have her interpretation of what he said, or what she thought she said. Do you have any source that directly quotes Steve Miller? Have you tried to contact him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-03-09 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #79
83. See post #82 (nT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-09 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
60. Someone here knows a passenger from US 6805 on 9/11?
Here's a list of Logan Departures/Arrivals (in parentheses) between 8:10 and 8:30.

UAL 505.........8:10
NW 157..........8:12
Delta 2351......8:13
UAL 175.........8:14 (not registered in the BTS database)
US 6511.........8:16
Delta 2433......8:16
MQ 5122.........8:17
(US 1728.........8:19)
(MQ 4619.........8:19)
US 2993.........8:20
MQ 4914.........8:20
Delta 1043......8:21
(MQ 4641.........8:22)
UAL 175.........8:23 (?)
Delta 1989......8:25
MQ 4892.........8:27
US 6805.........8:28
(MQ 4975.........8:28)
AA 1857.........8:30
MQ 4560.........8:30

UAL = United Airlines
AA = American Airlines
NW = Northwest Airlines
US = US Airways
MQ = American Eagle


All of the passengers of these flights are potential witnesses for the duplication of Flight 175. Most of them will remember their departure from Logan with a creepy shiver. So there is a good chance that things will come to light some day.

Most wanted: passengers of Delta 1989.








Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
KDLarsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #60
116. How on earth would they be that?
The only thing they would have witnessed was a number of airliners in various colours, shapes & forms. The only people who would have any idea of which aircraft had a particular callsign, were the air traffic controllers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #116
119. I'm not so sure

that the only people familiar with callsigns, departure times, etc. are the air traffic controllers.

I'm sure there were quiet a lot of people flying regularly, or several times a year, from Boston to the West Coast. And there are not so many West Coast flights departing in the morning, i.e, flight numbers AA 11, UA 175, and also Delta 1989 were certainly known to some of these people.





Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #119
123. Umm....

I fly more than 50,000 miles per year (and two years ago managed to hit platinum at 75,000 miles).

I can guarantee you that regular fliers are not making note of other planes in the taxi line when taking off. First off, staring at runway traffic is boring as all get out. But more importantly, you'd never know what plane is before or ahead of you in the taxi line, because a passenger cannot see what is in front of, or behind, the plane he or she is in.

I'm going to guess you don't fly much, yes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-10-09 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #123
126. Your expertise is welcome

but even if you fly 500,000 miles a year, this wouldn't enable you to speak for the entirety of regular fliers.

The probability that a passenger of US6805 (or another plane on the taxiway) made the same observation like Steven Miller (and remembers it, of course) might be small, but it is definitely bigger than zero. It doesn't hurt to ask around, does it?.

We have at least Ron Maxwell, the captain of US6805, as a potential witness (Miller was the first officer).

I don't fly as much as you, but according to my experience planes rarely move along a perfectly straight path when rolling to the runway. Usually, their path includes one or more curves. Each curve is an opportunity for passengers to take a glimpse of the plane in front of them.








Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
KDLarsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-11-09 04:14 AM
Response to Reply #126
133. Like I said above..
When looking out of the window, the average passenger won't have a clue which airplane has a particular callsign. Hell, even most pilots won't. There's a reason that air traffic controllers will tell a pilot to give way to or follow a "Delta MD80" or "United 767" instead of giving them a particular callsign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-13-09 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #133
135. You might be right

However, the callsign is not crucial.

Anyone who remembers a United Boeing 767 taking off at 8:23 or from a different runway than runway 9 is a witness for the duplication (because the "official" UA 175 used runway 9). UA 175 was the only 767 of United scheduled for the morning.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-15-09 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #135
140. 95% of the flying public cannot identify aircraft.
If you saw a commercial jet, could YOU tell me what model it was?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #140
193. Well...so 5% of flying public CAN identify aircraft then

so it's worth a try to find one, don't you think so?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
149. kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-03-09 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
150. Hijacking "on the ground" at Logan?
Edited on Fri Apr-03-09 03:56 PM by Woody Box
Here's an account of DU member Lorien from 2006:

We also talked to a friend of his hours later whose brother had been a Steward on a plane that had been right behind one of the hijack aircraft on the tarmac that morning. He said that the control tower knew the plane was hijacked while it was ON THE GROUND, and yet nothing was being done (it sat waiting for takeoff for quite some time. Normally the captain of the steward's plane chatted with the captain of the hijacked plane before takeoff, but that morning he couldn't reach him and became alarmed). The hijacked plane veered wildly off course after it reached altitude. This was one of the planes that struck the WTC.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Not very precise, but nevertheless interesting. The last sentence seems to indicate that Lorien talks about Logan, the departure airport for the WTC planes.

I think I contacted Lorien then, but got no response. Does someone know if he's stilling hanging around?








Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-03-09 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #150
158. Highly interesting . . .and re
Lorien, I have no idea . . . however, I do know that someone using that photo

is still around. Unfortunately, people change user names here!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #150
162. Jesus Christ, Woody!
Tell me you can see why this account cannot possibly be true. Please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #162
167. Leave Jesus alone, please

and, frankly, a little "thanks" for promptly answering your amateurish question in post #9

Again, my question is where in "the official story" does anyone claim that UA 175 took off at a time that contradicts the BTS data?

would have been appropriate before requiring more information from me, don't you think so?

The account is of course hearsay and too unprecise and sketchy to assign big words like "truth" to it. But it's definitely interesting, might in part reflect the reality better than the official story, and could serve as a springboard for more research about what happened at Logan Airport.

I hope I could help you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
scott75 Donating Member (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-11 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #167
255. The 9/11 planes and their passengers
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-06-09 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
171. kick - in honor of Lynn Spencer

:patriot:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Theobald Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-07-09 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #171
173. And I will kick it right back to you
I've been on a number of flights since a got involved in this discussion and have been paying attention to what happens on the runway. On a few occasion there have been at least two planes on the hold short line as we were taking off and on my most recent trip there were three planes on the hold short line. This invalidates your theory that a plane is next in line to take off if it is on the hold short line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-07-09 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #173
174. I never said that

Theobald.

You claim:

This invalidates your theory that a plane is next in line to take off if it is on the hold short line.


I never said that a plane is next in line to take off if it is on the hold short line or implied anything like that.

Why do you impute me with statements I never made?

Pleas elaborate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-22-09 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #174
176. Theobald?

I'm desperately searching my posts for my alleged theory that "a plane is next in line to take off if it is on the hold short line", a theory that to my knowledge I never have advocated.

Can you help me?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-22-09 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #176
177. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-24-10 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #173
209. Hmmm...over a year now and still no answer...

Where's Theobald? :popcorn:



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #209
211. Probably as bored with this thread as everyone else
What do you think you have discovered that is so earth-shaking?
The majority of posts in this thread are from you and you think this "evidence" is soooo compelling, you needed to create the topic twice.
Well, whatever keeps you busy...
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-11 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #211
214. You are bored and go ROFL at the same time? C'mon
Edited on Sun Jan-09-11 12:11 PM by Woody Box
Sort of a contradiction, isn't it?

Frankly, you don't belong to the intended audience of this thread. If you're bored, simply ignore it. If you feel obliged to roll on the floor, do it and tell us here if you like. But don't do both things at the same time because that doesn't look genuine - just a hint.

On October 9th, 2010, this thread exceeded 20000 views. Three months later, it approaches 23000 views, which makes about 1000 views/months, despite being down the stack and not on page 1 for a long time.

If only 5 percent out of this 1000 are first-time viewers, this makes 50 people/month who learn about the strange occurrences at Boston Logan Airport. Now and then, someone who was at Logan on 9/11 or knows someone who was there will read this thread. I bet he's not bored, nor will he be rolling on the floor. These people are my intended audience.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-11 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #209
222. you'll never get an answer
when you beat a dead horse.
but keep it up for the entertainment value.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 10:50 PM
Response to Original message
175. there was something strange going on
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
trumanh59639 Donating Member (56 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-24-09 02:26 AM
Response to Original message
178. Ridiculous
It was probably an error in the database
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-24-09 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #178
179. Ridiculous? Not at all, sorry

A data error is unlikely. Please go to my post #59.

Your "erroneous database" theory implies that

- when United Airlines transmitted the ACARS data to the BTS, the 8:14 was somehow changed to 8:23 (I'd like to stress that the probability for such a change in an automated process is infinitesimal)

AND

- that Steven Miller, who demonstrably took off at 8:28, is telling fairy tales when he says that a Boeing 767 of United took off immediately before him

AND

- that the erroneous United/BTS transmission coincidentally matches Steven Miller's erroneous account.

The combined probability of these three premises is next to zero.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-24-09 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
180. A pattern emerges: United tracked different planes than the FAA

ACARS vs. FAA - same for Flight 175 as for Flight 93

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2009/09/united-airlines...



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
181. UPDATE: the duplicated Flight 175 confirmed by ACARS messages
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #181
182. Anyone here who happens to know Mike Williams of 911myths.com personally?

Can you please tell him that here:

:yourock:

for publishing the United Airlines ACARS blog which will certainly be a cornerstone in a coming 9/11 investigation.






Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #182
183. Hey, you can probably find a contact email at 9/11 Myths for him.
You obviously get Internet access north of the Citgo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #183
184. Now as you say it

:banghead:

Nevertheless, if someone meets him these days, tell him about the ACARS thing: I think he will be delighted.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
185. UPDATE: the mysterious United 177 from Boston

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2009/11/mysterious-unit...

...Most remarkably, the hijacking of United 177 was reported at 9:25, two minutes after Ed Ballinger, United flight dispatcher, sent the last message to "his" Flight 175 while it was over Pittsburgh. It is therefore legitimate to specify the above working hypothesis: The plane that was tracked by United Airlines as Flight 175 was tracked by the FAA as United Flight 177.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-10 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
186. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-10 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #186
187. kick for Woody Box!
There was some discussion (heated) about the duplicate flights on a forum I frequented back in 2003, but since very few people there believed it was possible, it went down the memory hole. I'm glad to see the subject coming forward again and more clearly stated, thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #187
191. You're welcome

and I predict that Logan Airport will be a hot spot in uncovering the inside job.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deconstruct911 Donating Member (809 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-10 10:57 PM
Response to Original message
188. something happened at Stewart AFB
both 11 & 175 took off from Logan & crossed paths at the same time over Stewart. It would only be a few minutes after that when flight 11 hit the North Tower.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
terrafirma Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-10 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #188
189. Well that solves it then...
"Something happened, Your Honor."

CASE CLOSED!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #189
190. I never believed that the truthers until now!
Great job guys!
Tell you what, you run this by the families of the passengers of that plane and I'll contact CNN.
Let me know how it goes on your end!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #190
192. I'm not interested in contacting CNN, thanks

but the research will continue, I ensure you

:patriot:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #192
194. read again
I will contact CNN.
YOU contact the victim's families.
After you get them on our side, the media will have to listen!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
snooper2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #192
195. So it's been several years for this thread, find anymore truthy?
I mean, most murder cases best to be solved in the first 48 hours..

Come On WoodyBoxxy!!!!

Get the Truthy OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #195
196. What`s a "truthy"?

:silly:

I can't find it in my English-German dictionary.

Can you enlighten me?



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
snooper2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #196
197. You have a mirror in your residence?
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #197
198. Can you answer my question, please?

Obviously you want to tell me that I'm a "truthy". I still don't know what makes me a "truthy".

I suggest you take a crash course in formal logic.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #198
199. so what are you getting at?
are you suggesting that no planes or empty planes flew into the WTC?
if so, where did the passengers go?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-26-10 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #199
200. oops...zappaman has overtaken the baton...


Pardon if I simply ignore your questions for this time and respond to whining snooper2 who apparently doesn't like kicking old threads.

I kicked this thread at the instance of my new blog entry on Flight 11 at Boston:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

As you might have noticed, this is a quite popular thread, approaching a view count of 20.000. This is probably because a lot ot people are interested on what happened at Logan Airport. Some of them might even have been there on September 11, or they know someone who was there. These are exactly the kind of people I intend to reach.

So stay assured I'll refresh this thread until the Last Judgement if necessary.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
snooper2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-06-10 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #200
202. Last Truthy Judgement
!

YOU GET EM' WOOD!!!!!!!1
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-06-10 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #202
203. You have solved it!
I will put in calls immediately to all the major media outlets!
They can not ignore this incredible evidence!!!!
Woody, I hope you are ready to be enshrined!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-09-10 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
205. 20000+ views! I think this needs a

kick :party:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-09-10 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #205
206. kick
for one of the dumbest threads ever!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Soldier61 Donating Member (7 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-11-10 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #206
207. Hmmm....
This means the guys of the 101st Chairborne ran out of arguments.

Fine.


S61
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-17-10 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #207
208. The niveau of these guys has really dropped to a new low
Edited on Sun Oct-17-10 03:31 PM by Woody Box
Compared with the former contributions of boloboffin, MercutioATC and the like that's really a regression. :silly:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mrarundale Donating Member (281 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #208
213. they must be outsourcing
due to the economy...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
210. The Massachusetts State Troopers To Investigate Logan Occurrences

:evilgrin: - sorry, just the inspiration of a great fan of Martin Scorsese. Remember his movie "Departed"? Crime Szene Boston. State Troopers Leo DiCaprio and Mark Wahlberg fight against the Irish mob (Jack Nicholson and Matt Damon). The FBI plays only a secondary role. Mark Wahlberg: "My theory on Feds is that they're like mushrooms, feed 'em shit and keep 'em in the dark". In the end it turns out that the really evil Jack Nicholson is a FBI agent...

Regarding 9/11, the FBI Boston has done a really lousy job and will certainly struggle with admitting that. These questions are still pending:

Which gate did Flight 11 depart from?
At whicht time did Flight 11 depart from the gate?
At which time did Fligh 175 take off from the runway?


Might be a job for the State Troopers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #210
212. doesn't the airport have a record?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Raphael Weber Donating Member (97 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
215. This looks pretty convincing
Somehow reminds me of UA 93. There it was the BTS and the captain LaRosa that showed that there are two departure times (8:28 and 8:42).
On the other hand I see the possibility of a wargame but I don't see yet that you have proven it.
But this (with UA 93) is certainly something that has to be asked and has to clarified!
And I find it sad that many people here prefer not to acknowledge that there is apparently something fishy here but to jump into the discussion whether two UA 175 would be possible etc.
Instead of looking at the facts at hand:
Which is two strong indications of a second plane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deconstruct911 Donating Member (809 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #215
216. Probably 8:42
Edited on Tue Jan-11-11 09:04 PM by deconstruct911
Possibly because they would send up the last plane on it's planned course once they know for sure the first plane is shortly from impact with the first tower without any problems. Since UA 93 didn't have any structure it had to hit anyway.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-11 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #215
217. You are right

Exactly the same pattern for UA 93 and UA 175.

Here`s more on the departure of Flight 93:

Who was the male in Flight 93's co-pilot seat?

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2009/09/who-was-male-in...


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-11 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #217
218. wow
Edited on Fri Jan-14-11 02:04 PM by zappaman
I'm sure you are about to bring the whole conspiracy down at any moment.
Will you be holding a press conference?
Be careful...you are on to some dangerous information here and the perps are good at making investigators like you disappear!
almost 10 years later and still nothing...CONFIRMED!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Raphael Weber Donating Member (97 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-11 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #218
219. This is a kind of post I don't understand
In contrast to you Woody Box has laid all his card on the table, shown his research. It looks pretty convincing to me. Maybe I'm wrong but a discussion and analysis of the given facts should lead to a conclusion. Yet, all you do is write a post completely void of any substance. If you think the OP is wrong then show it. If you haven't to produce anything of substance well, then why do you feel the need to post?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
220. A pilot's strange encounter with Atta at Boston Airport
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-11 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #220
221. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-11 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
223. 911
UA 175 cannot be proven because it didn't show up in 4 live broadcasts. An orb came from the northwest moving very slowly over the Hudson River. Here is Chopper 4 NBC. This footage ran for over 2 minutes before the orb drops from right/northwest of the towers. This orb was eventually called the 'plane'. That proves all by itself that no plane impacted the south tower. Watch very close to above and right of T1 for the orb, which casts its own shadow behind the buildings before it impacts the southeast corner of T2.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_caQ9ZsGycY&list=PL1C1F9...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-11 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #223
224. Thanks for the laugh!
Little late to the party, aren't you?
Better get a hold of the hundreds of witnesses and tell them they didn't see what they saw before the Government gets to them!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-11 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #224
228. Denialists wallow in willful ignorance
You have to remember a few on here are in denial about facts and a few are just delusional. Which leaves very few of you who will look for or at evidence that disagrees with your delusions of hijacking nonsense. You cannot show a number of photographs or videos that can prove a plane impacted the south tower and will not because I would mock and attack all of it with real evidence proving no plane was even in the area when it exploded. Video fakery is proven most assuredly with WB11's footage that displays its first computer plane only one minute after the orb was last shown.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIyGEDvG9KQ&list=PL1C1F9...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-11 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #228
230. "You have to remember a few on here are in denial about facts and a few are just delusional."
How would you know?
You just joined up.
But, again, thanks for the laughs, Sherlock.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-11 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #223
225. 911
Another orb flying straight east to west behind the towers at 9:10. It appears to be rising in altitude.LOL It took about three seconds for it to move across tower 2. 208 feet/3=70x60seconds=4200feet per minute. 4200x60minutes=252000 feet per hour/5280=48mph. This orb was moving very similar to the orb that exploded the south tower. IT WAS MOVING VERY SLOW!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dNLy_vJBlU&list=PL1C1F9...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
KDLarsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-11 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #223
232. You've already had your slamdown at JREF
So now you come here instead, to spam your GIFs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Larry L. Burks Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-10-11 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #223
281. Did you see it?



That's not a plane It's and Orb. The shadow is on the wrong side of the building.

This means that the Orb drone never hit the tower. The DEW of the drone is what hit the tower.

The silvery spheres is what the drones look like that have the DEW system on them that they used to to distroy the Twin Towers on 9/11

At last I have found a picture with the right kind of drone in it.
e have found our Orb shaped drone that we have been looking for for so long.

Now we have it.

proof that they usew a DEW.

Oh by the way. Are you tracking the news story of the Orb shapted drone that went down it Iran this week? It's Hot Hot Hot.

Larry L. Burks
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-11 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
226. 911
This is what I got for the main part of each hole. There were 5 broken beams for tower 2 and 15 for 1. The width of these holes would approximately be 17 and 52 feet. I counted 57 beams, not including the corners. I rounded it to 60 beams. 15/60=0.25x208=52 feet. The point is simple; Whatever hit T2 was smaller or maybe more probable, T1 was rigged with more sophisticated explosives.




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-11 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #226
227. 911
Four flying bombs were captured on film and survived without alteration. The only inconsistency is chopper 4 disappears behind the top of tower 1 while the other three are lower but at the same level. Here they are in this order; NY1, WB11, CBS, and Chopper 4, aka NBC.




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-11 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #227
229. An ignored orb blew up tower 2
My work is irrefutable because it's all visual, therefore, no judge, jury, or defense attorney would ever claim the orb was anything other than a ufo. Only simple minded anonymous tools would make that falsehood.

This man and woman reporter initially said there was no plane in the area because they didn't even see the orb and then started saying the orb was the plane. That's just how twilight zone crazy 911 was for many in the media.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFPB_NTi2cs&list=PL1C1F9... >NIST FOIA: WNBC Chopper 4 Clip (Replay of WTC2 Plane Impact) - YouTube
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-11 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #229
231. people in boats below would have had a good view of it
I'm surprised there are so few photos
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-11 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #231
233. Photog did NOT see a plane
"I was underneath it, I was looking at the tower, I had my camera in my hand, I heard the noise, I never saw the airplane." CASE CLOSED.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHrbQ0u3xzk&list=PL1C1F9...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-11 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #233
234. Witnesses support small or no plane at all
There were around 117 eyewitness accounts and only 20 percent saw a plane. Only 8% saw and heard a plane.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-11 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #234
235. "It's a bomb...it's definitely a bomb"
"It's a bomb, it's definitely a bomb." This is the type of footage that would show the orb but we don't get that here. The impact was edited out by someone, that's for sure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TKdqezML4I&list=PL1C1F9...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-11 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #235
236. A UFO EXPLODED THE SOUTH TOWER
The following three were filmed on 911; Chopper 4 orb, WB11 chopper, and a plane that evening. It is clear that camera zoom on a distant object will reveal more detail and will often provide positive identification as it does with the chopper and plane. The orb shows no identifying characteristics of any known flying object or aircraft, staying true to its drone status. Note the speed and efficiency of the chopper and plane compared to the laughable cartoon dive of the orb.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DahTYtdHLA&feature=rela...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-11 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #236
237. kick this thread ............ just because n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
KDLarsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-11 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #236
238. The delights of wilful ignorance
You're comparing a zoomed in, extremely low resolution clip, to a zoomed out higher resolution clip.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-11 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #238
239. That stuff is impenetrable.
True fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-11 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #239
240. The orb was northwest of the towers before impact
I focused on the easiest aspect of 911 because of all the available news footage showing fake planes on different flight paths and an orb that really came from the northwest that was called a plane.

I can't explain how the orb flew because it had no apparent characteristics of any known aircraft which leads to some exotic, very slowing moving drone. Notice the building circled below that is clearly north and west of the towers. The circled orb took a long 10-15 seconds before tower 2 exploded. It was moving slow and there was a witness who laughed at that very fact. The third pic is NY1. I circled the Newark side which the orb apparently flew over and many witnesses mentioned something coming in low from over west. One man said it may have come from Newark Airport.






The correct flight path above is in direct contrast with the official divebomb myth that moved northeast at the same time the orb was flying southeast in all live footage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-11 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #240
241. Bullshit. ALL videos are consistent with the flight path recorded on radar
... and reported by eyewitnesses. ALL claims to the contrary are based on spacial disorientation and/or misunderstanding of perspective and/or imaginary depth perception in 2D images. The video you're looking at is facing southwest. There isn't any way to accurately determine the flight path from any single video -- pure imagination is certainly insufficient -- but there is nothing in this video that indicates the plane came from the northwest. It's perfectly consistent with the well established fact that the plane came in from the southwest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-11 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #241
242. Fiction has no chance against Reality
No plane showed up in 4 live broadcasts. The chopper 4 lady and the people in the studio failed to see the orb, and when it was pointed out they called it a plane which of course it was not. Lucky for you, you'll never be tasked with proving a negative, that a twin engine jet could show up as a small circular object.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-11 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #242
243. Confusing your imagination for reality is called delusion
Seriously, why do you think your own inability to comprehend why "a twin engine jet could show up as a small circular object" should be taken as evidence that there was no plane? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps not everyone is afflicted with that particular ignorance?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-11 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #243
244. The real orb truth
The fact that planes hit the buildings isn't even in debate

The fact that media reptiles called an orb a 767 on 911 is beyond refute. They gave it credibility by acknowledging that it was responsible for T2's explosion. It needed to be ignored and written off as a chopper or artifact but wasn't, because humans are incapable of covering almost anything up.




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-11 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #243
245. Insisting on delusions that exist only in fantasy
Edited on Sun Nov-13-11 01:21 PM by rogerh7
Seriously, you do comprehend that an orb could never be anything but an orb and "a twin engine jet never showed up in any live footage but a small circular object" did. It has now occurred to you that you are afflicted with willful ignorance. You now the know the truth and must exist in a fantasy of disproven nonsense.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-11 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #245
246. "an orb could never be anything but an orb"
... has nothing whatever to do with the fact that a plane or a great many other things can look like an "orb" in low-resolution images with compression artifacts, and digital enlargement can't recover lost detail. In addition to your ignorance of imaging, your logic appears to work in the wrong direction. But anyway, many (if not most) videos do resolve the object well enough to identify it as a large passenger jet, and contrary to your assertion, several of the "live" ones do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVhhu5OjMf8

Furthermore, even if we didn't have a single video of it, we'd know it was a large passenger jet from the eyewitnesses. That is really the point where no-planers need to conjure up some serious delusions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-11 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #246
247. The film locations of the orb
As reported by the female reporter in Chopper 4, they were around 5 miles north of the towers when the orb was captured coming from over west.
http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit.html

WB11 (WPIX-TV) Metrocam YouTube 1, 2, & 3

Shot from the Empire State Building, like NY1 above, but from a different camera. It could be guessed that WB11 (now "WPIX Home of the CW") cropped the NY1 wide shot to create a zoomed view with better aesthetic balance... but no. Recently (July 2009) YougeneDebs used trig to discover the WB11 view "seems to be on the western half of the ESB at about the 88th storey. Notice the Staten Island shore line and structures there behind One Liberty Plaza, the old U.S. Steel building, the black building just to the left of center-frame for an estimate of the height of the perspective." The NY1 camera location is described above.

GM Building

This is the 3rd angle WCBS used on 9/11 to show the plane... all in 3 minutes. Here the plane passes the distance between the Empire State Building and the WTC in two successive playbacks (9:04 and 9:05). The full approach of "Flight 175" is shown from this angle later at 9:17 (and 9:22, abbreviated). That is, the tape starts from pause with the plane in a circle.

The camera location: General Motors Building, aka FAO Schwartz, E 58th St at Madison Ave... 215 meters tall on ground elevated at 48 feet above sea level Lat 40.763595 Lon -73.972781 (Thanks, YougeneDebs)

Every distance would have produced a ledgible image of a 767 for either tower but no image has ever surfaced. The north tower blob compared to a real boeing 767. Flight 11 and 175 were both supposed to be 767's.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-11 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #246
248. Mocking kooks and delusionals
Edited on Sun Nov-13-11 05:40 PM by rogerh7
No eyewitness saw a plane except on TV. You have no argument of anything resembling anything but, it has to be a plane because if it's not then your fantasy is destroyed. No plane showed up in any live footage which is a well established fact for anyone willing to look at the news footage.

Furthermore, even though fake planes appear in many clips, the live footage and witnesses to those clips said there was no plane in the area. Eyewitnesses are irrelevant against video proof if they are contradicting it. There's not a single video of a 767 or we'd know it was a large passenger jet beyond refute. That is really the point where planers conjure up some serious delusions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-11 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #248
249. Those arabs couldn't fly a kite
Edited on Sun Nov-13-11 05:49 PM by rogerh7
The plane was not flown by poorly trained Arabs on a mission from Osama bin Laden because they hate our freedoms.

Quotes from Flight Instructors:

Mohammed Atta: His attention span was zero.
Khalid Al-Mihdhar: We didnt kick him out, but he didnt live up to our standards.
Marwan Al-Shehhi: He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls.
Salem Al-Hazmi: We advised him to quit after two lessons.
Hani Hanjour: His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. Im still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.

http://911anomalies.wordpress.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-11 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #249
250. Not a single person saw a plane on the ground
"I was underneath it, I was looking at the tower, I had my camera in my hand, I heard the noise, I never saw the airplane." CASE CLOSED.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHrbQ0u3xzk&list=PL1C1F9...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-11 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #250
251. The orb will always only be the orb
Edited on Sun Nov-13-11 06:24 PM by rogerh7
double post.......................
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-11 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #251
252. Techmac gives the truth about CGI a doozy
Techmac's digital attempt at computer generated imagery was assinine. Note that it has no right wing and the left wing and engine dislodge right after it gets below the copyright. It convienently zooms in preventing view of the faux image between the towers. WB11 didn't get its first plane morph until 9:27 and the similarities between the two are profound.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_g7X7WFSwg&list=PL1C1F9...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-11 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #252
253. did you get tired of trolling JREF, 7forever?
Figured you bring your bullshit here?
Can't blame ya since ya got yer ass handed to you over there repeatedly...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-11 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #248
254. Serious delusions
> No eyewitness saw a plane except on TV.

You continue to spew unadulterated bullshit. A huge number of eyewitnesses reported seeing the plane, including at least two DUers. Either you are completely unprepared to discuss the subject, or you live in a delusional world where you think you can claim videos were faked and accuse eyewitnesses of lying just because they both contradict your no-plane fantasies. Either way, you're just wasting time and bandwidth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-11 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #254
256. A small blob plopped into the North Tower
A blob plopping into T1 just south of these men reacted to something but certainly not a twin engine jet. That's what you'd have to work with but will never try and prove it could be a 767. That's the dilemma that you'll never face in the real world. It was a small object that dived at the last second and was not a 767.





You're not even a talented troll. People like you should be banned simply for stealing bandwidth that could be used for noble purposes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
KDLarsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-11 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #256
257. That's bloody rich..
Edited on Wed Nov-16-11 12:30 AM by KDLarsen
We should be banned for stealing bandwith? We're not the ones posting 12 mb GIFs repeatedly :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-11 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #257
258. NY1 ORB
Here's a cool rewind of NY1's orb. The orb came from the Newark side/west and slightly north. It floated over the Hudson River @40-50mph.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkS6G783aq8&list=PL1C1F9...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
sgsmith Donating Member (305 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-11 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #258
259. Funny this doesn't look like an orb
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-11 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #259
260. He's trolling here
because he got his ass handed to him on JREF.
what a joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-17-11 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #260
261. REAL-TIME FAKERY ON ABC
A Eureka moment for real 911 research

Whether truthers have noticed this before or not, I don't know but the live footage and the wide east view do NOT show the nose of the fake plane come out the north side of T2. The natural sway of a chopper and live real-time fakery provided the nose-out blunder.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-11 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #261
262. NORTH TOWER DIVE PLOP NOT 767
A good guess is this small plane was flying 2-300mph. Compare that to the dive plop of whatever hit tower 1 and you need no more proof that it wasn't a 767 and was not flying anywhere near as fast as this low plane. A twin engine jet could never at the last second, from above the towers, dive into any building going 500mph.







Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-11 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #262
263. NO WING/S=NO PLANE
It confirms that when zoom can get close enough, both wings and the general construction of the aircraft will be discernable. WB11 and Techmac were very obvious fakes.




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-26-11 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #263
264. Truth is often stranger than fiction
In this order; The orb and fake abc plane on 911, and a real 767. No honest thinking person would objectively claim these are the same because they're all completely different in size and shape.




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #264
265. Up to the minute plane fakery
I doubled the speed of WB11's last orb showing, and their first plane morph. The most notable difference besides the silly morph is the orb moves straight west to east but the cgi is turning more left/north.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIyGEDvG9KQ&list=PL1C1F9...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #265
266. UA 175: Who created this fake footage from this rare south view?
http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit.html

The orb circled the building just as many witnesses had stated and that is corroborated by 4 live broadcasts showing the orb do just that from the north view. It's logical with so much footage being released that something from the south would show the orb's goofy bee-bop behind the towers.

We don't get the orb here but a fake plane exacting it as it circled the Towers. It is most logical that Manos Megagiannis turned his footage over to law enforcement and got it back this way. This man clearly captured the orb circling the buildings which is exactly why that whole part was edited out by starting the fake plane just as the orb passes east of Tower 1.





41. Here is the story behind my videos: The distance is about 6 miles, (according to Google Earth), recorded using a Sony PC1. After I got a call from a friend of mine about the first plane, I started filming from inside my apartment. To get a bit better view I went to the roof of the building, and the moment I pointed the camera to the WTC and started recording, without even realizing it I captured the second plane hitting the tower. Actually if you see the original tape you will notice that I move the camera so I can confirm with my own eyes the explosion that I saw through the viewfinder. The rest is just very basic digital zoom (very amateurish I admit). The woman's voice, was some tenant in the same building.

The videos have NOT being edited to make the plane disappear or anything like that (as some claim). One of these days, if I find some free time I may go back to the master and re-master the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG25MRnPy1o&list=PL1C1F9...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-11 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #266
267. 175 was in Pittsburgh when south tower exploded
ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH
UNITED 175
IN THE VICINITY OF HARRISBURG AND PITTSBURGH, PA

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) is a device used to send messages to and from an aircraft. Very similar to text messages and email we use today, Air Traffic Control, the airline itself, and other airplanes can communicate with each other via this "texting" system. ACARS was developed in 1978 and is still used today. Similar to cell phone networks, the ACARS network has remote ground stations installed around the world to route messages from ATC, the airline, etc, to the aircraft depending on it's location and vice versa.

ACARS Messages have been provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) which demonstrate that the aircraft received messages through ground stations located in Harrisburg, PA, and then later routed through a ground station in Pittsburgh, 20 minutes after the aircraft allegedly impacted the South Tower in New York. How can messages be routed through such remote locations if the aircraft was in NY, not to mention how can messages be routed to an aircraft which allegedly crashed 20 minutes earlier?

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have briefly touched on this subject in 9/11: Intercepted through the excellent research of "Woody Box", who initially discovered such alarming information in the released FOIA documents(1). We now have further information which confirms the aircraft was not in the vicinity of New York City when the attacks occurred.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=... >Acars Confirmed - 9/11 Aircraft Airborne Long After Crash - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-11 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #267
268. No plane from the west...it was an orb
Flight 175 had to come from behind/south of the towers. No exceptions, no other possibilities. Over two minutes elapsed before the orb dropped from the west. They were 5 miles north of the towers and the plane never showed up, but a small, very slow moving object did. The orb circled the towers exactly the way the fake plane image did from the south view.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_caQ9ZsGycY&list=PL1C1F9...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-11 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #268
269. 175 still in air after explosion
This was a live broadcast shown after both towers had been hit, it shows flight UAL-175 still in the air even though it had supposedly hit the south tower about an hour before - We know why it was never aired again.LOL

FAA radar is tracking, in real time, flight 175 after it has
supposedly crashed into the WTC. This is perhaps an hour later
.
Although many people do not believe an aircraft
hit the Pentagon or crashed in Shanksville, they still
cannot accept that no plane hit the WTC. Perhaps this may help.

3 IFR aircraft in the air in a 30 mile radius of New york city is consistent with one hour of diversions and forced landings.

One hour before you would expect a very large multiple of 3 aircraft to be in the air. NY has several incredibly busy airports.Check anytime on FLIGHT AWARE and count the aircraft within a 30 mile radius of NY. There should be 60 to 100.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdXGSefI6pM&feature=play...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-03-11 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #269
270. MOCKING DENIALISTS
Hmm!! Where was an orb mistaken as a small plane?
How were fake looking planes broadcast on TV?


By creating fake imagery in real-time and mistaking it initially for a possible helicopter. WB11 showed an orb for 23 minutes and at 9:27 the first fake plane aired.

I doubled the speed of WB11's last orb showing, and their first plane morph. The most notable difference besides the silly morph is the orb moves straight west to east but the cgi is turning more left/north.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIyGEDvG9KQ&list=PL1C1F9... >WPIX (WB11) 9/11 9:21 - 9:31 - YouTube


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-04-11 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #270
271. Dick Oliver saw drone/orb
And in just a couple months, you got all the answers.
I am impressed
Some very bright and talented researchers took many months to figure out all the details.
And not a single one arrived at your conclusions.

Where do you think your magic orb came from?

No, I took the work from September Clues and made it into something real instead of a rambling mess. Dick Oliver called the orb a remote controlled drone. He was on the ground and saw it floating just like it did in 4 live broadcasts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB-rwWeL7Sg&list=PL1C1F9... >Dick Oliver Says Plane Was Remote Control Drone - YouTube
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
KDLarsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-04-11 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #271
272. Enjoying yourself?
It should be blithingly obvious that noone at DU is taking you serious, which is why you've pretty much had the thread to yourself for the past couple of days.

I suppose the reason you're still here, is that every other place has banned you by now for spamming those large GIF files.

And for the love of all that is holy, when will you stop using low resolution videos/images to back your 'orb' claim?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-04-11 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #272
273. Adblock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-04-11 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #273
274. North tower drone had no wings
This is a great copy of the north tower drone. You can see it has no wings before it makes impact. The clowns who shot this were only several blocks north of the towers. If flight 11 had really crashed in NY it would have looked much like this plane landing.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MP5eFR97OX0&list=PL1C1F9...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #274
275. Mark Burnback laughs at plane myth
Mark, cryptically laughs at the end of his description, further proving that he was describing the slow moving drone, and falling short of confirming that it really wasn't a plane. It's no different than Jean Hill saying she saw the secret service shooting back, but falling short of fingering the driver. Of course it didn't belong in the area because it was a drone and not the boeing 767 it was supposed to be.

Eyewitness on 9/11 Mark Burnback was able to get a good view of the plane that hit the World Trade Center, because he said that the plane was flying very low. He explained to FOX News that the plane had no windows, a blue logo, and did not look like a commercial plane.

Fox NewsCaster: "Mark Burnback, a Fox employee, is on the phone with us. Mark witnessed this... Mark were you close enough to see any markings on the airplane?"

Mark Burnback: "Hi gentlemen. Yeah there was definitely a blue, circular logo on the front of the plane towards the front. It definitely did not look like a commercial plane. I did not see any windows on the side. It was definitely very low...

"Mark, if what you say is true, those could be cargo planes or something like that. You said you did not see any windows on the side?"

Mark Burnback: "I did not see any windows on the side. I saw the plane was flying low. I was probably a block away from the sub-way in Brooklyn and that plane came down very low, and again it was not a normal flight that I have ever seen at an airport. It was a plane with a blue logo on the front and it just looked like it did not belong in this area."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYUs9u1YwV0
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-11 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #272
276. NO PLANE FOR SOUTH TOWER IMPACT IS PROVEN BEYOND DOUBT
No one saw a plane unless you can show a real one in news footage. You cannot do this because none exists. A small floating object impacted the south tower that came from the west, not south.





Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-11 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #276
277. DID THE ORB IMPACT THE WEST SIDE OF T2?
The orb never turned north which means only two things could have happened.

It either crashed into the west side of T2 or it circled the building like the witnesses reported, including Matt Lauer. The orb did exactly what Manos' footage shows with his faked footage that exactly mirrored what the orb did behind and between the rear of the towers. It is slowed down but notice the lapse of time between when it's out of sight and its first fire.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-09-11 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #277
278. NO RIGHT WING...NO BIGGIE
Here's some cool footage which shows the fake image losing its right wing before impact.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q3ma5KstAA&list=PL1C1F9...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-09-11 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #278
279. spam, spam, spam, spam, spam,
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-09-11 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #279
280. The TWO SIDES OF FRAUD
There are two types of denialists wanting to cover up the truth that an orb really caused the small hole in T2 and created Hollywood explosions, which left little damage compared to T1. The first has been coined the untruther which is a poser that says the orb is fake because one clip showed the orb blurred out (not visible), most likely by the perps because they considered trying to hide it, but it was broadcast live, therefore wouldn't be possible to not have the original footage showing up because of all the vcr's recording after the first explosion. The perps adding a ball instead of fake imagery is idiotic. The others are government goons who don't believe the ball is a plane but say it is because it destroys the official 911 myth.

So, the only thing they (media and government) could do was call it the plane, which of course is bat shit crazy. No honest thinking person looking at all the footage would believe that lie because it was a slow floating ball with no wings or propeller. The media acknowledged the orb by calling it the plane and backed themselves into a corner of fantasy and fiction. No honest researcher would ever claim it was fake because the media crazies told an outright lie about what the orb could never be, a plane. That admission gives it the utmost credibility, proving that it was real and caused the superficial damage to the south tower. The untruthers are playing for the same team as the goons, essentially.

This live footage is perfectly clear, showing the orb and its shadow behind the towers. The second is the same footage but blurred, with the orb disappearing and no visible shadow after it gets behind the towers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_caQ9ZsGycY&list=PL1C1F9...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw1fy-rsqA8&list=PL1C1F9...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Larry L. Burks Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-10-11 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #279
282. Zap? Your eyes are better than mine?


Can you read the National Regesteration Number off the tail fine of that Orb.

If you can. We can find out who it belongs to.

Larry
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Larry L. Burks Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-10-11 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #282
283. Ok. Ok. Ok.


So, Orbs don't have any stinking tail.

No tail. = = = No stinking National Regesteration Number = = = No plane.

What do you thingk ZAP?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-10-11 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #283
284. NY1 aired orb live
I originally posted the enhanced version of NY1 because it wasn't that noticeable (in the live broadcast) but this nice youtuber zoomed on the floating snowball. This idiot news anchor didn't see the orb when it aired but later called it the plane.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo7saZNJUmc&list=PL1C1F9...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-10-11 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #284
286. It comes down to an orb being called a boeing 767=LOLOLOLOLOL
The orb is corroborated by the witnesses and the live broadcasts corroborate the news anchors who either didn't see it or mistook it for a chopper. "I believe that could be a police helicopter" and then she changes her story to the lie that it was a plane. She got trapped in the twilight zone.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obt-1d9POXM&list=PL1C1F9...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Larry L. Burks Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-10-11 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #283
285. Where do Orbs come from? Deming N.M.

Why do you ask?


http://www.ufolab.info/DNA-Lights-Main.htm

If you want to know if the U.S. UFO Orbs Drones are real.

This is where you go to see man made UFO Orbs Drones for your self.

This is what Ive been telling every body for years now.

Go look at them for your self.

I did.

Larry
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-11 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #285
287. An invisible oppostion of losers, liars, and simple denialists
Since KDlarsen is a defeated troll who cannot discuss details and certain irrefutable evidence such as this, he won't answer this simple question. Did the orb impact the west side of tower 2 or circle the Towers like the fake plane does in Manos' footage?

The orb never turned north which means only two things could have happened.

It either crashed into the west side of T2 or it circled the buildings like the witnesses reported, including Matt Lauer. The orb did exactly what Manos' footage shows in his faked footage which exactly mirrors what the orb did behind and between the rear of the towers.




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-11 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #287
288. 111111111111111111
Are you serious?.........NO plane circled the buildings that day

It's YOUR fantasy, NOT reality

Are you serious?.........A fake plane circled the towers in Manos's footage.

It's YOUR fantasy that it's a real plane, NOT reality.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-12 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #288
289. FAKE PLANE IMAGERY EASILY PROVEN
Combined photos.


I flipped the Air Canada plan horizontally to try and get a similar angle. Looks pretty close to me as far as what we should see in the supposed "faked" photo.

I don't have to cheat like you did. It's not even close because it's not a 767 and the nose of Air Canada is positioned more right to compensate for the fake right wing being angled awkwardly to the rear. It should appear much more straight out from the fuselage. THE RIGHT WING IS NOT DISCERNABLE and not aligned with the sagging left wing. It's an obvious and easily proven fake. Every video and picture can be proven frauds in the same way. Garbage in, garbage out.

Notice the white area anterior to the right engine. The fake engine is behind that and far too rear of the left sagging engine. It is simply a fake image with numerous impossibilities.

The shark fin does not have that fancy angle backward of the boeing. The horizontal stabilizer should be more centered (forward of) with the fin. The right boeing wing is anterior to the fin, while the fake wing is oddly pointing up and far too rear at this angle. The fake image is missing that distinct point at the nose and clearly smaller than it has to appear, if it was real.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-12 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #289
290. Jennifer spilled the truth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRAyGO2oDac
Jennifer Spell, in her own words: "Just about five minutes after I got outside and was shooting, the second plane circle around and it flew out over New Jersey and then it came in, it just."

She, very clearly did not see what her video shows, a supposed black plane coming from directly south of T2, vanishing into the southeast corner. Her description is also shared by her male companion, (who said at least twice, it circled around) other witnesses and three live broadcasts showing a slow moving drone coming from exactly where Spell said it came from, 'the Jersey side.'

There's not a better witness than those who described what they saw as they filmed it live and those on the ground without cameras or access to television. And how ironic and fitting it is that some poor guy named Manos actually filmed and got back altered footage showing a fake plane image literally circle the towers before impacting tower 2. The overwhelming existence of something not a plane coming from the west/Jersey side cleanly exposes disinformationlists like Anthony Lawson who work hard to keep the obvious drone from human understanding.




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-12 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #290
291. 0 for 4
Edited on Sat Feb-11-12 04:37 PM by rogerh7
http://www.rense.com/general68/911h.htm
Two 9/11 Airliners, Flight
93 and 175, Were Only Just
Recently Taken Off The FAA
'Active' List
Are Both Jetliners Still
Flying in United's 'Friendly Skies'?

FAA records for four years listed both 9/11 United jetliners as still on the 'active' list. Now planes only 'deregistered' in September after snoopy researchers questioned FAA officials a month earlier.

By Greg Szymanski
11-26-5

Two of the 9/11 airliners were never 'deregistered' and remained on the 'active' flight list until Sept. 28. 2005, the classification officially changing only a month after two inquisitive flight researchers made repeated calls to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), inquiring about the strange irregularity.

The two planes in question were Flight 93 and Flight 175, both owned and operated by United Airlines and, according to the official story, both destroyed on 9/11, one in Shanksville, Penn., and the other crashing into the South Tower of the WTC.

Usually a normal procedure after an airliner is destroyed, why it took United more than four years to 'deregister' the airplanes and fill out the official FAA paperwork remains a mystery and never has been fully explained by the FAA, United or the government.

In fact, in stark contrast, a check of FAA records shows the two other American Airline flights, Flight 11 and 77, both were 'deregistered' and classified as 'destroyed' only months after 9/11 on Jan. 14, 2002.

Why the late filing by United?

"My brother and I both wrote the FAA in August about this situation and asked why the planes were not deregistered. The FAA said that an owner does not need to deregister an aircraft," said one of the researchers named Roger, who preferred only to use his first name. "Ironically, a couple of months after I wrote the FAA, the planes were deregistered. What's up with that?

"Although the planes are deregistered, they are not listed as cause destroyed but rather as cause cancelled. The American airplanes are clearly listed as cause destroyed but not so the United planes.

"There is a guy who was saying on a web posting that he knew one of the United planes was still in service in Chicago. I know nothing of how he would know this or who he was but I think he was the same guy who brought this stuff to our attention and he's clearly right about the planes still being registered.

"Two planes destroyed and two planes still flying? Are you familiar with the Cleveland airport mystery? So did Flight 93 land at Cleveland with 200 passengers on board?"

A recent check of FAA records proves the flight researcher's statements correct as Flight 93 identified as N591UA and Flight 175 as N612UA, both were taken off the active FAA list in September with a reason given as 'cancelled' not 'destroyed.'

The FAA again was contacted this week, giving the same answers given to the two researchers back in August regarding the late deregistration. And in regards to listing both United flights as 'cancelled not destroyed,' FAA officials also gave no further explanation.

Besides the FAA deregistration issue, solid evidence has also come forward that two of the 9/11 flights, Flight 11 and 77, never even existed at all, according to Bureau of Traffic Safety (BTS) records.

According to BTS statistics, both 11 and 77 officially never took-off on 9/11. The meticulous data kept on every airliner taking-off at every airport in the country also showed no elapsed run-way time, wheels-off time and taxi-out time, not to mention several other categories left blank on 9/11 concerning the two flights.

Although Flights 11 and 77 have the above data meticulously logged on 9/10, it was suspiciously absent on 9/11, even when every other plane that took of that day had been recorded and logged by the BTS.

Why the discrepancy? No one has ever given an official explanation for the BTS missing flight data, even though it is well known that airports are extremely concerned about recording accurate BTS data for each and every flight in and out of its airport for liability purposes.

More importantly critics contend this is another clear indication Flight 11 and 77 were only 'phantom flights," adding even further doubt to the credibility of the official government story concerning 9/11.

Besides the FAA and BTS irregularities, the official flight lists from all four flights have been a serious bone of contention for 9/11 critics, who call attention to the glaring errors and conflicting passenger numbers on many of the flight lists released, many coming from unverified sources.

On Flight 11, for example, American Airlines released two different lists containing 77 and 75 names the day after 9/11, but the Washington Post published 89 names the same day while the Boston Daily published 89 names with conflicting names, however. Remember, complicating matters worse, Fox News all along was still claiming that only 81 names were confirmed a week later.

Through out the years, not only have the numbers conflicted but so have the names on the lists. Gerald Holmgren, a 9/11 researcher who has spent much time and effort researching the flight irregularities found one of the most glaring errors never explained by the airlines or the government.

Holmgren, whose compilation of 9/11 flight data can be found at
http://indymedia.all2all.org/news/2004/05/84711.php, uncovered that four of the alleged passengers on American Airlines Flight 11 with the last names of Ward, Weems, Roux and Jalbert also mysteriously and unexplainable were also listed as passengers on Flight 175 that struck the South Tower.

Holmgren in his 2004 article had this to say:

"What a mess! This crime - the murder of approximately 3000 people, and the excuse for two wars and alarming attacks on civil liberties - and presumably more to come - is supposed to have been properly investigated and documented? Why should we be expected to believe who the hijackers were, when the spin doctors can't even do a credible fabrication job of a list of innocent victims?

"It's previously been demanded by many skeptics that we need to see a verifiable official passenger list which actually contains the names of the alleged hijackers. We can now take the implications of that further and point to the absence of any passenger list documentation for AA11 which stands up to scrutiny as a credible document. We have nothing which could support the existence of any of the alleged passengers on the alleged flight."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-13-12 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #291
292. Lawson gets ignorants to spread fiction
I was wrong about Anthony Lawson, he's an arrogant Aussie who got a popular yt channel to say the ball was a plane.LOL This proves how willingly ignorant people can be when it comes to avoiding obvious truths. I will dig up a post that pertains in more detail to this issue but for now take a look at this vid. The altered footage that hazed out the orb was done by the media.

A small circular object could never be a plane, nor could any real plane have come from anywhere but south of the towers in its final seconds of approach. This excludes all overlays that rode the bogey on a more southwest path. The government provided the only possible path for flight 175, if it had really existed and that excludes any divebomber, southwest, or west bogey path from being UA175.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymf30rN4Mxo&feature=rela...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-16-12 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #292
293. THE DRONE'S POSSIBLE CIRCLE AROUND TOWERS
The fake image faces north headed straight for the southwest corner of T1, turns right/east, moving across the entire width of the tower 1, then must turn right, facing south because it didn't impact the west side of T2. It would then have to do a 180 degree u-turn facing, finally, north again, then it does its weird bee-bop across the rear of T2. The nose would have been facing north, east, south, before making an impossible u-turn, now facing north again before its final bee-bop. All that craziness with around 500 feet to create this fiction.

That's two right turns, an impossible u-turn, and the goofy movement across the rear of the south tower. Of course the film was altered, and the only question is who mimiced the drone circling the buildings with this laughable cgi. It's most logical that Manos turned his footage over to law enforcement.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-18-12 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #293
294. TRUTH AND LIES
The truth is the lie, and the lie is the truth. No commercial airliner impacted either tower on 911, but small remote controlled drones were the real weapons which ignited bombs planted inside the buildings. Very obvious fake imagery was aired on TV which the average person had no knowledge or reference with which to understand what they were seeing was failed computer generated imagery that didn't produce a single image that came close to depicting a real boeing 767.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-19-12 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #294
295. NORTH TOWER DRONE
With the clear and overwhelming evidence of drones, it was inevitable that a few eyewitnesses would corroborate the video footage of drones for both towers. Stewart, said he saw something bump into tower 1 before it exploded. That certainly wasn't a plane, because a plane would crash into it, not bump.

He says, "I'm not sure, if it was a ????? (plane). Of course it wasn't a plane, Stewy, and you gave the truth some of the best early testimony that no planes of any kind were seen for either tower because neither had wings. His subconscious gave every word, but 'plane', leaving no doubt that his conscious state prevented that last word. But, we already know those goofy french kids did not film a plane or really any identifiable object which corrorborates Stewart's verified account.

Bryant Gumbel: It's 8:52 here in New York, I'm Bryant Gumbel. We understand that there has been a plane crash on the southern tip of Manhattan. You're looking at the WTC. We understand that a plane has crashed into the WTC. We don't know anything more than that. We don't know if it was a commercial aircraft. We don't know if it was a private aircraft. We have no idea how many were on board, or what the extent of the injuries are right now. We are, uh, we have, I understand, an eyewitness on the phone right now. Sir...



BG: ...your name?

Stewart: Yeah, my name is Stewart.

BG: Sir, where are you right now?

S: I'm working at a restaurant in Soho. (northeast of the towers)

BG: Alright, so tell us what you saw if you would?

S: I literally, I was waiting a table and I literally saw a -- it seemed to be like the small plane. I just heard a couple of noises. It looked like it bounced off the building and then I heard, uh, I saw a huge like ball of fire on top and then the smoke seemed to simmer down and it just stunned -- you know a lot of smoke was coming out and that's pretty much the extent of what I saw.

BG: A private aircraft?

S: I'm not sure, if it was a -- it just seemed like a smaller plane. I don't think it was anything commercial.

BG: Did you, could you tell us whether or not it was a prop, or a jet .

S: I honestly don't know. It happened too quickly



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SXIxbhgUDw
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-20-12 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #295
296. HOW TO MOCK A MINORITY OF COWARDLY FOOLS
HOW TO MOCK A MINORITY OF COWARDLY FOOLS

A small percentage of the population feels the need to defend idiotic government coverups that are laughed at by the masses, which has been proven true by jfk and 911 polls throughout the last four decades.

When the government and media are responsible for these and other outrageous acts of corruption, there is nothing they can do but perpetuate the official lies in hopes of convincing anyone of said propaganda. It soothes them of their darkest fears that humanity may wake up and realize how completely ignorant they are.

Another theory, is the government crapologist gets a certain ego-boost from supporting big government conclusions on such things as 911, and that makes them feel superior over those who actually operate in a real maverick fashion. It gives them a sense of self-importance that they may not have developed through normal processes like the rest of us. Either way, it's pathetic to see how this irrational minority of silly humans attach themselves to goverment theories which cannot, nor will ever be proven.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-21-12 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #296
297. No plane witness
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/timeline/2001/abcnews0... >ABC News Special Report: "Planes crash into World Trade Center"

He never saw a plane like that before, because it wasn't a plane at all. He said it twice, corroborating witnesses like Burnback and Oliver who described a drone. It was identical to what hit the north tower.

Mr Arraki

"Yeah. I--I saw--yeah, I saw the second plane, it go boom. I--I heard, you know. I just wake up my head like that I saw the side, too"

Arraki claims that the plane that hit WTC2 was identical to the plane that hit WTC1. Arraki's description of the first plane is reproduced below:

"I saw it come up from the left, and I saw the plane coming through to the building, go inside, a small plane, no, no, it was plane, you know, like they teach the people to pilot plane, small plane, you know, it was that kind of plane, yes, going into the building, and I never saw that plane before. It's like something, I don't know, it's like they work with the motors, I never saw a plane like that before!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-21-12 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #297
298. No Plane Witness


"I was underneath it, I was looking at the tower, I had my camera in my hand, I heard the noise, I never saw the airplane." CASE CLOSED.

David, did not hear or see an approaching plane and did not photograph one because there was no plane.

"...Then out of nowhere came this noise. This loud, high-pitched roar that
seemed to come from all over, but from nowhere in particular. AND THE SECOND
TOWER JUST EXPLODED
. It became amazingly obvious to anyone there that what
we all had hoped was a terrible accident was actually an overt act of
hostility. I DIDN'T SEE THE PLANE HIT, ALTHOUGH I WAS LOOKING AT THE TOWER AT
THE TIME
. I have no recollection of pushing the button, hitting the shutter,
making the picture that appeared on Page 2 of the Daily News the next day, a
picture that was taken milliseconds after the second plane hit that tower
..."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHrbQ0u3xzk&list=PL1C1F9...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-21-12 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #298
299. sept clues
These two opposing flight paths are the best from Sept Clues. The height of the towers and the smoke coming from them confirm they are very different paths. Anything that came from right of the towers was nowhere near the smoke or behind the towers in sight from the north view. Without the divebomber myth, you'd have the morph footage seen from the wide east view. It starts as a dot and morphs as it moves north. The northeast view would have posed the same problem of having to create something in frame that wasn't there, so starting it, out of frame was done to avoid the morphing. They wanted to show a plane approach from the north view that was similar to what really would've happened if 175 really impacted T2.




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-12 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #299
300. BRING IT ON...ALL OR NOTHING
http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit_photos.html >9/11 Airplane Photo Gallery - 9-11-2001 - 2nd World Trade Center Attack
The right engine must be in between the first and second slat. The fake image shows the first slat too close to the fuselage, therefore that one fact proves it's fake. The fake engine's in front of the first slat that is too close to the fuselage. This floundering, fake image flop has the flap open on the front of the left wing, not rear where it must be. Yet, another devastating blow to the real planes myth.

This simple fake image raises reasonable doubt about the official south to north flight path of flight 175. New York police officer, L. Perez, took a picture of the towers and this laughable fake was added to it by persons unknown.


This image link contains an illegal code
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-12 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #300
301. Small hole, bogeyyyyy
Small hole, then plane shape created by secondary explosions?



Even if one accepts that a plane hit the north tower, then the small south tower hole confirms something much smaller impacted it. This proves the witnesses were right and the bogey seen in 4 broadcasts were accurately depicted.




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-01-12 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #301
302. COMMON SENSE
is this photo genuine? what is going on with the right engine position? that doesn't look right at all.

Genuine, in that it was used in mags and passed off as real, but it can't be a real plane because the right engine is too close to the fuselage and other images depict something similar. The left engine is attached to air, which is more ridiculous.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-02-12 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #302
303. ONLY BALL SHAPED DRONES CAN CIRCLE BUILDINGS
Edited on Fri Mar-02-12 12:09 PM by rogerh7
See what you've done.

You've started him off again. :(

Him and and the likes of rogerh7 populate these threads with comical theories and it'll get worse if you feed them with attention.

You, comically admit to ignoring me because I would club you over the head relentlessly with facts you cannot even remotely challenge, let alone refute.

That said, explain to us how you'd convince a jury that a real plane with dots for engines, and no wings could cast its own shadow in between the rear of tower 1 and west side of tower 2? How could any plane traveling 500 mph circle the towers before crashing into the rear of the building southeast of Tower 1?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlD1j-XqxmE&feature=rela...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-03-12 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #303
304. I CAUGHT THE BOGEY
I was able capture the bogey as it peeked out and then a quick edit occurs to well after the explosion. These guys did not see a plane and were confused as to how the south tower exploded. There's little doubt they made mention of the object and that audio would've been edited out too. There are countless videos with the impact edited out because they weren't going to insert fake plane images into all of them. You can see him pan to the right when that little bogey caught his eye.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHaVijMv5t8&list=PL1C1F9...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-03-12 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #304
305. PROOF OF PLANE FICTION AND DRONE REALITY
The 911 commission, properly and logically concluded that 175 had to fly over New York Bay in its final seconds, therefore, any object seen west of the towers could not be flight 175. The shadow between the towers seen in three broadcasts is that of the drone because the official flight path, logically could not have flown east of T1 in its final 3-5 seconds, which is required to create the shadow.

Any crapologist who uses the unofficial flight path of 175 cirlcing Newark, is ignoring the official flight path, which has 175 nowhere near it, whether north or south of it in flight. Officially, fake 175 never circled Newark, but most of New Jersey, and anyone who suggests it, is a liar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJX2fStDMo4&list=PL1C1F9...




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-12 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #305
306. UNDERSTANDING THE EVIDENCE
All folks who filmed the bogey felt obligated and/or afraid for their lives before turning over their footage to law enforcement. If it was a bird or something else, why edit at that moment and we already have 4 broadcasts with the object in it where media lunatics call it the plane once they realize it was the only thing in their respective footage. I would not be surprised if these foia releases left out the owners names.

The most important thing about this angle, is the northeast view, which would have shown the orb circle the south tower, literally. We have techmac's cgi with no right wing for proof of someone cropping out that same NE view and impossible turn.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-12 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #306
307. NO PLANE HIT NOTHIN'
Whomever Cloud turned his footage over to, added a black blob. Clifton, did not hear nor see a plane. It would have been coming from his left. Clifton, debunks all video fakery shown on 911. Advance to 2:00 for his real-time account. He says it over and over and over and over. He didn't see a plane because there was no plane to see. The blob cannot be seen south of where it magically appeared. He was about a mile east of the towers and slightly north.

"I just caught the second explosion on videotape...No, a bomb, I saw it, no plane hit nothin', the building exploded from the other tower floors down."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2unTcZnY30&list=PL1C1F9...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTkzxaHAcNc
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-31-12 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #307
308. 911
... That's reasonable doubt. You have the burden of a proving a lie, not those who point out the many absurdities on 911 that must be ignored to continue on with the silly myth of planes on 911.

But you have already proved yourself, way beyond reasonable doubt, that planes were involved, by you stating that the crew and passengers didn't die, that thousands of eyewitnesses lied and thousands of rolls of film were doctored, so no proof by me or anybody else is required. If this was a court of law with a judge and jury, your case for no planes would stand no chance whatsoever.

So we are still waiting for your extraordinary evidence to prove your extraordinary claims.

But you have already proved yourself, way beyond reasonable doubt, that no planes were involved, by ignoring that an orb wasn't flight 175. If this was a court of law with a judge and jury, your case for planes would stand no chance whatsoever.

I never said anything about the passengers. I never made an extraordinary claim. I showed that an orb aired on 4 news stations and those media lunatics were forced to call it something that it could it never be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-31-12 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #308
309. 911
What do you mean when you say that it casts its own shadow? All objects, I know, cast shadows under light, but where in the segment of footage that you post above is the shadow cast by the object (which you maintain is not an aeroplane) that you keep talking about? Would you post a still with the shadow circled?


I already explained it many times and posted the clips. The fake plane images from the west circled the towers which is impossible for a real airplane, and the official flight path had fake 175 flying over the bay in the final 14 seconds. The orb passed east of the north tower in the final few seconds which is why the shadow was cast. Flight 175 could not have left a shadow logically or officially, therefore the official myth of planes is in doubt for that fact and many others.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-01-12 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #309
310. 911
Lmao! ... :D

oooh how he luvs his orbs.


its almost as if forever and august are one of the same..... whats the chances folks?


orbs indeed ... lol

oooh how skanky loves her cgi with no wings and dots for engines.

it's almost as if skanky and August are one and the same...the chances are good.

fake black/grey plane images indeed...




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-01-12 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #310
311. 911
Plane coming in from the west? Nope. More inability for you to think of anything in three dimensions.



The area right of the towers when facing south will always be west and plenty of witnesses said west, over Newark, or from the Jersey side. It all means west, which was not flight 175. You're simply a defeated liar.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.01.ht... >CNN.com - Transcripts
This man had a north view of the towers and saw the drone coming from the west.

OK, we actually have an "Eyewitness News" reporter, Dr. J. Atlasberg (ph) who was downtown at the time and he is on the phone with us live.

Dr. J., what can you tell us?

DR. J. ATLASBERG (ph), REPORTER: Hello, Steve.

I'm actually uptown at 86th and Riverside. I can see the World Trade Center from about half the building up to the top. And about five minutes ago, as I was watching the smoke, a small plane -- I did -- it looked like a propeller plane, came in from the west.

And about 20 or 25 stories below the top of the center, disappeared for a second, and then explode behind a water tower, so I couldn't tell whether it hit the building or not. But it was very visible, that a plane had come in at a low altitude and appeared to crash into the World Trade Center.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-12 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #311
312. 911
evidence ? ... depends what you call "evidence" doesnt it?

using crap fuzzy very low quality heavily distorted badly compressed clips from youtube is not evidence alone now is it?


why dont the no planers source the originals and go buy themselves some copies then make a short video showing the same distortions and artifacts that the no planers claim appear to show cgi / holographic projections of planes.

i have to admit if that happened and it showed the same abnormalities as claimed from the badly distroted clips that are doing the rounds, people would have to rethink their assertions to 9/11.


Using crap fuzzy very low quality heavily distorted badly compressed clips from youtube is not evidence of real boeings.

Why don't the plane idiots source the originals and go buy themselves some copies and make a short video showing something different than blurry black blobs with wings and engines displaced that all support cgi planes? Because they know that all plane photographs and videos are easily proven fakes.

You have to admit if that happened and it showed real boeings as you don't claim, then honest thinking folks would have to rethink their conclusions that jackass fakery was used on 911. A real boeing banking left does not move the right engine closer to the fuselage.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-30-12 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #312
313. Kind of pathetic posting to an ancient thread
with no one else around. The 911 "Truth" movement in a nutshell
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rogerh7 Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-13-12 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #313
314. NO PLANE...THANKS, DAVE


"And then heard this noise that seemed to come from everywhere but didn't...had no idea what it was and then the south tower just exploded, it just it just, it just blew up. And somebody said that was a plane and I was like, "I was underneath it, I was looking at the tower, I had my camera in my hand, I heard the noise, I never saw the airplane."

David, did not hear or see an approaching plane and did not photograph one. He would have heard the roaring engines and plane coming in at over 500 mph. NO REAL PLANE HIT THE SOUTH TOWER.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHrbQ0u3xzk&list=PL1C1F9...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-12 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #226
315. CLARIFICATION: This thread has been HIJACKED by no-planers

To put it straight:

The evidence presented in the original post supports the already strong evidence that the 9/11 attacks were a false flag attack based on the historical Operation Northwoods plot, i.e. the original planes starting from Boston were not the same planes as the planes who hit the Twin Towers.

I distance myself from any silly attempts to depict the WTC impacts as pure video fakery. Real planes have hit the towers. But these planes certainly didn't take off from Boston.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 29th 2014, 05:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC