FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
9/11 - How Did They Do It?
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8296

PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:39 am    Post subject: 9/11 - How Did They Do It? Reply with quote

Reply to this topic with your discussion and evidence
about how the 9/11 attacks were carried out. What parts
are real/fake and how was it done?


-------------------
S U M M A R Y
-------------------

A summary of the thread will be updated here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
RedMahna



Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1512
Location: USA

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:37 pm    Post subject: Initial news footage and talking heads Reply with quote

I was watching local news out of NYC on 9/11... broadcast TV, not cable. I had just gotten in bed from a long night driving a truck. My route was in & out of Brooklyn, LI and CT from Central NJ. I got out of NYC about 7am and home before it happened. My partner, who normally runs 1 hour or so behind me wasn't so lucky. He stayed all day sitting in his truck on the BQE watching the towers burn, as all the roads & bridges were shut down.

This is what I saw on TV:
1. Several seconds of snowy picture during the morning news.
2. News broadcast continues, I'm thinking "crappy reception" cos I live in Woodbridge (Central NJ). That's usual with rabbit ears.
3. Five or so minutes go by. Reporter breaks the news of a small plane having hit one of the towers. Cuts to live footage of WTC... yup, small amount of smoke coming out of one tower. I'm thinking, "dumb-ass Cessna pilot." Reporter says something to the effect of it being an accident. Still claiming it was a small aircraft.
4. No one seems that alarmed at this particular time on the broadcast.
5. News show continues, saying they're waiting for more reports. Meantime, some correspondent gets some bloke in the street on record saying it was a small plane. (Never to hear from this bloke again, to this day...)
6. My TV snows really bad and I lose the picture entirely. Crap.
7. I go to my neighbor right next door. He's got cable.
8. We're watching the building burn... turns out, a second plane hit the other building. I missed that one when my signal died. People in the streets of NYC were telling reporters they saw a plane flying low or heard a low flying plane. Hey, LaGuardia isn't far from there, but you'd know the difference if a jumbo-jet was rolling down just above 10th Avenue.

Okay, by now we are thinking "sabatoge" cos the word terrorist was not very stylish, yet.
I go to the bay just a mile or so from my apartment and people gathered are watching the towers burn... no one's panicking like "we're fucked" and the world's gonna end. It seemed more like a tailgate party at the stadium. Kinda weird, no?
If your area had been hit by some enemy attack, wouldn't ya go bananas and get the fuck out of town? Nothing from the annoying "Emergency Broadcast System" to indicate we were under attack. How'd they know this was self-contained??
Back home, watching a different channel that actually still worked. Stayed up all day (my sleep hours), saw the collapses. Saw the other cutaways to the Pentagon and the crash in PA. Still no EBS warning. I really thought that was strange. Don't you?
Okay, they closed the airports now. NOW? Think they'd do that after plane #2, no?

I don't need all the professional pontifications about sky-scaper structures and control tower recordings. Whether 9/11 was "real" or not, it sucked ass for this gov't regardless....
1. Aviation people don't know which end is up (that, if 9/11 was real, is sad) cos their communication to pilots and control-tower personnel was non-existent. Apparently...?
2. Too many players, if this was a hoax, to not fuck it up, considering how stupid many people in the various positions are. And everyone is trusted to not leak something????
3. If it's a conspiracy truly, it was the only thing Bush got right. Gee, what color star do we glue to his lapel?
4. Probably most players didn't know shit and their bosses kept them in the dark. Interviews with control tower people were sparse, if I remember correctly.

Oh boy. I would love to have been a fly on the wall at a control-tower.

Red

_________________
just cos things are fucked up doesn't mean it isn't progress...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8296

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:18 pm    Post subject: Switched Planes or Sechduled? Reply with quote

I'd like to look at a number of key areas of 9/11 and develop ideas
as to how the whole thing was pulled off on the day.

With regard to the planes I'm working with a hypothesis about the issue
of whether drones, the sechduled flights or replacement planes were
involved in the WTC 1 & 2, Pentagon & 'Flight 93'.

Just because the transponders were switched off on all the planes
--allowing a possible switch-- doesn't mean that all or any of the
planes WERE switched. Besides, transponder blackout had other
stealth advantages anyway.

Also there is no reason to assume that the same methodology was
ued for all planes. Each could have been different.

At one end of the spectrum, the most likely case for a plane switch is
in the case of the aircraft impacting the WTC South Tower. This was a
pyrotechnic special-efffects spectacle. I have uncovered what may be
vocal overdubbing of the sound of high-energy explosives in the CNN
video of the South Tower impact.

Also the flight path into the Tower was extreme, with a high miss risk
whether remotely or humanly piloted.

Both issues make it more likely this was a special switched plane.

By comparison the less spectacular impact with the North Tower
could well have been executed with the scheduled flight.

And at the far end of the spectrum, an even more likely case for the
legitimate scheduled flight being involved is that of Flight 93. It looks
as if the purpose of the Flight 93 hijack was to make a poster-child
example to serve as the 'hijack model' for the whole enterprise.

Which leaves the issue of the Pentagon.

Here again, nothing too complicated about the strike, especially if you
discount the reports of a high-speed turn which 9/11 skeptics have
swallowed because it seems to bolster their case.

The Pentagon hit was just a normal landing touchdown --right at the
front facade of the building, but without the wheels being down.

Now it's possible to argue with every one of my examples above.
I could do it myself. But what i'm saying, is that the path of simplicity,
the line of least resistance through these four aircraft events, indicates
that only one of the flights may have been switched - the South Tower.

And even there it is still possible to argue that this too was yet another
scheduled flight.

So we have could have had NO passengers loaded onto planes at some
remote airfield. And all that kind of hard-to-sell stuff.

I'm not saying that's the case. Partly I'm thinking aloud.

But I am also kicking holes in some of the sacred cows of the 9/11
Movement - drones, switched planes, and even (ROTFLMAO) no planes.

And if all the passengers may well have been on all the planes then it's
all nice and tidy. Less people involved in any plot.

Only thing to figure, how did they do it technically and operationally?

OK that's my pitch. I'm making this case to get us thinking about the
unconscious assumptions we may have taken on board from the
CIA Fakes. I'm making this case to get us thinking about how exactly
they did pull off the four incidents on 9/11.

I think we can go through a similar openminded process for the collapses,
and for other aspects of the day's events.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
DeepLogos



Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 259
Location: Geostationary orbit around myself, sipping at a cup of DM Tea...

PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So how did they do it??

I very much agree with your take on the planes that hit the towers and flight 93. It looks as if flight 11 hit in order for people to train their cameras and eyes on the WTC complex so that flight 175's impact with the towers would be seen by as many people as possible. Flight 175 was 16 minutes delayed, so they might have intended the flights to impact closer in time to eachother, alternatively an earlier impact for flight 11 hadn't it veered of course in the opposite direction first. This would probably have produced more footage of the actual impact of flight 175. (As for the wrong tower collapsing first, they may have feared that the top of the south tower would tip over and thereby having close to no explanation for it collapsing. It was therefor taken down before the north tower. Plausible?)

What has always seemed strange to me, and I am no pilot so I may be wrong, is the last second adjustment mad to flight 175, an adjustment that I contend a human pilot could not have done, and one that prevented a partial hit and thereby lots of flight debris in the streets below (beyond an engine part and a wheel + some smaller debris fallout on nearby builings belonging to the plane). What are the possibilities that this could be a modified plane (much like the gyroscope-chip in Boeing's missles)? The plane could have been controlled via low orbit satellites and fixed target coordinates (I have heard Iridium mentioned).

I am currently looking into the many connections to Boeing I have found, as I know that they have made these changes to passenger planes before 9/11 and have been fined for it as well (selling planes off to China). I am also looking into the nature of these modifications, and if they go beyond currently stated capabilities (does the technology alow for overriding the pilots choice to override? [Boeing]) My obvious question is; are all the planes associated with this time period accounted for? I am currently looking for court documents and more sources for this. There are also a few dubvious people connected to Boeing that needs to be investigated further, people that may have direct knowledge of this type of technology and it's possible installment and usage. Accoding to Lockheed (still looking for sources), Boeing was very "poorly managed" for a number of years, which perhaps would alow for dubvious activities to take place.

With this kind of technology installed in the plane, it doesn't matter what happened on the planes as for a possible hijacking scenario, as they would meet their planned destiny no matter what. If I was ruthless enough and planning such an operation, I sure would look into this kind of technology, rather than using other types of planes, missiles or holographic (!) technology. It comes down to the questions; which would be easier and more believable? I suggest the former. Making sure that people see ehat you want them to see, especially regaring flight 175, is what is important, and what is more believable that actually using a plane that looks like flight 175 (the same goes for the other flights). I have heard mentioned blue logos, UN cargo or tanker planes, but pictures of pretty decent quality shows that flight 175 looks most like..erh...flight 175? http://hybrideb.com/images/newyork/2328200101a.jpg
Flight 175 analysis: http://www.gallerize.com/2005-01-11_001_MI_SG_UA175.htm (decent picture comparison)

A possible switch may have taken place where flight 11's and flight 175's flight paths intersected, all though I personally don't think such a switch would be necessary. Flight 11, flight 175 and flight 93 did fly directly above or close to military bases, and they lost contact with flight 77, so their are certain anomalies that are worth considering. The fact that flight 11 veered off to the northwest, directly passing over a couple of bases, before it made a sharp turn and headed for New York, is strange, and so is flight 175 intended flightpath, bringing it close to New York before it was to head in the direction of Pittsburgh. In this scenario, only a short time off course was needed before time of impact (which was crucial, as it was suppose to hit coming in from the southwest). The strange detour (before presumably heading towards Washington) that flight 77 made as it crossed over into West Virginia is also strange. If anything, the flight paths of the planes seems to indicate that whomever controlled those planes knew that military jets would not be scrambled before it was too late.

Having people focus on the switching of planes, backed by dubvious research into what happened on the planes to confuse us, may be deliberate as the intended plan may have been to take remote control over modified planes and fly them (with passengers) into the tower. Evidence for all passengers and all planes have not surfaced yet, but maybe they have something up their sleeves. Switching planes also generates a new problem; what to do with all the passengers when you have safely landed them somewhere else. The remote controlled scenario does beg a few questions as well; when did the modifications of these planes take place? (maintenance/ overhaul records, suspicious ground time, etc is essencial research here), also; how do you make the plane silent when there are pilots ready to communicate any concern? (do you indeed take out the pilots, or do you override communication (rerouting of communication via controlled satellites?). This may be why destroying or retriveing the black boxes was such a crucial element for the fed's, as this would prove that pilots tried to communicate, but didn't get through via normal channels. The retriveal of black boxes from flight 93 is also crucial to the plot, as that would, as Fintan points out, serve as the "proof" for the highjacker scenarios.

Three things are then crucial for this to work operationally:

1) Something that would confuse/ employ scramble pilots and FAA. (exercises)
2) Technology that could control the planes like a missile, and the means to make the modifications. (gyroscope technology + satellites + a company willing to make the modifications + window of opportunity for it to take place)
3) Technology to control the communication comming from the planes, as planes were suddenly taken control over remotely. (?)

This scenario requires serious planning in the years leading up to 9/11-2001, but would require less work/resources on that day and certainly less work/ resources in the aftermath (cleaning up evidence that were not suppose to be on the crime scene).

Your take on flight 77 made me think, Fintan, as it seems like it "came in for landing", so to speak... What proof is their really to support that it made the impossible turn and the steep decent they claimed it did? Eyewitnesses watching it make this maneuver? Do we have access to altitude and flight path data (hard data)? I have previously touted this as evidence that Hani Houdini didn't fly the plane (not that he could have pulled off such a landing either...)

Anyway... I'm just thinking as I write. Pleas point out if I'm way off.

As for the rigging of the WTC complex, I am looking into the possibilities that devices of several kinds were used to take the towers down, but I will explain that (and further evidence for my flight scenario in a later post).
A brief synopsis would be;

-there is much circustantial eveidence suggesting windows of opportunity where "upgrades" could have been made (just before, a year or two back and even further back),

- during these "upgrades" cutter charges of some kind may have been put on the strategic places needed for the structure to fail.

- basement explosives/ devices was perhaps also put in to get at the under-infrastructure.

- But the crucial component for the explosive nature of the collapse may perhaps be found in one or more of the elevator shafts, more specific, the express elevators. These may have been rigged with a far more explosive substance (I have heard mentined solid, rubberlike rocket fuel which burns at 5000 degrees Fahrenheit and could easily account for steel beams being thrown a 100 feet out horizontally), with an igniting device of some sort perhaps on top of the elevator.

- What would happen at the onset of the collapse; a basement explosion takes out some of the underinfrastructure; cutting devices begins cutting strategic colums and beams from point of impact to where one of the express elevators are (which is now on sky lobby level). The express elevator ignites, with a delay of perhaps 2 seconds moving downwards at 10 m/s (which I belive was the maximum speed of the WTC express elevators) the cutting devices, the highly explosive material pasted on the walls of these elevators (perhaps all three of them) and maybe other devices as well. The same scenario would go for both towers. Also, did someting of operational importance happen at the mechanical floors? Any thoughts?



Again, this would require serious planning and time to place explosive devices, but it would totally destroy the contents of the towers and the concrete (crucial if the main concern is the steel when the towers had collapsed) + cut the beams into suitable sizes for speedy removal.

All this depends off course on the position of the elevators at the time of the collapse, which I dont know. TGhey were either on ground floor, the respective sky lobby (44th and 78th?) and the last one could have been on the top. I don't know it there are any reports of where these elevators were.

Anyway again...it's just me thinking and contemplating things I have read as to how they might fit into the collapse of the buildings.

I'll expand on it later.
(I apologize for any poor grammar, as I had no time to proof read... Wink)

-DL-

_________________
"I'm pulling the plug on you now, Jmmanuel... I hope your resurrection ship is nearby..."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
atm



Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3861

PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DDL

I cannot stress how important it is to distinguish between Washington State and Washington D.C.

Don't fall into that trap.

Not now.

It makes us look stupid.

No offence/offense -- grammar caveat accepted -- but for future reference, take note.

It is detail such as this that gets murderers acquitted.

Truss me on that

atm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DeepLogos



Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 259
Location: Geostationary orbit around myself, sipping at a cup of DM Tea...

PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Understood.

I was of course refering to the east coast, District of Columbia, not Washington State.

I was of course also refering to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, not Ontario, Canada... Wink

Thanks, I will be more accurate in future posts.

-DL-

_________________
"I'm pulling the plug on you now, Jmmanuel... I hope your resurrection ship is nearby..."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deeplogos said:
Quote:
I apologize for any poor grammar...

Fucking hell, man - no need to apologise! It's not your first language, and you write fluent, intelligent English better than a helluva lot of native English-speakers! I'm constantly impressed by that, reading your posts here.
DL said:
Quote:
I am currently looking into the many connections to Boeing I have found, as I know that they have made these changes to passenger planes before 9/11 and have been fined for it as well (selling planes off to China).

Hmm - I know that Boeing (directly, I think, although they could have been ex-fleet) sold a load of 7x7 jets to PRoChina a couple of years back (ostensibly for use in civilian aviation), and that the US et al. were 'suprised' that they seemed to have converted a load of them into bulk troop/equipment haulers, and a homegrown AWACS-type affair. I think it was FAS or some such site that I was reading this on - I'll find the linx and post 'em up.

Quote:
The plane could have been controlled via low orbit satellites and fixed target coordinates (I have heard Iridium mentioned).

Don't get *too* hung up thinking about the use of exotic sattelite systems for nav., etc - vanilla (mil. grade) GPS + inertial navigation (a la gyro chips) I would have thought are *plenty* accurate enough for this purpose.

Quote:
....how do you make the plane silent when there are pilots ready to communicate any concern?

Radio silence, or even totally faked x-way comms. would be a *doddle* to implement for tPTB, even if they hadn't retro-fitted the 'planes with exotic nav. + control gear,

Quote:
Your take on flight 77 made me think, Fintan, as it seems like it "came in for landing", so to speak... What proof is their really to support that it made the impossible turn and the steep decent they claimed it did? Eyewitnesses watching it make this maneuver? Do we have access to altitude and flight path data (hard data)?

Yes - don't we have the flight data-recorder boxes' actual data in the public domain, now? And aren't their anims on YouTube etc., showing a reconstructed flight-path for F77 up until a few seconds before impact into the 5gon? (I'm sure that Rump posted about this, just after it came out)

Quote:
Flight 11, flight 175 and flight 93 did fly directly above or close to military bases, and they lost contact with flight 77, so their are certain anomalies that are worth considering.

Don't forget the gaps in the RADAR coverage that Team8+ found out about, and published the maps of, with the planes' flight-paths overlaid upon them.

Quote:
Switching planes also generates a new problem; what to do with all the passengers when you have safely landed them somewhere else.

I don't think (unfortunately) that this aspect would provide *too* much of a problem for the ruthless bastards that pulled this off. If the DNA-matching and body(parts) identification were for real, then they might just have killed them all on masse, and then flung their bodies into the switched aircraft, or if the idents. were just faked bullshit then - no probs anyway.
Quote:

This may be why destroying or retriveing the black boxes was such a crucial element for the fed's, as this would prove that pilots tried to communicate, but didn't get through via normal channels. The retriveal of black boxes from flight 93 is also crucial to the plot, as that would, as Fintan points out, serve as the "proof" for the highjacker scenarios.

The flight recorders, even though they may feel like they're really solid evidence, may be some of the easiest-to-fake, and thus potentially most-boobytrapped of data of all. I mean, if you're in control of the crash scene, and you have a little time to work with, the data that they contain would be very easy to fake into whatever they wanted it to be. Voice, telemetry - everything. Easier by significant degrees than faking good, convincing video, IMHO.

Quote:
Also, did someting of operational importance happen at the mechanical floors? Any thoughts?

I think that there is a photo knocking about that shows the collapse of a tower that someone pointed out has seemingly anomalous 'squib' type artifacts coming out of what they reckoned *was* that very same mechanical floors. I'll try to find it...

Good stuff there, DL! Keep it up!

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DeepLogos



Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 259
Location: Geostationary orbit around myself, sipping at a cup of DM Tea...

PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the feedback, Continuity, and thanks very much for the heads up on my grammar. I learn new words every day, mostly flight, military and constuction terminology.. Wink

I realize that I have far too much info and plausibe scenarios in my head no, as I seem to forget details I have looked into before, amongs other the official flight 77 release (I even posted the documents Embarassed) :

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf

I have also seen the reconstructions (simulations?) you refer too, but I was then not aware of the official records. Further, based on this confirmed flight maneuver, leveling the plane to be parallell with the ground just a few feet above certain failure must be close to impossible by human means? I have heard pilots say it can be done and other say it can't be done. The pilot certainly would have had to wrestle a lot of G's.

As for AWACS and Boeing; I heard that a Darlene Druyun (the dragon lady) was vise-president of Boeing after 9/11 2001, and she apparently went to jail for nine months (for her contact with Michael Sears of Boeing/ so did he by the way) I believe she was nr 2 in command of US Air Force procurement under Clinton (until 2002) and chairman for the board of directors of AWACS. Did she procure modified 7x7's from Boeing? I also read, as mentioned, that Boeing payed the State Department substantial fines for export of military grade technology (gyro-chipped planes), as indicated in these articles:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002359561_boeingqrs06.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002918295_boeing08.html

They also settled the fraud charges for a whopping $615 million. Small change for contracts they might have lost if they hadn't? (found this article today):
http://news.findlaw.com/andrews/bf/gov/20060714/20060714_boeingsettlement.html

Is this a little bit too in the open for it to have significance as to possible connections to red teams perhaps "gone live" during 9/11 war games?

And what about John Shalikashvili (partnership for peace), chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and Boeing director on 9/11? He sure must have valuable knowledge?

I am looking into these individuals, just as much to root out the "innocent" as finding possible links in what is obviously seriously compartmentalized.

Further, I appreciate you insight into military tech and communication, that is very valuable in the research I'm doing now. Also the plausible scenarios as to the faking of the recorders. I have grown aware of the ruthlessness of people involved in operations like this, and their willingness to do anything to see it succede (with reference to the 'people'-problem).

I will also be checking the Team8plus research thoroughly.

I would also appreciate if you could post the links you mentioned in you post.

Thanks, again.

-DL-

_________________
"I'm pulling the plug on you now, Jmmanuel... I hope your resurrection ship is nearby..."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK, DeepLogos, here's some China stuff you may not have seen that may help get some backstory or inspiration in your scenarios. This refers to a 737-300 specifically, but this is just one set of deals that we know about via FOIA etc. There *will* be more, you can almost bet the farm on that.

Quote:
FORMER CHINA UNITED 737 NOW A PLAAF C3 PLANE

In 2000 Boeing concluded an agreement with China United Airlines to sell ten Boeing 737-300 transports. SOFTWAR has confirmed that the 737 transports are now being used by the PLAAF as troop and cargo military jets. One 737 has been modified by Xian Aviation into a command post for the Chinese Army. The 737 is also a prime airframe for the PLAAF to use in converted roles such as airborne radar or electronic warfare planes.

According to a U.S. government report on the Chinese military - CHINA UNITED is actually owned and operated by the PLAAF.
from: http://www.softwar.net/cua.html

also:
Quote:

China's Illegal Spy Plane - Armed With Advanced Radar by U.S.

Charles R. Smith
Friday, April 13, 2001

Aircraft PR-32, the Lockheed EP-3E Aries II that is in Chinese hands, was clearly marked as a U.S. military plane. The markings on the huge four-engine spy plane include large black block letters and brightly painted stars against battleship gray, identifying it as property of the United States Navy.
.....
B-4138 is a Chinese spy plane. Defense analysts confirmed that the so-called "civil" aircraft is actually a Chinese air force spy plane equipped with a sophisticated radar and communications equipment. The modified TU-154M airliner is equipped with an array of communications antenna on the rear and a huge radar dome on the bottom of the aircraft.

from: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/12/181846.shtml

Some other, interesting China/International weapons sale & FOIA stuff here:

http://www.softwar.net/

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A lot of the initial CT stuff was based on the radar tracks of the flights. Now I wonder how much those can be trusted. If they are genuine, then the track of Flight 11 looks very much like a switched flight, with that very hard, tighter-than-90 degree port side turn in upstate NY.

Then again, if these tracks were fudged or edited, then this particular anomaly would be a dead-giveaway as a misdirection, it's so obviously not a natural commercial airplane maneuver.

Recently, the NTSB released the "official" Flight 77 radar track, and it drastically contradicts the one displayed the week of 9/11. So, one of them is fabricated bullshit.

The stumbling point with fudging radar tracks is that many more people would be aware that it had been done, since every ATC in the northeast would have been privy to that info since 9/11. And I doubt they were all on the payroll, despite the fact that it would be doable. Just not likely.

And the bottom-bottom line is: I still maintain that not all of this was intended to stay below cognisance. So, what stuff is correct, and does point to clear evidence, and what is misdirection from reality?

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
RedMahna



Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1512
Location: USA

PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i'm sorry if i missed anything on this subject anywhere in the forum:
the "hijackers" switched off a control that made them "invisible" to the radar???
ok, i'm sure that's part of the bs in the story about the 911 planes... and why the fighter jets could not be positioned
however, i did not realize a civilian aircraft would have a choice or the capability to even do something like that. why would a switch like that be needed?
another q:
the media has the pentagon plane getting to DC faster than the fighter jets can get to NYC? i cannot remember details. if anyone else has time-related details from the main media, can you look into that?
i was watching the biography channel special last night in virginia. i wanted to see if i could catch obvious inconsistencies. the time factors involving how long a commercial craft went from point a to b vs military craft for relative distances in the northeast - PA/VA/DC/NJ/NY... just didn't sound correct to me.
red

_________________
just cos things are fucked up doesn't mean it isn't progress...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Red asked:
Quote:
the "hijackers" switched off a control that made them "invisible" to the radar???

Naww - but there *are* areas in which there are *no* RADAR coverage, or 'gaps' in the RADAR - they are like small 'channels' of space or little 'patches' of area that are too far from the last RADAR base, and not close enough to the next one, etc.

It appears that a few of the flights of 9/11 intersected pretty neatly with these areas of no-coverage, which would lead one to question why, and how did the 'terrorists' know of the existence of these RADAR 'holes'?

Also, it's not a *switch* that makes anyone 'invisible to RADAR' but you *can* just switch off the 'transponder' which makes the aircraft not able to be interrogated by *CIVILIAN* secondary RADAR as to altitude, vectors etc. This is not the same as military-style 'primary' RADAR which 'paints' the targets, and 'sees' them due to the 'reflection' being picked up.

Quote:
The areas with no primary radar coverage are emphasised in white. The "hijackers" clearly knew where the vulnerabilities in the radar system were. How?


Whole article here: http://www.team8plus.org/the-movement/radar/Radar.htm

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku


Last edited by Continuity on Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:58 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.