Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Jack White]

"Wow, that guy draws some amazing conclusions from a couple pics of burnt cars. He's wrong of course."

At least you should get the facts straight. The count was over 2000 "toasted cars", most of them many

blocks from the towers. Paper was not burned, but car engineblocks were melted. Plastic burned,

but adjacent upholstery fabric was not. Check Dr. Woods' webpage.

Not knowing the facts reflects badly on your credibility.

Jack

[Guest David Guyatt]

Of course they can be, but it requires rebuilding the control system of the plane. It's not something that can be done to a comercial airliner without anyone (eg, the airline mechanics) noticing, and without the plane in question being out of service for a while. Add the airline management, security, and maintenance crews to the list of people who would have to be in on the conspiracy if you believe the planes were remote control.

That’s only half the problem (i.e altering the planes in a way that wouldn’t be detected) the other would be remote controlling the planes in a way that the pilots would not be able to override.

Well, we have progress to the point where we now largely agree that these aircraft can be remotely controlled, which answers the principal question posed by this thread.

The "how it was done" question is a secondary one. I'm sure there could easily lots of ingenious solutions but I personally am not going there. If I favour any theory on 911 its of the Pearl Harbour variety. For example, it seems that we Brits knew in advance, which is why (I am told) that the commercial aircraft from Schipol destined for London City airport -- via the upper floors of the high rise Canary Wharf, One Canada Square building -- was not allowed to take off, courtesy of the likely lads.

David

[Len Colby]

Of course they can be, but it requires rebuilding the control system of the plane. It's not something that can be done to a comercial airliner without anyone (eg, the airline mechanics) noticing, and without the plane in question being out of service for a while. Add the airline management, security, and maintenance crews to the list of people who would have to be in on the conspiracy if you believe the planes were remote control.

That’s only half the problem (i.e altering the planes in a way that wouldn’t be detected) the other would be remote controlling the planes in a way that the pilots would not be able to override.

Well, we have progress to the point where we now largely agree that these aircraft can be remotely controlled, which answers the principal question posed by this thread.

No David look again at my initial post. From the being I was looking for evidence that 1) the pilots could be overrided and 2) this could be done in an undetectable way.

...it seems that we Brits knew in advance, which is why (I am told) that the commercial aircraft from Schipol destined for London City airport -- via the upper floors of the high rise Canary Wharf, One Canada Square building -- was not allowed to take off, courtesy of the likely lads.

David can you elaborate and/or provide any evidence regarding this claim?

JACK WROTE:

You guys do not understand the proposition.

FOUR COMMERCIAL AIRLINERS WERE NOT ALTERED TO BE FLOWN REMOTELY.

IF Boeings were used, they were SPECIALLY EQUIPPED BY THE CONSPIRATORS.

It has not been shown that the "hijacked planes" were involved. Not a single

PART ID NUMBER has been provided, which is FAA routine.

The allegedly hijacked airliners did not impact the Pentagon or WTC, therefore

something else did, but it was not necessarily Boeing jetliners.

“You guys do not understand the proposition.”

Wrong again Jack most “inside jobbers” reject “no planes” theories at least for the WTC, in fact discussing such theories can get you booted from the ‘Loose Change Forum’. But even if you were correct and the hijacked planes weren’t involved in the crashes you would have explain what happened to the four Boeings that took off from Logan, Newark and Dulles that morning and never seen again

“Not a single PART ID NUMBER has been provided, which is FAA routine”

To use one of your favorite expressions you “display massive ignorance”.

1) The FAA does not investigate aviation “accidents” only “incidents” when there are no serious injuries (and IIRC even some ‘incidents’ involving commercial jetliners are investigated by the NTSB).

2) The FBI rather than the FAA or NTSB assumes jurisdiction for crashes that were caused by “criminal activity” unlike the latter two agencies they don’t normally issue public reports. The NTSB does however often assist the FBI.

3) Even when the NTSB investigates crashes it rarely provides part numbers.

I looked into this on another forum. What I referred to as “the 10 most recent accidents” was as of Jan 29, 2007 but I assume a search done at any date would give similar results I assume the 10 reports are still available online if not let me know:

If we look at the 10 most recent accidents in the NTSB database with full reports http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/A_Acc1.htm we can see the serial numbers of parts are hardly ever mentioned.

Unless otherwise noted serial numbers are not mentioned:

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/AAB0607.pdf

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/AAB0606.pdf

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/AAB0605.pdf (only mentions the serial number of the CVR)

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/AAB0604.pdf (only mentions the serial number of the plane)

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/AAB0603.pdf (only mentions the serial number of the plane)

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2005/AAR0502.pdf (only mentions the serial number of the plane, CVR and FDR )

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2005/AAR0501.pdf (only mentions the serial number of the plane, CVR and FDR )

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/AAR0403.pdf (mentions serial numbers of the plane, engines, and an engine cylinder)

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/AAR0404.pdf Flight 587 (mentions serial numbers of the engines, FDR, CVR and an auxiliary power unit)

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/AAR0402.pdf

Total reports that cite CVR and/or FDR serial numbers:4 , 40 percent.

Total reports that cite serial numbers of other parts: 2, percent: 20.

However the exceptions might prove the rule except in one case where part numbers were cited they were of whole assemblies engines, CVRs etc not individual component parts and there is no indication the numbers were identified on the recovered parts as opposed to culled from preexisting paper work. In theory its possible that in some cases the part was too badly damaged to identify the serial number and they presumed it was the part from the plane. In the single case they gave the serial number of a component part they suspected that a problem with the part (the engine cylinder) contributed to the crash.

So: Total report(s) that cite serial numbers of component parts: 1, percent: 10

Total reports that cite serial numbers of component parts not suspected as a factor in the crash: 0, percent.

Your expectation that the serial numbers of the recovered parts should have been cited has been falsified.

[…]

One problem with “CT thinking” is that often you guys say things like ‘X,Y and Z happened in this case it shouldn’t have’ (or the converse it should have happened but didn’t) but fail to verify what happened in similar cases.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

I tried to reply but got an error message saying the thread had been locked and it is shown as being locked on the forum board. No explanation has been given for this or even an indication of which moderator took this action.

1) If this was done inadvertently it should be unlocked.

2) If this was done intentionally the moderator who did so should offer an explanation.

Len

[Jack White]

I tried to reply but got an error message saying the thread had been locked and it is shown as being locked on the forum board. No explanation has been given for this or even an indication of which moderator took this action.

1) If this was done inadvertently it should be unlocked.

2) If this was done intentionally the moderator who did so should offer an explanation.

Len

For once, I agree with Colby.

Jack

[Guest David Guyatt]

"David can you elaborate and/or provide any evidence regarding this claim?"

Sorry Len, not everything can be referenced to a website or is found in a magazine article. I toyed with the idea of writing about this several years ago when I was first told about it (and did some - but not a lot of - research), but in the end decided against doing so as I was fully absorbed in a long-term story and I didn't want to change my focus or interfere with my dwindling concentration. Several years later there were a couple of newspaper articles that hinted at a number of UK targets, including Canary Wharf (that is the memory I have anyway).

I would add that the Isle of Dogs made a perfect UK target (hence the IRA chose it) because it is very largely an American business enclave. If you walk along the masonic streets or enter the masonic and prisitine buildings, you'll hear more yank voices than you can shake a stick at.

But Blighty wasn't going to oblige. Not so far as Canary Wharf was concerned. The City of London (and the Wharf are the heart of global banking and one of the (if not the) main UK income generators. Better to have bombs go off in central London where thw damage will only cause a temporary blip on the Footsie 100 (and may even be good news for all those velocity conscious day traders grafting away in those banking halls).

The point I was making on the other matter is that if it is techically feasible to remotely fly large jets, which we now agree is likely, then everything else that follows is a matter of creative organisation and detail.

But, as you know, it is not my personal opinion that this scenario is the most likely one behind 911 and I, therefore, see little point in focusing on the minutiae of something I dont take all that seriously (just my personal opinion). I'm sure others will dabble with creativity without my input.

Finally, on the matter of evidence, I reiterate again the point I made (more succintly) earlier. Firstly, this is not a court of law and none of us are presiding judges or barristers who are duty bound to adhere to the principles covering the rules of evidence. Secondly, even if we were, vital shards of evidence remain under a national security blanket and are not available -- and may never be available. Under these restrictions, the very best we can do is organise what information is available in an honest and logical way and proceed to extract sensible (albeit imperfect) deductions.

Best

David

[John Geraghty]

I tried to reply but got an error message saying the thread had been locked and it is shown as being locked on the forum board. No explanation has been given for this or even an indication of which moderator took this action.

1) If this was done inadvertently it should be unlocked.

2) If this was done intentionally the moderator who did so should offer an explanation.

Len

For once, I agree with Colby.

Jack

Len,

I'll see what the problem is. All it takes is a misplaced click for something like this to happen, but I will ask other moderators.

It's good to see the beginnings of a love in between you two.

John

Edited June 28, 2007 by John Geraghty

[Kevin M. West]

Not knowing jack about car fires reflects badly on your's, Jack. They spread in strange ways, sometimes only the front of the car burns, sometimes only the back, sometimes, just the top, etc. Talk to a firefighter about it.

Please, show some proof that a single engine block melted.

[John Simkin]

I tried to reply but got an error message saying the thread had been locked and it is shown as being locked on the forum board. No explanation has been given for this or even an indication of which moderator took this action.

1) If this was done inadvertently it should be unlocked.

2) If this was done intentionally the moderator who did so should offer an explanation.

Len

Could you let me have the URL for this thread. I have not locked it. None of the moderators have informed me that they have locked a 9/11 thread.

[Jack White]

Tell us how more than 2000 cars were ignited, some of them many

blocks away from the towers.

Oh, I forgot. To do that you would actually have to visit Dr. Woods'

website and look at photos and read information. But that is against

your religious beliefs.

Jack

[John Geraghty]

I have unlocked the thread and it will stay open unless one of the other moderators informs me that they locked it.

It may have been a simple mistake.

All the best,

John

[Kevin M. West]

They were packed together in parking lots, fire spreads. How is it that this magical EMP weapon set cars on fire blocks away and didn't burn down every building in the area also, or fry every computer for miles, or stop my cell phone from working that morning? The answer is simple, some debris landed in some parking lots, most of the cars just got out of a commute, and the engines were still hot.

I've seen the pictures Jack, don't assume I haven't seen Judy's work. Did you not see the other thread where I destroyed her billiard ball nonsense? I'm still waiting for you to answer that.

[Guest]

I tried to reply but got an error message saying the thread had been locked and it is shown as being locked on the forum board. No explanation has been given for this or even an indication of which moderator took this action.

1) If this was done inadvertently it should be unlocked.

2) If this was done intentionally the moderator who did so should offer an explanation.

Len

This is most unusual. I have just trawled through the logs of moderator and admin actions and cannot uncover who locked the thread in question.

The version of the software we are using is 6 months out of date so maybe we have developed a few glitches. I'll download the latest version and rebuild at the weekend.

[Guest Gary Loughran]

I tried to reply but got an error message saying the thread had been locked and it is shown as being locked on the forum board. No explanation has been given for this or even an indication of which moderator took this action.

1) If this was done inadvertently it should be unlocked.

2) If this was done intentionally the moderator who did so should offer an explanation.

Len

This is most unusual. I have just trawled through the logs of moderator and admin actions and cannot uncover who locked the thread in question.

The version of the software we are using is 6 months out of date so maybe we have developed a few glitches. I'll download the latest version and rebuild at the weekend.

Thanks Andy. That's my mind at ease. Maybe there really is someone preventing Jack's work being done

[Sid Walker]

For once, I agree with Colby.

Jack

Always a moment to relish, Jack.

Happened to me once or twice as well. The exception that proves the rule.