I don't have a position other than that any conspiracy theory I have seen so far has as many holes in it as the official theory has. The rest of what I say is simply mocking you conspiracy nutbars.
9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked - Video
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
Follow this guys suggestion, better to come from a fellow American than some moosehead from up north. lol Then help them do the investigation.
EclippTV • View topic - Texas Engineer Demolitions the 9-11 WTC 7 Fairy
Not unless you can scroll back to the post that has #3 explained.
Really, remote piloting was doable in 1984, want the vid of the aircraft hitting the intended target? It somewhat smaller than the towers and they hit it as intended, as well as 16 take-offs and landings?
DATE:01/12/06 (December 1, 2006)
SOURCE: Flightglobal.com
Diagrams: Boeing patents anti-terrorism auto-land system for hijacked airliners
By John Croft
Boeing last week received a US patent for a system that, once activated, removes all control from pilots to automatically return a commercial airliner to a predetermined landing location.
The “uninterruptible” autopilot would be activated – either by pilots, by onboard sensors, or even remotely via radio or satellite links by government agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, if terrorists attempt to gain control of a flight deck.
Boeing says: "We are constantly studying ways we can enhance the safety, security and effiecency of the world's airline fleet."
“There is a need in the industry for a technique that conclusively prevents unauthorised persons for gaining access to the controls of the vehicle and therefore threatening the safety of the passengers onboard the vehicle, and/or other people in the path of travel of the vehicle, thereby decreasing the amount of destruction individuals onboard the vehicle would be capable of causing,” the patent authors write. “In particular, there is a need for a technique that ensures the continuation of the desired path of travel of a vehicle by removing any type of human decision process that may be influenced by the circumstances of the situation, including threats or further violence onboard the vehicle.”
According to the patent, existing preventative measures are less than fullproof – pilots can decide to open the lockable, bullet-proof cockpit doors and federal air marshals can be overpowered and de-armed. Boeing’s alternative has an onboard processor that once activated, disallows pilot inputs and prevents anyone on board from interrupting an emergency landing plan that can be predefined or radioed to the aircraft by airline or government controllers and carried out by the aircraft’s guidance and control system. To make it fully independent, the system has its own power supply, independent of the aircraft’s circuit breakers. The aircraft remains in automatic mode until after landing, when mechanics or government security operatives are called in to disengage the system.
Boeing envisions several methods of activating the system. Options include manual switches for pilots to hit, or possibly force sensors on the cockpit door that would trip the anti-terror mode if a minimum force threshold were crossed, for instance if someone were trying to break down the door. Another option is a remote link whereby airline or government workers in ground facilities would monitor and aircraft and command the automatic control mode “once it is determined that the security of the air vehicle is in jeopardy.” Radio links could also be used to inform ground facilities and nearby aircraft that an aircraft has been placed in the automatic flight mode.
It’s unclear if the Boeing work is related to last week’s issuance of a $1.9 million US Federal Aviation Administration contract to Raytheon for an Advanced Route Evaluation System (ARES). According to Raytheon, ARES will perform risk analysis on aviation routes to help planners determine the best routes for aircraft to use during emergencies.”
Aside from the safety and security aspects of having such a system, Boeing sees it as a preventative measure: “Once the automatic control system provided by the present invention is initiated, no one on board the air vehicle is capable controlling the flight to the air vehicle, such that it would be useless for anyone to threaten violence in order to gain control the air vehicle.”
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?The “uninterruptible” autopilot would be activated – either by pilots, by onboard sensors, or even remotely via radio or satellite links by government agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, if terrorists attempt to gain control of a flight deck.
Boeing says: "We are constantly studying ways we can enhance the safety, security and effiecency of the world's airline fleet."
“There is a need in the industry for a technique that conclusively prevents unauthorised persons for gaining access to the controls of the vehicle and therefore threatening the safety of the passengers onboard the vehicle, and/or other people in the path of travel of the vehicle, thereby decreasing the amount of destruction individuals onboard the vehicle would be capable of causing,” the patent authors write. “In particular, there is a need for a technique that ensures the continuation of the desired path of travel of a vehicle by removing any type of human decision process that may be influenced by the circumstances of the situation, including threats or further violence onboard the vehicle.”
According to the patent, existing preventative measures are less than fullproof – pilots can decide to open the lockable, bullet-proof cockpit doors and federal air marshals can be overpowered and de-armed. Boeing’s alternative has an onboard processor that once activated, disallows pilot inputs and prevents anyone on board from interrupting an emergency landing plan that can be predefined or radioed to the aircraft by airline or government controllers and carried out by the aircraft’s guidance and control system. To make it fully independent, the system has its own power supply, independent of the aircraft’s circuit breakers. The aircraft remains in automatic mode until after landing, when mechanics or government security operatives are called in to disengage the system.
Boeing envisions several methods of activating the system. Options include manual switches for pilots to hit, or possibly force sensors on the cockpit door that would trip the anti-terror mode if a minimum force threshold were crossed, for instance if someone were trying to break down the door. Another option is a remote link whereby airline or government workers in ground facilities would monitor and aircraft and command the automatic control mode “once it is determined that the security of the air vehicle is in jeopardy.” Radio links could also be used to inform ground facilities and nearby aircraft that an aircraft has been placed in the automatic flight mode.
It’s unclear if the Boeing work is related to last week’s issuance of a $1.9 million US Federal Aviation Administration contract to Raytheon for an Advanced Route Evaluation System (ARES). According to Raytheon, ARES will perform risk analysis on aviation routes to help planners determine the best routes for aircraft to use during emergencies.”
Aside from the safety and security aspects of having such a system, Boeing sees it as a preventative measure: “Once the automatic control system provided by the present invention is initiated, no one on board the air vehicle is capable controlling the flight to the air vehicle, such that it would be useless for anyone to threaten violence in order to gain control the air vehicle.”
Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO
%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7142971.PN.&OS=PN/7142971&RS=PN/7142971
United States Patent: 7142971
granted to the Boeing company, November 28, 2006
System and method for automatically controlling a path of travel of a vehicle
Watch the same link I gave Eagle, it is the latest I have watched on building 7 and the speaker is an engineer and an American.
Diagrams: Boeing patents anti-terrorism auto-land system for hijacked airliners-01/12/2006-Washington DC-Flightglobal.com
The patent office would have an application date right?
And I answer Anna's posts because most are so off the wall I have to down a a Smirnoff Triple Black cooler to keep my voice from going horse as they make me laugh so long. Thanks for asking .
You're right, you don't have a position. A real nutbar thinks conspiracy is rare as hens teeth.
I just gave you a version several posts ago are you blind? Never mind the crap about the steel and the aircraft or the missing passengers those have little to do with the project, they're collateral props. Somebody contracted to off the buildings actualizing the a "Second Pearl Harbour" which like the first opened the road to conquest under the cover of self defense, a very popular tactic, older than bronze. Now the only point of contention is, who done it? The evidence points to those entities who got what they wanted, war. The completed successful attack also proves without doubt that A/the worlds most sophisticated most capable most intelligent most connected most lucky evil organization ever assembled is responsible or B/ it was an inside job and was no sweat at all. I think it was B mainly because it is practically impossible that it wasn't. Just follow the money and it goes all the way to the geohydrocarbon center of the economic world, the energy artery of the planet, if you control that you control every space heater on the planet, eventually.
Now I'd like you, ES,to bring forth your version of why my version is wrong.
And yet it was a sucessfully completed attack by Al-Who and to date they have been able to remain silent as fence posts so you are wrong DaSleeper ,the lips can remain sealed in an operation like this and that is proven by Al-Whoeverdoneits complete silence. Any of them bad guys hang yet? Any of them bad guys go to trial? Where are the bad guys? Logic ain't your thing maybe.
So you are contradicting your previous comment. I'm not surprised.
Really? I guess you'd be the one to know.
You first. Eagle and Bear have been wondering what your theory is for a few pages now. Me, too.
See? It's why I put "whatever that is" at the end of my post. That should indicate that I don't know what your theory is or even if you have one. All you seem to do is paste a whole pile of other people's theories here and hope that we will adore you for doing so.
Same as it was on the last time we covered this very same part. If you can't remember then go back and reread the thread. That person who did the examination of wtc7 in a link just posted, I take his word over you, eaglet and baby bear, if you can't follow his presentation then you should go to another thread and stay off the conspiracy ones. Can you three also do the 'Who's on first?' bit?
Your admiration would be worth what if I don't consider any of you as being very important in any way,shape or form. At least your motivation is clear. lol If you can't figure out what the holes are yourself then why demand it in others? lol
Your admiration would be worth what if I don't consider any of you as being very important in any way,shape or form. At least your motivation is clear. lol If you can't figure out what the holes are yourself then why demand it in others? lol
So in other words, you can't answer these questions...
All you have to do is say you don't know mhz, you don't have to dance around the issue.
I didn't ask. Funny though, when I do ask you straight forward direct questions, you can't answer them. Why is that?
You're hardly the person to be throwing out supercilious remarks, given you inability to back up your claims. I'm still waiting for your answers involving the chart you posted. They should be simple for you to answer, you keep claiming you have all the answers.
So where are they?
If I had all the answers then you wouldn't be getting any links, as it stand those links are more proof that any of you 3 stooges are putting up combined.
This is a perfect case of how your thinking is in error but it remains that you are never in error. Boil the towers down to this to a series of claims and they have to all hold up. Depending on if you support this particular part or not says a lot about your knowledge of steel in the most basic sense. The theory is the floor joists sagged and that pulled in the outer wall. A tiny steel floor joist that is so hot it cannot support it's own weight without sagging still has the strength to pull a steel column in that is 10x it's mass while not breaking the weak link in the chain, the joint connection between the two. If you swallow that as being even remotely possible then where is the proof that it can happen, I would accept a presentation that comes from a model based on the laws of physics. When I find about the power of rubbery steel pulling cold steel I'll post it. So I don't know it all but there are some that are working to solve just how the towers came down. Most are quite happy to answer questions also as far as I know.
While you have your heroes, like Dex for example, who is Mr. Science 24/7 why would I even look for input from him anymore when he is totally predictable in repeating the established line. The example I would currently use is the expanding earth theory compared to the normal view. One of the latest production in the 'How the Earth was Made?' is about the Marianas Trench area and how that is a subduction zone. Where is the mud that would accumulate on the floor over millions of years, it would be scrapped off rather than being dragged into a material that is twice the density of granite. The Med Sea is too deep for the same reason, mud scrapped off the subducting crust should have filled it in.
If bring that up would be a waste of time with him you can understand why you would never see it in a post where I was expecting a serious reply from somebody such as you, Anna or Eagle. At least you three are down to the bare reply, almost a chant really. Here's an error I made, I said the 4" thick concrete floors had rebar in them, they don't, if the floors were accurate in the test that was performed then it was 4" wire mesh instead. I'm quite willing to adopt that as being the actual floor design.