| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Moved:Standdown.net and 911timeline.net | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 24 2009, 10:10 PM (320 Views) | |
| Duffman1013 | Sep 24 2009, 10:10 PM Post #1 |
|
Ok, I'm probably sure that these have been at least mentioned somewhere, but unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time to dedicate to going through threads one by one to find them... that being said: 911timeline.net, Standdown.net, mycountryrightorwrong.net... I'm sure they've come up somewhere, and I've been wondering what other information is out there regarding that ring of sites. They all appear to have the same authors, the same information, and the same message. Basically, has their information been confirmed, refuted or just kinda pushed to the sides? They all discuss in detail the series of events surrounding the hijackers (this is why I posted in this topic). Some of the other stuff I didn't know where to post about, such as the cell phone debate (whether it was decided it was possible, or if it is highly unlikely-to-impossible), and about the issue of the 757/767 Boeing maneuver control software. If this is a repeat thread, I'm sorry, but I just want to know what is out there to confirm/refute or what. Thanks!!! Duff |
 |
 
|
| JFK | Sep 24 2009, 10:35 PM Post #2 |
|
For the Boeing 757-200 I have in my possession the "Aircraft Maintainance Manual" as well as the "System Schematic Manual" ( over 200 Mb in .PDF format ) which I will not share for obvious reasons. Having said that, all the necessary components appear to be already there, and there are three seperate and distinct paths which *could* be used for remote control of that aircraft provided that the software within the onboard computers was rewritten. |
|
|
| Duffman1013 | Sep 25 2009, 05:25 AM Post #3 |
|
I guess what the contention was from the web author's standpoint was that the software for the commercial passenger 757/767 was written in such a way that high g-force maneuvers were impossible without the overrides from either Boeing or NORAD. Because of the 3g-5g maneuvers required to perform things per the official flight plan (UA175 and AA77), there had to be an override, or the flight had to be pre-programmed into the system to allow such maneuvers. Also, they said the 767/757 class aircraft are capable of fully autonomous flight, from takeoff to landing. On a side note, that maintenance manual probably cost a pretty penny... |
|
|
|
| Duffman1013 | Oct 3 2009, 03:22 PM Post #4 |
|
Should I just start the thread in Skeptics to get some action going on this? |
|
|
|
| JFK | Oct 3 2009, 03:48 PM Post #5 |
|
Yeah... If you want the trolls who know nothing about the topic all over it.  |
|
|
|
| Duffman1013 | Oct 4 2009, 02:36 PM Post #6 |
|
I never said I needed factual information... but, I guess at heart I am a debater... I spent 3 years of high school in policy debate. JFK, can you move the thread, or should I repost in Skeptics? |
|
|
|
| JFK | Oct 4 2009, 02:46 PM Post #7 |
|
Moved. |
|
|
|
| Duffman1013 | Oct 4 2009, 03:31 PM Post #8 |
|
Cheers! Now, this is for anyone and everyone who may want to chime in. I'm sure you're aware of Dominick's challenges, and a similar one now applies. If one can challenge either the information given in those websites, or conversely show me how they are accurate, you win (unfortunately, I'm poor, so no prize  ). More than anything, I just want to know whether or not they can be considered accurate for point of speculation, or whether I should disregard the information when talking to people outside of the forums (and indeed outside of digital life). The cell phone debate is still very open for me, and I haven't seen enough evidence either way to be swayed yet. I do, however, remember having a conversation with my mom's ex about when they were in the Army and actually manned a computer for NORAD about how the issue of jets scrambling is (as well as that golfer's jet being intercepted I think in 1999). Anyhow, the things I'm open to discussion on:1) Cell phones and airplanes 2) Seating charts released by CNN (cited numerous times in the websites) 3) NORAD's response 4) ATC's response 5) Bush's response (only because it's so deeply intertwined throughout the timeline, not for politics). So there you go. Thanks! Jeremy 
Edited by Duffman1013, Oct 4 2009, 03:43 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Duffman1013 | Oct 7 2009, 05:28 AM Post #9 |
|
So does this mean that there are no skeptics out there willing to take on a little itty-bitty challenge? I was seriously looking for something, anything, to make me believe that the government couldn't be behind 911. So far, I've been seriously disappointed. I want to believe that people wouldn't do this to their own kind. I've nodded my head and said "good point" to myself at some of the things the skeptics say. Then a truther who knows what they are talking about counter, and their counters are never truly challenged again. Seriously guys, help me believe that the government really is doing the right thing, and that things are settled. Otherwise, concede and admit you have nothing, so the guys in charge can do what is really right and have another investigation (which, I think, btw, regardless of who is right or wrong, needs to be done anyhow. If there is sufficient reason to even begin to doubt, then the OCT needs to be reexamined.). Make me believe, guys. 
|
|
|
|
| Duffman1013 | Oct 10 2009, 01:25 PM Post #10 |
|
I won by default. Skeptics lost any right to argue about 911, seeing as how you agreed 100% with no cell phones on planes, the military had to have been told to stand down, and thus proving the gov't conspiracy. =) |
|
|
|
| scott75 | Oct 10 2009, 05:14 PM Post #11 |
|
Duffman, this isn't really the forum for skeptics. If you want to debate with skeptics, I'd advise giving AboveTopSecret.com a go. I debate them there on a regular basis :-p. |
|
|
|
| SPreston | Oct 11 2009, 11:02 AM Post #12 |
Patriotic American
|
Many of the chronic pseudoskeptics are badly shell-shocked and avoid a lot of threads. |
|
|
|
| Duffman1013 | Oct 12 2009, 05:35 AM Post #13 |
|
The Truther's went after them like a rabid spider monkey, they are on the losing end of an argument? |
|
|
|
| Duffman1013 | Oct 12 2009, 12:07 PM Post #14 |
|
Wow... omg, ATS seems to be the place where mental institution patients look when they want to feel sane. Geezus, that place is weirder than Leonard Nemoy doing lines of coke off of Christopher Walken's backside. 911 couldn't be an inside job because the aliens that probed Elvis and hid Hoffa were really the ones behind it (organized from their base on Xirkiarz IV). It's a conspiracy, man. |
|
|
|
| Alfie | Oct 12 2009, 04:10 PM Post #15 |
|
Duffman 1013 I think there are two reasons you didn't get any takers. (a) If you don't mind me saying so, your opening post was too wide-ranging. A bit like inviting a debate on WW 2. An exaggeration I know but you get what I mean. (b) You have'nt been here very long so you need to appreciate that skeptics on this forum are a bit like junior infantry officers in WW 1. If they last more than a couple of weeks they are on borrowed time. There is therefore not a substantial number of skeptics to debate with you. Anyway, if you could isolate something of particular interest to you , perhaps it would get things going. Btw, I think Scott 75 is probably right that ATS is more balanced between skeptics and truthers. |
|
|
|
| Duffman1013 | Oct 16 2009, 09:44 PM Post #16 |
|
Aight. Well, if you want to be specific, Alfie, then lets be specific. Feel free to pick one, and we will go from there. 1) Cell phones on airplanes. Possible? Given 2001 technology, that is. Coming at me with stuff from 2008 is automatically stupid, and would therefore be responded with a thump on the head. 2) Is it possible/probable that pilots Duff and Nasty were flying at what would be the remarkable speed of an average of 25% of their equipment's maximum in order to defend our country from attack? 3) What is the the true protocol for hijack interception, and citation is needed (historical precident/evidence, NORAD released info, ect). As far as ATS, I need hip waders and an OSHA approved respirator to wade through that much. Seriously. |
|
|
|
| ULTIMA1 | Oct 24 2009, 10:31 PM Post #17 |
|
As ar as sites like ATS and JERF, i keep getting suspened and banned because i can show evidece (that would hold up in court) that shows reasonable doubt in the offical story. I am still waiting for basic evidene like the FBI/NTSB crime reports showing proper ID of the Planes. 1. Proper ID is needed for the criminal investigation. 2. Proper ID is needed for the airlines to collect the insurance. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
6:09 PM Nov 26
