New Pentagon Plane Video To be Released?

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

That anonymous alleged airline mechanic discussing the possibility of E-hijacking the planes using remote control is pushing the 'fuel tank' cover story on TWA800.
Not a sign of credibility. Nuff said about 'him.'

Here is a WTC tower 'obviously pancaking due to gravity.' ...right.

[nomo]

Yes, HMW, gravity sucks. Combine it with Transfer of Momentum and you've got towers pancaking at nearly the speed of freefall. And I'm not shittin' you.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Yes, HMW, gravity sucks. Combine it with Transfer of Momentum and you've got towers pancaking at nearly the speed of freefall. And I'm not shittin' you.

lol. "Conservation of Momentum" proves that "pancaking at the speed of freefall" is indeed "shittin'" us and very badly.

(Research physicist Professor Steven Jones covers this very basic rule in his 9/11 power point lectures. This is really as basic as it comes unless you know nothing about kinetic energy.)

Those poor people jumping through thin air to their deaths took about as long to reach the ground as the roofs of the towers.

Yet the roofs of the towers had to travel through 47 steel columns and tons of concrete.
Impossible by the most basic laws of physics.

http://www.kingsford.org/khsWeb/rfs/elemsci/tmomen.html

Conservation of Momentum - Transfer of Momentum 2

Items needed:

2 large balls such as a basketball or playground ball

Procedure

Place one on the balls on the ground. Roll the other ball at it and hit the still ball. Momentum for the moving ball will transfer momentum to the still ball. the fast moving ball will slow up and the still ball will roll. the amount of momentum transferred from the fast moving ball will equal the momentum transferred to the still ball.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Yes, HMW, gravity sucks.

But, nomo, it is the law and so is the Conservation of Momentum.

Thank you for helping to prove MIHOP using physics.

[orz]

I should have copied those images and hosted them somewhere myself, the magic word 'debunking' has seemingly made you forget to actually look at them and compare to the image you posted?

Not a sign of credibility. Nuff said about 'him.'

Well, he did write a lengthy text with lots of technical info on relevent planes...

...is that all made up then?

Not saying it totally proves anything, but it is a hefty collection of supposed technical facts which if true, would seem to preclude most of the remote takeover theory... do you have evidence to the contrary, or any specific reason to disbelieve that his explanations of the workings of passenger jets are incorrect or fabricated? It seems to me that his credentials are not so important as the specific and provable (or maybe disprovable if you do the research?) information he presents.

And two can play at the following game:

Here is a WTC tower 'neatly falling in its own footprint' ...right.


(both players loose )


So.... about that photo of workers cutting the remains of the WTC diagonally with blowtorches....?

EITHER/OR is another virus formula. It is always you OR the virus. EITHER/OR. - WSB

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

I should have copied those images and hosted them somewhere myself, the magic word 'debunking' has seemingly made you forget to actually look at them and compare to the image you posted?

So.... about that photo of workers cutting the remains of the WTC diagonally with blowtorches....?

Actually I did look at those, orz. Thanks for the links. But they don't show anything like what is in the photo I posted. I wish that both sets of photos were dated. But they aren't . Oh well. They probably can be differentiated with some research, though.

Have you checked out the difference between the results of using an acetylene torch vs thermate?

Thermate was not used to remove beams according to Professor Steven Jones. Atleast not by the time some photos showing thermate evidence were taken and possibly not at all.

Professor Steven Jones (I just heard and talked with him) covers the difference in results both visually and metallurgically between acetylene torches and thermate plus cutter charges. Not at all alike. Professor Jones has the credentials and I've watched several of his full presentations plus talking to him personally. I even gave him info on how the buildings could've been pre-rigged. I place lots of trust in the man and I think there are few who have both the technical knowledge and integrity to do what he is doing.

Jones did tests to check the claims offered by NIST and found that not only did they not hold up but the NIST omitted evidence and lied about things. Pretty damning.

Kevin Ryan from Underwriters Laboratories also corroborates Prof. Jones' findings PLUS details how the UL and NIST covered-up the physics of the situation.

More...
Prof. Jones also analyzed the dust from Ground Zero and compared them to samples analyzed by EPA. He found the unusual elements from thermate again, just like in the molten slag he analyzed.

I did enjoy reading about the computer flight systems of aircraft but I'm going to read some more from various sources who DON'T cover-up TWA800
Regardless, the controlled demolition of WTC 1, 2, and 7 (remember 7) is a....slam dunk.

[nomo]

Research physicist Professor Steven Jones covers this very basic rule in his 9/11 power point lectures.

Sigh. Jones is no authority on any of this, but then again, neither am I, so indulge me here.

Anyhow, Transfer of Momentum combined with Gravity means that each falling floor adds its momentum to the lower floor, thus *speeding up* the collapse. Simple as that.

Controlled Demolition is a load of bullsh!t designed to make real research into the attacks impossible. And you're falling for it (no pun intended.)

[nomo]

Professor Jones has the credentials

Uh, no, sorry, he doesn't. Not by a long shot.

First of all, his area of "expertise" has NOTHING to do with engineering. Second, his theory is based on photographs and conjecture.
Third, he is a Mormon.

And on and on. It's a shame, Hugh, you seem so astute in other areas, yet when it comes to this, you're more gullible than I would ever have expected you to be.

There is no evidence for controlled demolition. "Period."

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Uh, no, sorry, he doesn't (have credentials.) Not by a long shot.
First of all, his area of "expertise" has NOTHING to do with engineering.

Physics? PHYSICS?!? lol. "Nothing to do with..." Ok, nomo.

Second, his theory is based on photographs and conjecture.

Nope. Your reading comprehension is way down today.
Jones did PHYSICAL analysis of a very sophisticated state-of-the-art type
on PHYSICAL evidence. He got ahold of the molten slag from several sources PLUS the dust from the towers' demise. And they corroborate each other.

But the TIMING of the collapse is proof of controlled demolition, not just the forensic metallurgical analysis that strongly suggests thermate and military explosives of some kind..

That is his forte. PHYSICS. The police and FBI call this "evidence."

Third, he is a Mormon.

Wow. There's a nasty non-sequitor. (You're gonna wish you hadn't posted that, nomo. )
Anyway, so you think cops and scientists can only be atheists? What a muddling statement that discredits itself. Your welcome to that one. I'm moving on.

And on and on. It's a shame, Hugh, you seem so astute in other areas, yet when it comes to this, you're more gullible than I would ever have expected you to be.

Silly me. I believe in looking for and examining-
Means, Motive, Opportunity, Precedent, Evidence.

There is no evidence for controlled demolition. "Period."

Means, Motive, Opportunity, Precedent, Evidence.
It's all there. Oh, and I'm an atheist so I must be right.

[orz]

Have you checked out the difference between the results of using an acetylene torch vs thermate?

More word virus EITHER/OR.

I've read the term"Thermal Lance" thrown about a lot in CD debunking threads... results seem to resemble the girder in question... and seems to be the tool which would be used for cutting such a large beam...

http://www.krl.com.au/whatisalance.htm

I dunno...

OK, so say They used thermate (or thermite? which is it? they are fairly different substances.) ... then what made all those beams shoot out all over the place!?

I thought that was supposed to be evidence of CD with explosives?

but if thermate cuts beams with perfect neat diagonal cuts like that, causing a nice controlled demolition, then that would seem to be totally contrary to what's shown in that picture; ie a huge uncontrolled release of energy with mangled steel shooting out every which way.


( = most pointless emoticon ever!? )

Whatever those beams were cut with, it doesn't change the fact that CD theory doesn't seem to present a particularly coherent explanation for what happened to the WTC.

[orz]

Third, he is a Mormon.

- Insert mean-spirited joke about 'magic spectacles' here -

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

[quote="orz"

]
More word virus EITHER/OR.

I agree that "both" makes more sense in many cases than "either/or."
That's how patsies are made guilty while someone does the crime to the max to guarantee success, like programming Sirhan Sirhan to go after RFK while Eugene Thane Cesar kills RFK from point blank.

I've read the term"Thermal Lance" thrown about a lot in CD debunking threads... results seem to resemble the girder in question... and seems to be the tool which would be used for cutting such a large beam...

Interesting. I'll look at "thermal lances" but this doesn't address the huge molten pools under the three demolished buildings 1, 2, and 7.

OK, so say They used thermate (or thermite? which is it? they are fairly different substances.)

No, they are very similar. Thermite burns through steel very quickly while thermate has sulfur added and is even more effective.

Plus, the military very likely has chemical variations not used commercially, just as they have ordinance not used commercially. "Military spec," y'know.

... then what made all those beams shoot out all over the place!?

I thought that was supposed to be evidence of CD with explosives?

but if thermate cuts beams with perfect neat diagonal cuts like that, causing a nice controlled demolition, then that would seem to be totally contrary to what's shown in that picture; ie a huge uncontrolled release of energy with mangled steel shooting out every which way.

Use your own admonition not to think either/or. BOTH.

1) Thermate perforates and weakens the 47 steel columns designed to withstand jet crashes and hurricanes with serious overdesign.

2) Military charges are then sequenced from top to bottom to seem like 'collapse' but atomize concrete, bodies, everything to bits while shooting it hundreds of feet horizontally AND vertically.

In commercial controlled demolition there is very accurate timing using fuses of various speeds. Extremely accurate.

Whatever those beams were cut with, it doesn't change the fact that CD theory doesn't seem to present a particularly coherent explanation for what happened to the WTC.

Wrong. "CD theory" is the ONLY coherent explanation (so far) of what happened to the WTC. The NIST failed to explain and even covered-up information.

[Iroquois]

Orz, the following is from the bottom of the page you provided a link to about the aircraft tech who disagreed with the remote control hypothesis, or at least what he understood that hypothesis to entail. I am reposting it here because I doubt many read down that far and because it sums up my thoughts about RC pretty much to a 'T'.

The author of the original analysis got back to me, here are the relevant sections of his response and my comments to them.


"there are alot of unique accidents in commercial aviation, and the fuel tank explosion of TWA 800 raised a few eyebrows simply bcause it hadn't happened before. But, that in itself shouldnt arouse suspicion"
That's true, but there were a number of other aspects to that incident, although this isn't really relevant to the topic at hand.

"[examples of unique accidents] JAL [...] aft pressure dome catastrophically failed"
(I remember reading about this maintenance-related accident, the aft cone had been damaged in a previous accident and the replacement was supposed to be attached with two rows of rivets, but only one row was used, which proved insufficient after a number of exposures to pressure changes.)

[crews told to land somewhere without contacting anyone]
"That would be highly out of the ordinary though, ATC definately would have to be involved in a coverup as well."
Correct, but some level of ATC involvement, or at least silence, is not out of the question.

The most important new information in the response deals with the matter of how difficult if would be to compromise the computer systems:


[1) If you have control of the computer system and the pilots are incapacitated, the plane is yours.]
"1. Basically yes, but dont forget that the task of setting that up would be quite a difficult undertaking."

[2) It would be a fairly simple task to have the computer accept guidance data from outside the aircraft, and there wouldn't be massive requirements for extra hardware.]
"2. Your idea and my idea of fairly simple probably differ. IMO - no, it wouldn't be simple to set this up. If I cant figure out how to do it just by looking at wiring prints - it's not a simple task. The requirments for the aircraft end would involve wiring modifications, and its hard to say whether or not the hardware(or software/firmware) would have to be updated. On the ground, the setup would indeed have to be very involved. You need to uplink Flight Management/Flight Control Computer data in its proper format(ARINC). To generate these ARINC data words you'd like need to mimic the aircraft setup on the ground or have a laptop that can generate the data on the fly - but this would seem to be cumbersome. I would just use a full-motion simulator in conjunction with a VHF transmitter for ACARS."

[Does it only take a malicious software update to, say, get the autopilot to trigger at a set moment in time with a preset destination? How many computers would one need to compromise? (Force EICAS to ignore all warnings?) Your approach seems focused on physical equipment.]
"Its not that simple. Strictly speaking, we arent talking about software - we are talking about hardware generated data. Remember, these are mechanical airplanes, not FBW airplanes. This is why I focus on the hardware. There is simply no software which governs flight, or more specifically the Flight Control Computers. That is to say - there is no memory slot where you can pop in a diskette with a flightplan and the plane will follow it. **Though there is a FMC navigaton database in which you can load company flightplans to the FMC - quite different than what you are talking about and I'd be happy to go over the data loader in depth if you'd like.**

FCC steering commands are generated by hardware error signals. These are input the the FCCs from the autopilot Mode Panel/FMC/other peripherals via high speed data wiring (twisted pairs). The FCCs require a valid ARINC data word(including a source-destination identifier/parity bit/an 8 bit label/ and of course the data itself) which gets processed by the FCCs buffering and CPU circuits - not software. I may be wrong, but I dont think there is any software at all in the autopilot computers - just firmware(which is "flashed" in the shops, not installed by disk from the cockpit data loader.)"


[Are you sure you conducted your analysis not from the point of view of safety, but security? You do seem to take a conscious attacker as opposed to a random flaw into account, but the mindsets are quite different.]
"To the EICAS computers, there is no difference. If 5 volts dont show up at the EICAS computer from one of the 400 interfacing units/systems, a fault message is triggered. It doesn't matter whether or not there is a sabotage, or a part fails randomly - it all looks like 1s and 0s to EICAS. A plane wont fly until the problem is resolved. In order to get a sabotaged plane in the air, you'd have to defeat EICAS, as well as the parent units BIT which is constantly looking for faults(and from experience, I can report that the MCDP - which is the BITE for autopilot - finds faults that techs would never find on our own). ACMS also moniters key systems for a variety of problems."

[FADEC]
"Good thing its only the engines that are controlled this way :)"

So eHijacking the flights would not have simply been a matter of uploading a malicious program to some central computer, before even considering extra hardware for external remote control. (I have some minor objections to the similarity of safety vs. security proposed above and the lack of utility of laptops, but the main point is clear.)

But please, do describe the data loader, for the sake of completeness.

[update] About the dataloader, from another message:
"The data loader is just a receptacle that connects to an external loader set(with diskettes) that is only used to update the Flight Management Computer database(a database of airports, navaids, and intersections) on a monthly basis. There are a total of 8 wires in the receptacle and they only go the FMC database inputs(as well as an enable and power/ground wires) There isnt much information about it the the maintenance manual, but I did find [a href =" ../img/767dataloader.jpg"]this illustration[/a] in my 767 coursework[,] the receptacle is figure D. Its located on a circuit breaker panel at the very back of the cockpit, just above the floor(see the flight deck illustration and its on the right).


This can in no way be used to upload anything to the autopilot computers(or EICAS computers for that matter). I dont even think you can load flightplans with it - but I'll have to check on that."
[end update]

"I'm not familiar with [the Ron Brown incident]"
It was one the alleged 'Clinton murders'. Basically, Brown, a Government employee who had dirt on the Clintons, went down in an aircraft with several other victims and there were some intriguing discrepancies: the location of the wreck was obscure(d) for some time, X-rays of Brown went missing, a survivor (witness) died in an evacuation helicopter from a broken neck (!) and the guy who was in a position to direct the plane into the ground conveniently committed suicide. Then, Bill Clinton was seen laughing when he exited the funeral of Brown. This is what I recall reading about it, the incident doesn't attract as much attention as the Vince Foster case.

[control system is involved in everything]
"It is, and its a big reason why flying is many, many times safer than driving and getting safer with every new design. The 777 still has ZERO hull losses(knock on wood). Its been flying 11 years with dozens of airlines and has probably clocked 10 million hours or more. The 767 would have the best safety record in the industry if it werent for the 2 lost on 9/11, another lost from a hijacking(Eythiopian Airlines?) and Egypt Air 990s suicide pilot."
Yeah, God as co-pilot can really foul up statistics :o

[nerve gas is colorless and odorless]

"Maybe some are, but most are highly irritative. I was an NBC(Nuclear/Biological/Chemical) specialist in the military in addition to my avionics duties. [...] most nerve agents are quite non-lethal if you dont hang around to breathe them in"
With the resources available to any US Government perpetrators, I'm sure some really nasty and applicable stuff could have been procured, for example VX. But this is all just speculation to fill the gaps.

[crew helpless to stop or even report hijackings]
"I meant helpless as the airplane was flying itself "remotely" and dealing with issues they are more or less trained for(pressurization failure). Before 9/11/01 - the status quo was to give in to the hijackers and you'll live. That has changed, obviously."
That might explain the success of the hijackings, but not necessarily the failure to report them. I recall (early?) stories of how the hijackers murdered passengers in order to get the pilots to open the door... still no alarms raised.

[phone calls are a problem for any remote control scenario]

[1. Have Islamist terrorists board an airplane.
2. Kill the crew with some heinous method.

3. Have the on-board computers get the plane to the general attack area with normal autopilot.
4. Execute final approach on remote control, transmitting guidance data to the on-board computers based on visual observation from a ground command post.]
"1. Agreed - they are a must, even with JPALS.
2. Agree
3. Possibly, the hijackers were actually very adept at using the autopilot judging from the FDR data plots. Its pretty easy to operate(LNAV and VNAV notwithstanding).
4. JPALS would actually do all the hard work(eliminating the need for a ground pilot), all the hijackers would have to do is set it up from the cockpit. But I think hitting the Towers would be easy enought once they were in sight. The Pentagon would be tougher. I think 3 and 4 are unnecessary with hijackers."
If it were the only thing wrong with the Pentagon attack, I would be willing to concede that AA77's terrorist pilot just got really lucky. And unlucky, since he missed the offices of the top brass...

"It would be much more of a chin scratcher if it were 777s that hit the Towers(AA and UA both have 777s) considering its fully fly-by-wire and has MMRs installed. The 757/767 is certainly not a good choice as a robo-jet. If the planes were flown remotely, UA and AA were definately part of the conspiracy as the aircraft would've needed heavy modification "off the books" so to speak."


UA and AA involvement can not be ruled out, but the information you have provided does make the possibily of remote control substantially more unlikely.

Remote control of the flights of 9/11 was never an absolute requirement for an inside job and it almost certainly could not be proven even if aggressively investigated by independent researchers (well, maybe unless videos of AA77 show antennas sticking out). The hypothesis is currently a low-intensity suggestion to address some problems with other theories and should remain as such, especially considering the new information of the difficulties in executing it.*

*Emphasis added.

I would not say that the article weakens the hypothesis that much at all. Though, I don't see much proof that RC was used to control the planes either.

But, I did talk to a senior engineer with some fairly relevant work experience who considers RC doable in the sense that a small group of engineers with the necessary expertise, access to the appropriate technical information, and an adequate budget should be able to put together such a system in a matter of months.

I should also say for those who disagree that hypothesis like RC should be discussed; for me talking about RC, and to a lesser extent CD which I believe has much stronger support even if we are a bit murky on the details, is part of an exercise in thinking about how the 9/11 attack may have been carried out if it was an inside job. Establishing proof, either for a mythical courtroom jury or to convert friends and acquaintances who still believe the official version, that it was a MIHOP covert operation by a group of traitorous agents of the US government is a completely separate exercise for me, and likely for many proponents of RC.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Prof. Jones has said the the Pentagon has a patent on a thermite mixture with sulfur and barium nitrate added. This description below sounds like this kind of mixture.

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=e2janes

e2janes

This usergroup is for technical discussion of weapon delivery systems, intended as a companion for e2armory. Got a question, or need advice for a military-themed writeup? Perhaps you need help identifying a specific piece of hardware or are looking for some background information. Anything from bombers to boomers can be discussed here, but please leave politics at the door.

AN-M14 TH3 Incendiary Grenade (thing)

by TerribleAspect
(2005-09-06 00:35:25) linked by Chase


Used by United States Army and Marine Corps to destroy vehicles, artillery barrels, captured enemy weapon systems, fuel caches, and munitions, the AN-M14 TH3 is about the size of an aluminum soda can and weighs 2 lbs.

The main component of the grenade is 600 to 800 grams of thermate, a variation of thermite created by the addition of barium nitrate, which burns for 40 seconds at 2200°C, is capable of melting through 1/2 inch homogeneous plate steel and will also burn underwater. It does not require an outside source of oxygen as it produces its own.

The fuse of the AN-M14 is a M201A1 which is also used with the AN-M83HC white smoke grenade and the M18 colored smoke grenade. The M201A1 has a straight safety lever which rests flush against the body of the cylindrical shaped grenade. The time delay element is a powder train requiring 1.2 to 2 seconds to ignite the main charge. As the firing time for this system is extremely short and it does not explode like an M67 fragmentation grenade, the device is not intended to be thrown long distances to its target, but instead activated and dropped, or set in place before the cotter pin is pulled.

The body of the system is flat gray and the markings, AN-M14 INCEN TH, are violet, but the standard color code for incendiary grenades is light red with black markings, making its intended purpose easily recognizable.

As thermate burns at such a high temperature, looking directly at an ignited incendiary grenade can cause severe damage to the retinas.

[Infernal Optimist]

Very funny... no wait, I mean very irrelevent to what i posted.

Hey, Orz. It was a joke. Nothing critical of what you said. Relax, man. You're among friends.