Your video, NORAD vs. Santa | Robot Chicken | Adult Swim, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^critical_d:

Sifty...wake the President and get me NORAD on the horn...we are now at Sift-Con 2.


OK

Sifty...wake the President and get me NORAD on the horn...we are now at Sift-Con 2.

@xxovercastxx

I don't know where you come up with "rather high accuracy". There's so many factors you wouldn't know. You could estimate where they were, but you still wouldn't know. And like I previously said, you wouldn't know if other radar systems were patched in to cover probable gap areas. If a particular radar has a listed range, you still wouldn't know how far beyond the range you could still get a response or the quality of response, or at what altitude you would be flying "under the radar".
The ONLY way to know where the radar gaps were would be to analyze computer tracking data of hundreds if not thousands of flights in that area. I guess air traffic controllers could have done this, but it serves them no real purpose unless they were tasked with doing it. So for the hijackers to know the gaps, they would have had to had access to that data and someone to interpret it.

Sure, it's all coincidence. Actually all the planes had their transponders either turned off or changed. Flights 11, 77, and 93 did so in dead zones. Flight 175 changed it's code (identity) a minute after flight 11 crashed into WTC1. A few minutes later turns and changes it's identity again. 10 minutes later it crashes into WTC2. This is the flight where (to my knowledge) no radio communication has been released, but has the most video evidence of crashing into WTC2. However for the first few hours it was reported flight 77 was the one that crashed into WTC2. United thought 175 was still in the air somewhere and didn't confirm it had crashed until after all aircraft had been grounded and 175 wasn't found anywhere. It didn't use this protocol for flight 93 which it confirmed had crashed almost immediately after it was reported. But we also know that the flight that hit the south tower couldn't have been flight 175 because the engine that was found doesn't match that of United's Boeing 767 (@3:03 here). FAA and NORAD lost 77 on radar and thought it was the second flight that crashed. After they later "found" 77, some were identifying it as flight 11 on radio. Also false blips were on the radar screens from active war game exercises. These were on the for most of the attacks, until at least after the Pentagon attack.

The point is the only reason to be messing with the transponder codes is to confuse ATC. Which wouldn't work if they weren't able to switch the codes under poor quality radar coverage. The planes would still show on radar if the transponders were turned off. So without war game false blips to blend in with, that would also be pointless.

Somehow these hijackers knew where the radar gaps were, knew how to read the jet's instrument panel, and knew when the jet was entering the gaps. They also knew how to maneuver and fly Boeing jets at 500 mph. These are the same schmucks that couldn't pass basic flying school with a single engine Cessna. These are the same schmucks that were recorded on radio to ATC, thinking they were talking over the intercom to the passengers. Let's also not forget that none of the pilots squawked an emergency or hijack code, or announced one over the radio. 0 for 4: more highly improbable coincidence.

I'm sorry you feel that way about the "truther movement", but it's not about treating "all explanations that can be imagined" equally. It's about treating all hypothesis equally and searching for evidence and reason to support it. It's about letting the evidence lead the way to truth wherever that may be and NOT jumping to conclusions or "explanations" from authorities without evidence like the official story ie the official "theory" has done. There's probably all kinds of crazy theories that can be easily debunked with physical evidence. But for some reason the authorities didn't want to do an honest investigation. It took over a year of pressure from victim's families for the government to agree to do their job. And even then the 9/11 commission members admit their report is basically a cover-up. Government bodies concluding the original half-baked government story, ignoring or covering up any evidence to the contrary. That's not how a real investigation is done.

What do you get out of it? Well..., maybe you wake up. Let's go back to my original question: Do you disagree with the documentary or are you instinctively hostile to 9/11 truth efforts?

Well so far, you've only managed to bring up one thing you disagree with and like I've explained, your conclusions on that issue are erroneous. And it's not about "getting my ideas heard", it's about finding the truth and spreading that message to other people. So why are you hostile toward that message? Why do you hold a bias against that?

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^Stormsinger:
@marbles
If you put in remote control that can override the pilot, how long do you think it's going to take before some hacker takes over a plane? And considering that it's a -whole- lot safer for the hijacker than doing it in person, I'm pretty sure it will happen more often than terrorist hijackings have.

What are you talking about? It's already there. It's called remote access. The autopilot software has had remote access capabilities for decades. Read the essay you quoted.
On a side note, the NORAD computers were probably hacked.
Ptech software (loaded with back-doors and trojans) was on pretty much all the government's computer systems. Ptech clients included the FAA, NATO, United States Armed Forces, Congress, Dept. Of Energy, Dept. of Justice, FBI, Customs, the IRS, the Secret Service, and even the White House.

“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”
Note the words, "THAT COULD BE". Implying that it doesn't do so at this point.

Are you purposely acting dense?
"at this point" ??? It doesn't do so until if and when you need it to ignore commands from a hijacker... like DURING A HIJACKING. That's one of the main purposes of having remote access to the autopilot.

I give up...I thought this was a real discussion, but it's become clear you aren't interested in that. "Could be reprogrammed" does not mean on-the-fly, in the middle of a hijacking. That would be called "turning it on". Frankly anyone who would attempt to reprogram an autopilot on a plane while it was in the air should be locked up for many years, and NEVER allowed near any kind of computer ever again. You have a better chance of surviving the hijacking than of some nitwits attempt to write complex programs correctly the first time and to do so in mere minutes.
Let me know when you're willing to read what I fucking write, instead of twisting it to try and make it some attack.


How about reading what you fucking quote first. Tell yourself whatever you need to. ""Could be reprogrammed" does not mean on-the-fly" -- it doesn't? of course it does. Do you expect the hijacker to land the plane so you can reprogram it?

Read the other quote from the former head of British Airways “suggested ... that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.”

It's part of the autopilot system. There's no need to hack into the system and "write complex programs correctly ... in mere minutes."

Why is that so hard to understand?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^Stormsinger:
@marbles
If you put in remote control that can override the pilot, how long do you think it's going to take before some hacker takes over a plane? And considering that it's a -whole- lot safer for the hijacker than doing it in person, I'm pretty sure it will happen more often than terrorist hijackings have.

What are you talking about? It's already there. It's called remote access. The autopilot software has had remote access capabilities for decades. Read the essay you quoted.
On a side note, the NORAD computers were probably hacked.
Ptech software (loaded with back-doors and trojans) was on pretty much all the government's computer systems. Ptech clients included the FAA, NATO, United States Armed Forces, Congress, Dept. Of Energy, Dept. of Justice, FBI, Customs, the IRS, the Secret Service, and even the White House.

“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”
Note the words, "THAT COULD BE". Implying that it doesn't do so at this point.

Are you purposely acting dense?
"at this point" ??? It doesn't do so until if and when you need it to ignore commands from a hijacker... like DURING A HIJACKING. That's one of the main purposes of having remote access to the autopilot.


I give up...I thought this was a real discussion, but it's become clear you aren't interested in that. "Could be reprogrammed" does not mean on-the-fly, in the middle of a hijacking. That would be called "turning it on". Frankly anyone who would attempt to reprogram an autopilot on a plane while it was in the air should be locked up for many years, and NEVER allowed near any kind of computer ever again. You have a better chance of surviving the hijacking than of some nitwits attempt to write complex programs correctly the first time and to do so in mere minutes.

Let me know when you're willing to read what I fucking write, instead of twisting it to try and make it some attack.

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^Stormsinger:
@marbles
If you put in remote control that can override the pilot, how long do you think it's going to take before some hacker takes over a plane? And considering that it's a -whole- lot safer for the hijacker than doing it in person, I'm pretty sure it will happen more often than terrorist hijackings have.

What are you talking about? It's already there. It's called remote access. The autopilot software has had remote access capabilities for decades. Read the essay you quoted.
On a side note, the NORAD computers were probably hacked.
Ptech software (loaded with back-doors and trojans) was on pretty much all the government's computer systems. Ptech clients included the FAA, NATO, United States Armed Forces, Congress, Dept. Of Energy, Dept. of Justice, FBI, Customs, the IRS, the Secret Service, and even the White House.

“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”
Note the words, "THAT COULD BE". Implying that it doesn't do so at this point.


Are you purposely acting dense?

"at this point" ??? It doesn't do so until if and when you need it to ignore commands from a hijacker... like DURING A HIJACKING. That's one of the main purposes of having remote access to the autopilot.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^Stormsinger:
@marbles
If you put in remote control that can override the pilot, how long do you think it's going to take before some hacker takes over a plane? And considering that it's a -whole- lot safer for the hijacker than doing it in person, I'm pretty sure it will happen more often than terrorist hijackings have.

What are you talking about? It's already there. It's called remote access. The autopilot software has had remote access capabilities for decades. Read the essay you quoted.
On a side note, the NORAD computers were probably hacked.
Ptech software (loaded with back-doors and trojans) was on pretty much all the government's computer systems. Ptech clients included the FAA, NATO, United States Armed Forces, Congress, Dept. Of Energy, Dept. of Justice, FBI, Customs, the IRS, the Secret Service, and even the White House.


“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”

Note the words, "THAT COULD BE". Implying that it doesn't do so at this point.

>> ^Stormsinger:

@marbles
If you put in remote control that can override the pilot, how long do you think it's going to take before some hacker takes over a plane? And considering that it's a -whole- lot safer for the hijacker than doing it in person, I'm pretty sure it will happen more often than terrorist hijackings have.


What are you talking about? It's already there. It's called remote access. The autopilot software has had remote access capabilities for decades. Read the essay you quoted.

On a side note, the NORAD computers probably were hacked.

Ptech software (loaded with back-doors and trojans) was on pretty much all the government's computer systems. Ptech clients included the FAA, NATO, United States Armed Forces, Congress, Dept. Of Energy, Dept. of Justice, FBI, Customs, the IRS, the Secret Service, and even the White House.

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^Yogi:
Yes there's no chance that during a catastrophic never before experienced event that there would be "False Reports" or mistakes and misinformation. Human BEINGS making the observations and reporting them to other humans and making mistakes is not a good example of an organized conspiracy. It happens, in every facet of life.

Because NORAD clearly is not, and has not ever prepared for or trained for such events, right? ROTFL You apologists crack me up. I mean really, a hijacking? Come ON! It's never happened before.


NORAD is in Colorado and STILL reliant on other peoples observations. Is it possible for them to make a mistake based on faulty intelligence...ask anyone here who's been in the military.

Yeah I'm an apologist, look at all my posts on this site I love our government and our country and what we do around the world.

NORAD on 9/11: Ordered to stand down

According to the newly released audio published here, NORAD was finally giving clearance to shoot at 10:32, about a half hour after United 93 reportedly went down and about an hour after AA 77 reportedly hit the Pentagon.

Fighter pilots at 10:09 were denied clearance to fire.

If you listen to some of the earlier audio, you will also realize that NORAD and FAA were getting false reports, false radar blips, or some other misinformation. Seems somebody was playing three-card Monte with Flight AA 11.

According to the newly released audio published here, NORAD was finally giving clearance to shoot at 10:32, about a half hour after United 93 reportedly went down and about an hour after AA 77 reportedly hit the Pentagon.

Fighter pilots at 10:09 were denied clearance to fire.

If you listen to some of the earlier audio, you will also realize that NORAD and FAA were getting false reports, false radar blips, or some other misinformation. Seems somebody was playing three-card Monte with Flight AA 11.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

If it's walls of text meant to be just an annoyance - yes, I would agree with you. If it's a few paragraphs of supporting information and links that someone who is interested in the video might want to read, I would have to disagree.

I have to be honest and say I haven't even watched this video - which is why I haven't voted on it - (9/11 overload) but everything seems to be in order here. To be clear, I don't think this rises to the level of trolling or spamming - which is perhaps bandied about a bit too frequently.


>> ^MycroftHomlz:

@dag, no man. I think I have been pretty clear here. Spamming a post with cut and paste text is trollish. It has nothing to do with the content.