*lies

Adding video to channels (Lies) - requested by volumptuous.

>> ^volumptuous:

lies


fuck off. Stop abusing your privileges.

lies until proven otherwise. that is how I feel about the official story as well.

>> ^volumptuous:

lies


Try *religion next time

Invocations (religion) cannot be called by EvilDeathBee because EvilDeathBee is not privileged - sorry.

>> ^shagen454:

lies until proven otherwise. that is how I feel about the official story as well.


Let's apply that to all videos. That makes sense.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

>> ^volumptuous:
lies

Try religion next time


Try believing what your authority tells you. That's the opposite of religion, right?

How about *wacko?

You really think it's a difficult or meaningful question to ask, "How could they conduct key hijacking events simultaneously all within 10 minutes?" See, we have these cute little gadgets called clocks...you can even get small ones to wear on your wrist. They tell the time, so you can agree on when to do things.

Get a grip man. Or at least a clue.

>> ^Stormsinger:

How about wacko?
You really think it's a difficult or meaningful question to ask, "How could they conduct key hijacking events simultaneously all within 10 minutes?" See, we have these cute little gadgets called clocks...you can even get small ones to wear on your wrist. They tell the time, so you can agree on when to do things.
Get a grip man. Or at least a clue.


So what happens when your plane gets delayed?

Coordinated attacks require coordination. How did the hijackers know what time their planes would be entering radar gaps?

Airplanes Have Been Flown By Remote Control Since 1917

One day after 9/11, an article appeared in a top science and technology news service stating “hijackings could be halted in progress with existing technologies, say aviation researchers”. The article quoted a transportation expert as saying:

“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 . . . .”

See also this article, in which the former head of British Airways “suggested . . . that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.”
...

While some claim that remote control played a part in 9/11, a separate – but equally interesting – question, is whether remote control could and should have been used to safely land the hijacked airplanes. Given that Al Qaeda flying planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon was wholly foreseeable, and hijackings could be stopped using existing equipment, why wasn’t the equipment used to stop this type of attack? In other words, why didn’t ground control have the ability to override the hijacked airlines to safely land them and take control of the aircraft?

>> ^marbles:

Airplanes Have Been Flown By Remote Control Since 1917
One day after 9/11, an article appeared in a top science and technology news service stating “hijackings could be halted in progress with existing technologies, say aviation researchers”. The article quoted a transportation expert as saying:
“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 . . . .”
See also this article, in which the former head of British Airways “suggested . . . that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.”
...
While some claim that remote control played a part in 9/11, a separate – but equally interesting – question, is whether remote control could and should have been used to safely land the hijacked airplanes. Given that Al Qaeda flying planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon was wholly foreseeable, and hijackings could be stopped using existing equipment, why wasn’t the equipment used to stop this type of attack? In other words, why didn’t ground control have the ability to override the hijacked airlines to safely land them and take control of the aircraft?


Which do you think is going to be more common...terrorist hijackings, or script kiddies exploiting security holes in the software?

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^marbles:
Airplanes Have Been Flown By Remote Control Since 1917
One day after 9/11, an article appeared in a top science and technology news service stating “hijackings could be halted in progress with existing technologies, say aviation researchers”. The article quoted a transportation expert as saying:
“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 . . . .”
See also this article, in which the former head of British Airways “suggested . . . that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.”
...
While some claim that remote control played a part in 9/11, a separate – but equally interesting – question, is whether remote control could and should have been used to safely land the hijacked airplanes. Given that Al Qaeda flying planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon was wholly foreseeable, and hijackings could be stopped using existing equipment, why wasn’t the equipment used to stop this type of attack? In other words, why didn’t ground control have the ability to override the hijacked airlines to safely land them and take control of the aircraft?

Which do you think is going to be more common...terrorist hijackings, or script kiddies exploiting security holes in the software?


huh?

@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.

Moving this video to marbles's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

>> ^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.

>> ^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:
>> ^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.

@volumptuous @xxovercastxx

Don't be scared to share your thoughts. Do you disagree with the documentary or are you instinctively hostile to 9/11 truth efforts?

>> ^marbles:

Don't be scared to share your thoughts. Do you disagree with the documentary or are you instinctively hostile to 9/11 truth efforts?


Scared? No, I just didn't think it was worth my time. I found this to be predictably dishonest and ignorant.

>> ^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.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^marbles:
Don't be scared to share your thoughts. Do you disagree with the documentary or are you instinctively hostile to 9/11 truth efforts?

Scared? No, I just didn't think it was worth my time. I found this to be predictably dishonest and ignorant.


What is "this"? Predictably dishonest and ignorant, how so? It only documented facts and asked questions.

>> ^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:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^marbles:
Don't be scared to share your thoughts. Do you disagree with the documentary or are you instinctively hostile to 9/11 truth efforts?

Scared? No, I just didn't think it was worth my time. I found this to be predictably dishonest and ignorant.

What is "this"? Predictably dishonest and ignorant, how so? It only documented facts and asked questions.


"This" is this video. I'll give you one example of dishonesty/ignorance (I'm not sure if they're stupid or lying in this case). As they're showing the map of radar gaps they claim that the locations of the gaps are widely unknown, even to air traffic controllers. If that's true, how is some random dude from Youtube able to show us a map of them? Either the map is made up or he's full of shit about it being a big secret.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
"This" is this video. I'll give you one example of dishonesty/ignorance (I'm not sure if they're stupid or lying in this case). As they're showing the map of radar gaps they claim that the locations of the gaps are widely unknown, even to air traffic controllers. If that's true, how is some random dude from Youtube able to show us a map of them? Either the map is made up or he's full of shit about it being a big secret.


Here's the quote:
How should Mohammed Atta and his associates have known the most intimate details of military and civilian radar coverage in the U.S. - details, widely unknown even to air traffic controllers in charge on 9/11? And how should they have known by minute, when their individual plane had reached such a 'radar gap'? Finally: Why didn't the 9/11 Commission even mention this issue?

The video lists the map source in the bottom right hand corner. The map is based on images from a 2002 study at MIT Lincoln Laboratory. The study notes there is "no common integrated air picture" between the FAA and DoD and recommended actions to take to form a "seamless and common air picture".

pdf: http://i-cns.org/media/icns/2002/11/Session_E2-4_Bussolari.pdf
scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/18663172/T8-B16-Misc-Work-Papers-Fdr-5202-Briefing-Slides-Surveillance-Implications-of-911-MIT-Lincoln-Lab

If you honestly have questions like this, then you should ask them instead of forming opinions from true ignorance.

Got anything else?

>> ^marbles:

The map is based on images from a 2002 study at MIT Lincoln Laboratory.

The notes in the study indicate that the map is based on NIMA/USGS data. This data is publicly (though not necessarily freely) available. This brings me back to my original comment on the map. If this is simply a projection based on topographic maps (as the notes from the study itself seem, to me, to imply), how is it honest for the video to say almost nobody could have known about the location of radar gaps?

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^marbles:
The map is based on images from a 2002 study at MIT Lincoln Laboratory.
The notes in the study indicate that the map is based on NIMA/USGS data. This data is publicly (though not necessarily freely) available. This brings me back to my original comment on the map. If this is simply a projection based on topographic maps (as the notes from the study itself seem, to me, to imply), how is it honest for the video to say almost nobody could have known about the location of radar gaps?


You seem to be missing the point. Even if you were to somehow find out the location and range of the radar stations from NIMA/USGS, you still wouldn't know for sure where the gaps in coverage were. And you wouldn't know if there was other radar networks you were unaware of.

Even a so-called coverage map would only be an estimate. If my house was in a rural area, how would I know if I had cell phone service without actually having a cell phone to test it?

Seems like a lot of potentially fruitless work for a suicidal terrorist with box cutters to be planning for. Why bother messing with the transponder anyway? You've already succeeded if you actually managed to seize the plane using only box cutters. Seems like you wouldn't want to waste any extra time in the air and get to your target. But somehow the hijackers knew where the gaps were and coordinated the hijackings with precision.

I guess it's possible for air traffic controllers to be aware of locations where radar coverage is low and expect poor quality responses, but still this wouldn't necessarily be a consistent problem. And not something they would be focused on too much anyway as long as the plane was responding to commands.

The bottom line is none of this was investigated. So maybe the video is making a valid assumption based on what we do know. So how is it honest for you to say he's lying and hinge your whole criticism on one detail that you don't even know yourself to be false.

Unless you got something else?

@marbles

Radar requires line of sight (with slight deviation due to atmospheric refraction) so, yes, you would be able to determine the coverage of each station with rather high accuracy just by knowing its location and the surrounding topography.

I also think it was a waste of time for the hijackers to change the transponder codes. I can only guess it was paranoia that drove them to do this. I think you're getting ahead of yourself when you say "somehow the hijackers knew where the gaps were". If they had, then why did only 2 of 4 planes change transponder codes while they were in dead zones? It's quite possible that this was pure coincidence. It's not like these planes even changed course to fly into dead zones. Their regularly scheduled courses brought all of them into dead zones.

I'd like to point out that, were the planes under remote control as is being alleged, it still wouldn't make any more sense for the transponders to be reprogrammed mid-flight.

I said he was either dishonest or ignorant and the one issue we've discussed is not the only reason I came to that conclusion. The entire video; indeed the entire truther movement, from what I've seen; is based on the flawed premise that all explanations that can be imagined are to be treated equally. I fully expect there are truthers out there who believe that aliens teleported onto the four planes and locked them on their course before teleporting back to the safety of the mothership. No doubt this was done to bankrupt the US, halting our space program before we could threaten their civilization. And we'd all be expected to treat this theory with the same credibility as "terrorists hijacked the planes and flew them into buildings because they were pissed off about us occupying their homelands."

Ultimately there were two reasons I did not want to participate in a discussion on this topic and I will say I seem to have been entirely wrong about one of them. That was my expectation that you could not keep this civil. Kudos to you on that.

The other reason is that there's just nothing of any interest or note coming from the truthers. It's all wild speculation backed up by claims that said speculation hasn't been investigated and/or disproven. You get to have your ideas heard by participating in these discussions, but what do I get out of it?

@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?