IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Flight 11 Transcript, Culpers thread from research

JackD
post Aug 7 2007, 08:49 PM
Post #1





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 295
Joined: 13-November 06
Member No.: 238



reposted

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...showtopic=7764
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Aug 7 2007, 10:48 PM
Post #2





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,929
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Yes, culpers has a way with words! And a way with logic and the rules thereof! cheers.gif

However at this stage of the game, such detailed questions are rather like trivial pursuit--fun, but also a learning experience.

In the meantime we know it was an inside job, so all that stuff about headings and probably faked cellphone calls is almost irrelevant.

The big question for me is : did passengers actually board at BOS?

I see 2 scenarios: YES, but they were subsequently deplaned somewhere, maybe Cleveland. NO. Same options for Flight 77.

The aircraft that supposedly departed were diverted and the attack aircraft were launched from Stewart in NY.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stuarthwyman
post Jan 27 2008, 06:52 PM
Post #3





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 19
Joined: 29-September 07
From: italy
Member No.: 2,272



From an other 3d Dmole tell me to came here and ask you the question that i geeve him!

Would you like to read what is wright here?

"The other controller also speculates that anyone knowledgeable enough to cut off the transponder might also have pulled the circuit breaker for the cockpit voice recorder in the so-called black box, deactivating it, to minimize information available to authorities."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0913/p1s2-usju.html

it seems that the hijackers know very well the transponder use and his clues...

I can't believe this...

Is it possible that hijackers would tourned off the transponder for not leave to know the exactly position of where they were?

Evrybody have little notions in flyng theory know that when you have the transponder tourned off, on the radar you are an UFO...

Ando so you'll became a target for scramble jet immediately... in a normal situation!

It is strange that "tolk-back button" was accidentally enable from pilot or hijackers...

So, if i was the hijackers and I would like put the plane into the WTC, I leave the transponder tourned on and fake a mistake radio bad-function...

I have the time for to do what I want to do in twenty minutes, with the fear that an F-16 don't launch me an AIM 9 or, bad, an AIM 120 AMRAAM!!

I think that transponder utilizzation in 9/11 was in relation with the "home run" function...

So, we have clues in avry for CVR (also if CR 9/11 tell UA93 CVR was found and readble...)

For what Joe Vialls tells:

"Home run" take the plane via-transponder and immediately cut the cockpit communications channel...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 28 2008, 01:35 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



I had hoped someone else would reply by now Stuart, but I personally think that there are some pretty HUGE implications in that CS Monitor article (or contradictions with what we were told here in the USA at least from what I recall).
-----
"The pilot was apparently triggering a "push-to-talk button" on the aircraft's yoke, or "wheel" - a feature that enables pilots to have their hands on the controls while communicating, the controllers say. By doing so, the pilot gave controllers a way to hear much of what was said and other noises in the cockpit. His ability to do so also indicates that he was in the driver's seat much of the way to the plane's fiery rendezvous with the World Trade Center.

"The button was being pushed intermittently most of the way to New York," a controller told the Monitor. "He wanted us to know something was wrong. When he pushed the button and the terrorist spoke, we knew. There was this voice that was theatening the pilot, and it was clearly threatening."

During these transmissions, the pilot's voice and the heavily accented voice of a hijacker were clearly audible. At other times, the transmission was clear, but exactly what was happening in the cockpit was confused.

All of it was recorded by a Federal Aviation Administration traffic-control center. Those tapes are now presumed to be in the hands of federal law-enforcement officials, who arrived at the flight-contol facility minutes after Flight 11 crashed into the World Trade Center. The tapes presumably could provide clues about the hijackers - and may become even more important if the plane's "black boxes" are damaged or never found."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Culper721
post Feb 16 2008, 09:58 PM
Post #5





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 210
Joined: 2-January 07
Member No.: 396



QUOTE (stuarthwyman @ Jan 25 2008, 08:52 PM) *
From an other 3d Dmole tell me to came here and ask you the question that i geeve him!

Would you like to read what is wright here?

"The other controller also speculates that anyone knowledgeable enough to cut off the transponder might also have pulled the circuit breaker for the cockpit voice recorder in the so-called black box, deactivating it, to minimize information available to authorities."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0913/p1s2-usju.html

it seems that the hijackers know very well the transponder use and his clues...

I can't believe this...

Is it possible that hijackers would tourned off the transponder for not leave to know the exactly position of where they were?
...

I think that transponder utilizzation in 9/11 was in relation with the "home run" function...
...

"Home run" take the plane via-transponder and immediately cut the cockpit communications channel...


Why do you find it necessary to assume facts not in evidence?

"Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora" ["It is pointless to do with more what can be done with less"]. Thus, according to Ockham, we ought never to postulate the reality of any entity unless it is logically necessary to do so." http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/o.htm

Why do you feel obliged in any way whatsoever to propose any alternative "theories;" based solely upon a flimsy speculative premise?

"The burden is upon he who affirms; not he who denies."

Once you show that your opponent(s) have not met their burden of production or persuasion, the 'burden' then shifts back to them and thereby leaving them to scrape around for alternative theories to cover for the prior which you have already have shown to be speculative or completely bereft of truth.

N.B. Sherlock Holmes' departure from the basic rules of argumentation was for dramatic purposes only.

Getting back to the CSN article you referred to above; the most crucial part of that article, so far as I've found, are the necessary implications raised by the following:

"All of it was recorded by a Federal Aviation Administration traffic-control center. Those tapes are now presumed to be in the hands of federal law-enforcement officials, who arrived at the flight-contol facility minutes after Flight 11 crashed into the World Trade Center."

To wit:

Where and how did those federal law-enforcement officials obtain the prescience of mind to get their wheels rolling towards Boston Center before the first plane hit the first tower?

SIYOM,

Bob

This post has been edited by Culper721: Feb 16 2008, 10:47 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st October 2014 - 01:21 AM