Anomalies at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect

zippy 99 · 15-01-2008 06:06PM

humanji wrote: »

It's a valid point. At what point do the conspiracies being, that we have to start taking the opposite view?

Its at the users digression.

We all know too much food can make you fat, driving while sozzled is not safer etc.

One example might be the cold war, if one took the opposite view they would have lived through those times a lot more content.

humanji · 15-01-2008 06:19PM

And what if the news during the cold war gave every little detail that the governments knew? People would of been a hell of a lot more scared than they were. But that all means nothing. The point is, you're implying that you can't trust the news. But how do you know? It just seems that you don't trust the news stories that go against what you believe, regardless of their validity.

zippy 99 · 15-01-2008 06:21PM

humanji wrote: »

And what if the news during the cold war gave every little detail that the governments knew? People would of been a hell of a lot more scared than they were. But that all means nothing. The point is, you're implying that you can't trust the news. But how do you know? It just seems that you don't trust the news stories that go against what you believe, regardless of their validity.

Cold War??

Cold standoff more like.

Another game played to scare the wits outta people

humanji · 15-01-2008 06:35PM

The Cold War was a standoff. That's why it was called the Cold War. And it wasn't a game played to scare people. It was a game of posturing to prove who was bigger.

meglome · 15-01-2008 06:46PM

gillyfromlyre wrote: »

The hubby reckons the whole 911 thing was a big conspiracy,a "bunch of arse" he calls it. What got to him and made him think was the fact that hes very good at lip reading and he swears that when bush was told the news in the school he said "Its all going to plan,great". All I know is that my hubby is very good at lip reading and he can't be far off the mark!!

I'm with Humanji. I haven't even heard of a conspiracy theory about this never mind a serious story.

meglome · 15-01-2008 06:48PM

Can a mod check if that zippy 99 guy is an alias of someone else who posts in here. Maybe it's a conspiracy :eek:

Diogenes · 15-01-2008 07:17PM

zippy 99 wrote: »

Its at the users digression.

We all know too much food can make you fat, driving while sozzled is not safer etc.

We didn't always know these things, and it took media campaigns to educate us, now if you think that the media is lying and manipulating us, why would you believe anything they say.

One example might be the cold war, if one took the opposite view they would have lived through those times a lot more content.

I can imagine that would have gone down so very well in East Berlin, or Afghanistan.

Clare_Guy · 15-01-2008 07:19PM

humanji wrote: »

...I would assume that Bush was just asking what a plane was.

lol! very good

zippy 99 · 15-01-2008 07:29PM

Diogenes wrote: »

We didn't always know these things, and it took media campaigns to educate us, now if you think that the media is lying and manipulating us, why would you believe anything they say.

I took media campaigns to educate you that drinking reduces safety while driving & that eatting too much can make you fat???? :eek:

I rest my case.

meglome · 15-01-2008 07:38PM

I had a look at a few interviews with Dr Judy Wood and I'm surprised to say the least that she is being taken so seriously. What's she saying is a joke, I watched those buildings fall and there was a huge amount of falling debris, with smoke rising. Directed energy weapons my ass.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017&q=judy+wood&total=230&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Clare_Guy · 15-01-2008 07:53PM

Diogenes wrote: »

Really where did they make these claims? The best example of an intercept in US airspace was the payne stewart death. The plane traveling on a steady course with transponder on , and it took 80 minutes for an intercept to occur.

There is a well-known, recent precedent for fulfilling the FAA's need-to-intercept regulation.

On October 25, 1999 a Sunjet Aviation Learjet carrying golfer Payne Stewart, three of his friends, and two Sunjet pilots took off from Orlando, Florida for Dallas, Texas at 9:19 Eastern Daylight Time.

Fourteen minutes later this plane, registered as N47BA, lost contact with the Air Routes Traffic Control Center in Jacksonville, Florida.

The following is taken from the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board's account of the flight.

"At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4½ minutes but received no response. About 0952 CDT, a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm (nautical miles) of N47BA. About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet, the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response."

The important information to me here is that an Air Force F-16 was dispatched and ready to intercept this plane – a six-passenger Learjet flying over sparsely populated Florida – within 19 minutes of this flight's appearing to be off-course.

On September 12, 2002 MSNBC said about the recent precedent: "When golfer Payne Stewart's incapacitated Learjet missed a turn at a fix, heading north instead of west to Texas, F-16 interceptors were quickly dispatched."

http://www.geocities.com/drkoepsell/apr-may2003.html

Clare_Guy · 15-01-2008 08:04PM

Diogenes wrote: »

Really where did they make these claims? The best example of an intercept in US airspace was the payne stewart death. The plane traveling on a steady course with transponder on , and it took 80 minutes for an intercept to occur.

At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.

About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA.8 About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet,9 the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response. About 1000 CDT, the test pilot began a visual inspection of N47BA. There was no visible damage to the airplane, and he did not see ice accumulation on the exterior of the airplane. Both engines were running, and the rotating beacon was on. He stated that he could not see inside the passenger section of the airplane because the windows seemed to be dark. Further, he stated that the entire right cockpit windshield was opaque, as if condensation or ice covered the inside. He also indicated that the left cockpit windshield was opaque, although several sections of the center of the windshield seemed to be only thinly covered by condensation or ice; a small rectangular section of the windshield was clear, with only a small section of the glare shield visible through this area. He did not see any flight control movement. About 1012 CDT, he concluded his inspection of N47BA and proceeded to Scott AFB, Illinois.

http://ntsb.gov/publictn/2000/aab0001.htm

meglome · 15-01-2008 08:08PM

They had a test pilot who happened to be in the area who they asked to take a look. This pilot was not scrambled he was already there training. He arrived at 09:54 and the planes that were actually sent out didn't arrive until 11:13.

Keeping in mind that this plane still had it's transponder on, which the 911 planes didn't.

Clare_Guy · 15-01-2008 08:14PM

meglome wrote: »

They had a test pilot who happened to be in the area who they asked to take a look. This pilot was not scrambled he was already there training. He arrived at 09:54 and the planes that were actually sent out didn't arrive until 11:13.

Keeping in mind that this plane still had it's transponder on, which the 911 planes didn't.

so you're saying if the first fighter wasn't in the area they would've waited until 11.13?

Diogenes · 15-01-2008 08:24PM

Clare_Guy wrote: »

At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.

About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA.8 About 0954 CDT, [/url]

I bolded the important part. The first time is Eastern, the second time in Central. Stewart's plane travelled across a timezone, and the clock went back an hour.

Imagine if the plane was flying between the UK and France, it takes off at 9am GMT, and crosses into French airspace, half an hour later 9:30 GMT, but local time is fact 8:30. All times are local.

The Payne Stewart intercept took 80 minutes.

Zippy you are stretching ever further away from having any tenious point.

Do you have any evidence the media is controlled? Proof Bush said what you claim he said? What about the Pentagon's defenses?

meglome · 15-01-2008 08:26PM

Clare_Guy wrote: »

so you're saying if the first fighter wasn't in the area they would've waited until 11.13?

Nope I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is they happened to have a pilot training in an area where they had lost contact with a plane with it's transponder on. We have no way to know how long it would have taken them to send a plane which was parked on the ground. What we do know is the fighters scrambled to meet this jet didn't arrive until 11:13. We can't say why they didn't arrive sooner, conspiracy

. But you take this same plane, turn it's transponder off and place into the mix of the thousands of planes flying on 911 and it's easy to see why the US-AF didn't get there on the day. That's what I'm saying.

Clare_Guy · 15-01-2008 08:28PM

zippy 99 wrote: »

Mossad claims they warned the US a threat was going to happen, which was ignored.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIvbCDsMrSg

Clare_Guy · 15-01-2008 10:50PM

meglome wrote: »

Nope I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is they happened to have a pilot training in an area where they had lost contact with a plane with it's transponder on. We have no way to know how long it would have taken them to send a plane which was parked on the ground. What we do know is the fighters scrambled to meet this jet didn't arrive until 11:13. We can't say why they didn't arrive sooner, conspiracy . But you take this same plane, turn it's transponder off and place into the mix of the thousands of planes flying on 911 and it's easy to see why the US-AF didn't get there on the day. That's what I'm saying.

where did you read the first jet just happened to be testing?...

i believe that jets could've been scrambled quicker if;
a) norad wasn't distracted and confused by taking part in an exercise "operation vigilant guardian" and...
b) the vast majority of usaf jets weren't off in alaska as part of this exercise..

Diogenes · 15-01-2008 11:55PM

Clare_Guy wrote: »

where did you read the first jet just happened to be testing?...

i believe that jets could've been scrambled quicker if;
a) norad wasn't distracted and confused by taking part in an exercise "operation vigilant guardian" and...
b) the vast majority of usaf jets weren't off in alaska as part of this exercise..

Clare guy you are appear to be ignoring or avoiding my post re the timescale, do you agree that it was a 80 minute intercept to Payne Stewart's plane? Do you dispute that there's an hour time difference between EDT and CDT?

Why do you think the intecepts on 911 would have been faster than 80 minutes, given that, in the Payne Stewart case, the plane maintained course, and left it's transponder on, making it easier to find
On 911 the hijackers made radical course changes after switching off their transponders. In addition the hijackers took over planes on the eastern seaboard the busiest airspace on the planet. The combination of these three factors makes suggestions that USAF should have been able to intercept any of the planes on 911, faster than in the Payne Stewart incident absurd.

Also in every instance on 911 the plane's had either reached their target, or crashed within an hour and half of suspicion being raised, why do you think the intercepts should have been faster?

Finally if you read the transcripts of the NORAD tapes, the confusion over whether the hijackings were part of the exercise or an actual emergency lasted for a matter of moments, before being resolved. And alert fighters were launched, but because FAA lost track of the planes, they literally had no idea where to send them.

where did you read the first jet just happened to be testing?..

Er from your own link;

a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base

Diogenes · 16-01-2008 12:01AM

Clare_Guy wrote: »

where did you read the first jet just happened to be testing?...

i believe that jets could've been scrambled quicker if;
a) norad wasn't distracted and confused by taking part in an exercise "operation vigilant guardian" and...
b) the vast majority of usaf jets weren't off in alaska as part of this exercise..

Clare guy you are appear to be ignoring or avoiding my post re the timescale, do you agree that it was a 80 minute intercept to Payne Stewart's plane? Do you dispute that there's an hour time difference between EDT and CDT?

Why do you think the intecepts on 911 would have been faster than 80 minutes, given that, in the Payne Stewart case, the plane maintained course, and left it's transponder on, making it easier to find
On 911 the hijackers made radical course changes after switching off their transponders. In addition the hijackers took over planes on the eastern seaboard the busiest airspace on the planet. The combination of these three factors makes suggestions that USAF should have been able to intercept any of the planes on 911, faster than in the Payne Stewart incident absurd.

Also in every instance on 911 the plane's had either reached their target, or crashed within an hour and half of suspicion being raised, why do you think the intercepts should have been faster?

Finally if you read the transcripts of the NORAD tapes, the confusion over whether the hijackings were part of the exercise or an actual emergency lasted for a matter of moments, before being resolved. And alert fighters were launched, but because FAA lost track of the planes, they literally had no idea where to send them.

where did you read the first jet just happened to be testing?..

Er from your own link;

a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base

CB_Brooklyn · 16-01-2008 02:35AM

Diogenes wrote: »

CB I'm sure you cab explain to me, if the mainstream is blocking 911 truth, why was morgan reynolds on fox news?

Sorry it takes me so long to respond; I posted the OP in 75 forums.

The last time Dr Reynolds was on corporate media was when he mentioned TV-Fakery. He was never invited back again.

Gordon · 16-01-2008 02:44AM

CB_Brooklyn wrote: »

Sorry it takes me so long to respond; I posted the OP in 75 forums.

Give me one good reason not to ban you for using this bulletin board as your personal ideology dispersal method.

A good reason would include actually discussing this topic as opposed to drive-by soap-boxing.

meglome · 16-01-2008 03:17AM

Clare_Guy wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIvbCDsMrSg

I just wasted 20 minutes of my live watching this rubbish. Firstly Fox news is total poop but let's assume here that their report is accurate. Whoever made this video is taking the fact that Israel spies heavily on the US, which no one is surprised about and leaping headlong to the point where he's blaming them for 911. For example the Fox report says that Israel was spying on Arabs in the US, then the guy who made the video says they were stealing Arab identities to use on 911. What?!?!, where's the evidence of that? The leaps in this video are ridiculous.

meglome · 16-01-2008 03:25AM

CB_Brooklyn wrote: »

The last time Dr Reynolds was on corporate media was when he mentioned TV-Fakery. He was never invited back again.

I know imagine going on national media and telling them their faces they have no integrity (ignoring Fox, as they have none) and that hundreds, possibly thousands of them helped cover up the murder of thousands of innocent people... who would have thunk it. Notwithstanding this idea that planes were faked in the footage is patently ridiculous when there are so many eyewitnesses.

Kernel · 16-01-2008 04:44AM

Diogenes wrote: »

Typical Kernel you dispargde anyone who's wild conspiracy throries disagree with you, and at the same time demand anyone who challenges your own theories.

What are you talking about Diogenes? You are still trying to erode my credibility? I also made no demand... illogical.

Diogenes wrote: »

You don't bother to define your criteria for what in your mind makes a credible or absurd theory, you expect the mods to do that for you, but you're happy to dismiss "outright lies"

Again, why are you quoting "outright lies" when I didn't say that? Once again, attempting to put words into my mouth, which I never uttered. And why should I post any of my criteria for a credible or absurd theory, since logically, they would differ depending on the facts and the theory on each one???!! :rolleyes:

Diogenes wrote: »

You never present a solid argument for your theories, just speculation and hissy fits if someone disagrees

That's your opinion, but I've had "solid" (see, I'm quoting what you actually said) arguments for many of my beliefs on conspiracy theories in the past. Now, back to skeptics forum with your inflammatory argumentative disruption of the forum, good man.

Diogenes wrote: »

Kernel set up your own forum if you feel you need somewhere to voice your views

I was one of the ones who requested a conspiracy forum, why would I want my own forum? There's so many great posters here like jessop, mahatma, clare_guy, tunaman etc. OK, so there are problems with skeptics with agendas, but still, it has potential! :cool::cool::cool:

meglome · 16-01-2008 05:39AM

Kernel wrote: »

OK, so there are problems with skeptics with agendas, but still, it has potential! :cool::cool::cool:

You mean people who are actually interested in the truth. I have no agenda or vested interest. I'm constantly amazed by CT's or Truthers in that they claim to want the truth yet constantly refuse to believe it when shown.

zippy 99 · 16-01-2008 12:04PM

Diogenes wrote: »

Clare guy you are appear to be ignoring or avoiding my post re the timescale, do you agree that it was a 80 minute intercept to Payne Stewart's plane? Do you dispute that there's an hour time difference between EDT and CDT?

Why do you think the intecepts on 911 would have been faster than 80 minutes, given that, in the Payne Stewart case, the plane maintained course, and left it's transponder on, making it easier to find
On 911 the hijackers made radical course changes after switching off their transponders. In addition the hijackers took over planes on the eastern seaboard the busiest airspace on the planet. The combination of these three factors makes suggestions that USAF should have been able to intercept any of the planes on 911, faster than in the Payne Stewart incident absurd.

Also in every instance on 911 the plane's had either reached their target, or crashed within an hour and half of suspicion being raised, why do you think the intercepts should have been faster?

Finally if you read the transcripts of the NORAD tapes, the confusion over whether the hijackings were part of the exercise or an actual emergency lasted for a matter of moments, before being resolved. And alert fighters were launched, but because FAA lost track of the planes, they literally had no idea where to send them.

Er from your own link;

Im suprised your still posting in this thread after that post you made yesterday about not knowing drink driving reduces safety and too much food can make you fat, until you were informed by a government campaign.

You obviously have no capacity to form your own opinion, just gaining your 'insight' from tabloids and tv news.

I for one dont value your input and child like arguments.

humanji · 16-01-2008 12:53PM

You just realised you just made a childish argument, don't you? You're ignoring the point he's making and in stead skirting around the issue.

You said that you can't trust the media, and he pointed out that the media regularly points out the problems of bad eating and drink driving, which we all know. But you imply that eating too much doesn't make you fat and that there's no problem with drink driving, because the media says it and they can't be trusted.

zippy 99 · 16-01-2008 01:36PM

humanji wrote: »

You just realised you just made a childish argument, don't you? You're ignoring the point he's making and in stead skirting around the issue.

You said that you can't trust the media, and he pointed out that the media regularly points out the problems of bad eating and drink driving, which we all know. But you imply that eating too much doesn't make you fat and that there's no problem with drink driving, because the media says it and they can't be trusted.

I dont imply that at all.

I was making the point it should be obvious to everyone that drink driving increases dangers, and eating too much can make people fat, it should not take the media to point out such issues.

The poster I was refering too said he didnt know these things until told by the media, which makes me believe he is very indoctrincated.

Read one paper and your're likely to read that drinking is bad for your health, then turn the page to be faced by another 'expert' who claims red wine will reduce heart attack chances.

If you believe everything printed in the papers, as the poster I am refering too, you would be chasing your tail all day.

humanji · 16-01-2008 01:47PM

zippy 99 wrote: »

I dont imply that at all.

That's exactly what you implied when you said:

Theres a view that if you think the direct opposite of what your fed from the general media you will be nearer reality.

zippy 99 wrote: »

I was making the point it should be obvious to everyone that drink driving increases dangers, and eating too much can make people fat, it should not take the media to point out such issues.

The poster I was refering too said he didnt know these things until told by the media, which makes me believe he is very indoctrincated.

No, he was questioning your point by saying that there have been information campaigns by the media that are of use (and by the way, drink driving was accepted all over Ireland for a long time before the huge awarness campaigns showed how dangerous it was)

zippy 99 wrote: »

If you believe everything printed in the papers, as the poster I am refering too, you would be chasing your tail all day.

Again, that's not what he was saying. He was using examples to question your implication that nothing in the media is true.

Anomalies at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect

Comments