Is there any way to cure a truther?[W:2707]

[Thoreau72]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

So where are the planes, where are the people that were on them, and where did they get whatever it was that did crash then?

Hmmm? Because you can't just have an open-ended argument, you have to close your logical loop my friend. Otherwise you might as well be saying "It was magic".

Not exactly magic (in the traditional sense), but very much sleight-of-hand. Deception, as the military calls it. The events of the day were magnificently planned and executed, military style.

To answer your question, I have no idea where the airplanes are. I do know that the one carrying the ACARS equipment assigned to "Flight 93" that day was still in the air and logged into the ACARS system 30 minutes after the supposed crash time at Shanksville. It was communicating with an ACARS outlet in Illinois is all can be determined.

But let's use logic here Oozle: one need not know where an airplane is today, or then, in order to see and understand that the airplane WAS NOT at Shanksville. That is pretty simple logic, and I'm sure you will agree with that simple tenet.

As for the pax, they could be dead. Or, they could be living somewhere else with a new identity, such as the federal government does in its well known Witness Protection Program. I do not know whether they are alive or dead, but my suspicions are that they are still alive, at least some of them.

You probably won't believe it, but some people capable with this 'facial recognition software', (not I) are claiming that Ted Olsen's new wife gets a hit with the facial recognition stuff with his old wife. If that is true and accurate (I am no judge or authority) it would fall into place with the idea of witness protection type intrigue.

I am personally aware of another interesting anomaly regarding one of the flight attendants that is most interesting. Doesn't really prove a thing, but it suggests WPP.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

So where is the RADAR data on the last 30 seconds of the Pentagon plane's flight and where were the antennas that collected the data?

I am not interested in some theoretical information about what RADAR can do so you can give the impression that you are smart.

psik

I do not think that such a RADAR track exists. Why? Well, that should be obvious but let me step it through for you.

The aircraft came in from the opposite side of Ronald Reagan Airport. So RADAR located there could track it down, until it hit an altitude that it got lost in the backscatter of the terrain, buildings and trees in the area, probably around 200 feet or so altitude. After that, they would at most get only occasional fragment returns that would be indistinguishable from returns from the background.

And this is not just theoretical my friend. Have you ever even questioned what my strange handle in here is? I mean, what kind of a bird is an "Oozlefinch"? Well, it is a featherless bird with gigantic eyes which flys backwards at supersonic speed. Here are 3 of them in my last unit crest.

So yea, my knowledge of RADAR goes well beyond "theoretical", it is real world. PTL, VSLB, all sorts of things I could have thrown in I did not, because they are largely irrelevant. So I placed what I knew in laymens terms to give the idea without trying to get into all the mineutia of my job.

But please, feel free to add "Oozlefinch" to your list of things to search. You might learn something new.

Oozlefinch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Oozlefinch]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Not exactly magic (in the traditional sense), but very much sleight-of-hand. Deception, as the military calls it. The events of the day were magnificently planned and executed, military style.

And this is the same all-powerfull government that could not shut up an intern from talking about giving the president hummers in the Oval Office?

Look, I work for the overnment, and I see little "all powerfull" in it, other then it's ability to jack things up. And my friend, if you think anything can be "magnificently planned and executed, military style", that proves you have absolutely no experience in the real world. Most of the time the military and government can comepletely mess up some of the simplest things, like leaving 800 people in the desert without water, food, or fuel for over a week. Or arrange a rest point during a 3 day convoy, not even bothering to realize that the location only had 3 toilets and 1 urinal for said 800 people.

This is the biggest problem (not to mention absolutely no evidence of anything you say), but the Government fracks up so incredibly so often. If it did not, Anderson Cooper and Bill O'Riley would not have the careers they have, would they?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Nonsense. Why is remote control different from AP? This statement makes absolutely no sense.

You can't change the AP at the last moment. A remote control situation using a long range homing device at Rudy Giuliani's office, and a smaller homing device in the tower, which would be handed off to once the aircraft is in range, would explain the initial non-tower heading flight path of the South Tower aircraft, and the precision changes to it in the last two miles. The aircraft flight computer would be programmed tomove toward the homing source. The handoff is accomplished with nothing more than a switch on the ground turning one beacon off and the other on.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Still not providing any poof of your erroneous claims that jetliners are more maneuverable than fighters at high speed?
You are right though there was something funny happening with the planes, they were hijacked by suicidal terrorists

Are you getting confused? You are the one claiming that an airliner is more maneuverable (or just as maneuverable) than fighters at high speed at sea level. I am saying just the opposite.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Tony, what you made is NOT a strong argument. It is in fact, one of the stupidest things I have ever read on here. You think that a huge jetliner is LESS stable and more likely to "flip over" at high speed than a small fighter jet. That is so backwards and ridiculous that it pains me you can't see it. It also makes me realize how clueless you are with physics, so it's no wonder you say the crap you do about the buildings.

Why do I get the feeling I am dealing with a box of rocks here?

I am talking about unintentional "flip over" due to lower amount of control at high speed at sea level.

A school bus does not have the maneuverability or stability at high speed of a sports car. This is a good analogy for the airliner and fighter jet.

 

[Enik]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

...Look, I work for the overnment, and I see little "all powerfull" in it,

What exactly is your job title and duties in the Government?

 

[Quag]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Are you getting confused? You are the one claiming that an airliner is more maneuverable (or just as maneuverable) than fighters at high speed at sea level. I am saying just the opposite.

What planet are you on? You claim that jetliners become too sensitive to control by human hands at high speed, ie they are more manoeuvrable. You claim that fighters flying at low level high speed is because they have shorter wings and thus are less manoeuvrable than longer winged passenger jets. TOTAL BS BTW

 

[Quag]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Why do I get the feeling I am dealing with a box of rocks here?

I am talking about unintentional "flip over" due to lower amount of control at high speed at sea level.

A school bus does not have the maneuverability or stability at high speed of a sports car. This is a good analogy for the airliner and fighter jet.

A plane does not turn anything like a 4 wheeled vehicle, perhaps you can make some comparisons to motorcycles, but busses? Seriously you are way out to lunch here.

 

[Quag]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

You can't change the AP at the last moment. A remote control situation using a long range homing device at Rudy Giuliani's office, and a smaller homing device in the tower, which would be handed off to once the aircraft is in range, would explain the initial non-tower heading flight path of the South Tower aircraft, and the precision changes to it in the last two miles. The aircraft flight computer would be programmed tomove toward the homing source. The handoff is accomplished with nothing more than a switch on the ground turning one beacon off and the other on.

tinfoil hat time for Tony.
You haven't eve begun to understand how a plane moves in the air how can you make any claims about computer controlled. and btw great you've added Giuliani to the growing list of co-conspirators how many you got now 2000-20000-200000?

 

[OscarB63]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

after 1610 posts, it has become painfully clear that there is, indeed, no way to cure a truther

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

And this is the same all-powerfull government that could not shut up an intern from talking about giving the president hummers in the Oval Office?

Look, I work for the overnment, and I see little "all powerfull" in it, other then it's ability to jack things up. And my friend, if you think anything can be "magnificently planned and executed, military style", that proves you have absolutely no experience in the real world. Most of the time the military and government can comepletely mess up some of the simplest things, like leaving 800 people in the desert without water, food, or fuel for over a week. Or arrange a rest point during a 3 day convoy, not even bothering to realize that the location only had 3 toilets and 1 urinal for said 800 people.

This is the biggest problem (not to mention absolutely no evidence of anything you say), but the Government fracks up so incredibly so often. If it did not, Anderson Cooper and Bill O'Riley would not have the careers they have, would they?

Oh there's LOTSA evidence of what I say, but you would simply prefer to pretend that it doesn't exist. Spend some time on Wally Miller at Shanksville, if you're really curious. He made statement #1 on the first day, and statement #2 sometime thereafter. One of those statements was true, and the other false. Christopher Bollyn interviewed the guy about a related matter in 2010 or 2011, and new details were revealed as to just how he ended up making 2 contradicting statements about the same event.

If you're curious.

And your point that the government can't really keep a secret is actually fairly valid. In fact, this story fell apart pretty quickly, if you count Wally Miller's statements as one example. Many people around the world and around the country had troubles with the story from Day One.

Though I had my suspicions from Day One, it took my dumb ass 4 years to realize that I had been duped.

So really, the only place it's still a secret is in the halls of government and the mainstream media. Out here on the civilian street, most people know the official story is a damn lie. Most people don't like to talk about it, but they do understand they've been lied to, for the umpteenth time.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

This is funny:

The integrity of science itself is compromised when an argument that proceeds from authority alone is given precedence over the presentation of relevant, demonstrable facts (e.g., more than a hundred documented reports of explosions (MacQueen, 2012)), or even basic laws of physics (e.g., violations of conservation of energy and momentum, see Grabbe (2012))

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2013EastmanColeVol37Apr.pdf

Science is an abstraction, it cannot have integrity. It is the integrity of scientists and academics that is in question.

In 12 years they can't discuss the significance of steel distribution in a 1300 foot skyscraper? Skyscrapers do have the problem of having to hold themselves up.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

So RADAR located there could track it down, until it hit an altitude that it got lost in the backscatter of the terrain, buildings and trees in the area, probably around 200 feet or so altitude. After that, they would at most get only occasional fragment returns that would be indistinguishable from returns from the background.

So you mean the RADAR could not track it that low just like I said but you had to add a lot of verbiage and theoretical crap to make yourself seem smart?

So the only case where we have data to test pilots in simulators with is the south tower so brining up the Pentagon never made any sense anyway.

psik

 

[Oozlefinch]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

What exactly is your job title and duties in the Government?

Needless to say, I do not get to specific, and my job and duties now (Army, IT) is not the same as it was from 2007-2012 (Army, PATRIOT missile system). But for 5 years I was trained and directly involved in the PATRIOT system, primarily in the missile launching system, but also spending several years working with both the RADAR, and doing reconnisance for the unit (which involved among other things plotting out the "dead areas" that the RADAR could not see through - like mountains and buildings).

The majority of my posts here are in the military section, but several years ago I got pulled into these threads because somebody informed me of a post where somebody tried to post some bad information on how "RADAR injects" work, and I have been popping in and out of the conspiracy thread ever since then, simply trying to replace speculation and bad information with accurate information.

So you mean the RADAR could not track it that low just like I said but you had to add a lot of verbiage and theoretical crap to make yourself seem smart?

So the only case where we have data to test pilots in simulators with is the south tower so brining up the Pentagon never made any sense anyway.

psik

*sigh*

Once again, your claim of "theoretical" is a bogus claim, I was explaining how RADAR actually works. If you do not understand it (or do not want to understand it), that is fine. I really could not care less. It is certainly never been my experience that Truthers will let reality and fact get in the way of their silly conspiracy theories.

As for the second part, that makes absoluely no sense at all, so is therefore ignored.

 

[SanderO]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

You can't change the AP at the last moment. A remote control situation using a long range homing device at Rudy Giuliani's office, and a smaller homing device in the tower, which would be handed off to once the aircraft is in range, would explain the initial non-tower heading flight path of the South Tower aircraft, and the precision changes to it in the last two miles. The aircraft flight computer would be programmed tomove toward the homing source. The handoff is accomplished with nothing more than a switch on the ground turning one beacon off and the other on.

Tony,

Explain how a homing device controls the aircraft's throttle and control surfaces please.

An AP which has a waypoint set is constantly using the control surfaces, and throttle to "steer" to the waypoint. But as INPUTS change.. this causes the plane to adjust its heading (course) and speed. You can also program multiple waypoints which conceivably could cause the plane to make sudden course changes... including its attitude (banking as opposed to level flight). Wind speed and direction are the inputs which APs work with... and there are micro climates close to tall buildings with Bernoulli effects, eddies, turbulence and so forth... disturbing even laminar flow. But wind does gust and change direction as well.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

*sigh*

Once again, your claim of "theoretical" is a bogus claim, I was explaining how RADAR actually works. If you do not understand it (or do not want to understand it), that is fine. I really could not care less. It is certainly never been my experience that Truthers will let reality and fact get in the way of their silly conspiracy theories.

As for the second part, that makes absoluely no sense at all, so is therefore ignored.

You said:

I do not think that such a RADAR track exists. Why? Well, that should be obvious but let me step it through for you.

So there was no point in bringing up the Pentagon at all. If you prefer to believe that I cannot understand microwave reflection used in a manner similar to a bat locating objects with sound reflections be my guest. But we could only get data from RADAR installations that were operational in the vicinity at the time. So if they didn't get the data then talking about what could have been done "theoretically" is pointless.

psik

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Tony,

Explain how a homing device controls the aircraft's throttle and control surfaces please.

An AP which has a waypoint set is constantly using the control surfaces, and throttle to "steer" to the waypoint. But as INPUTS change.. this causes the plane to adjust its heading (course) and speed. You can also program multiple waypoints which conceivably could cause the plane to make sudden course changes... including its attitude (banking as opposed to level flight). Wind speed and direction are the inputs which APs work with... and there are micro climates close to tall buildings with Bernoulli effects, eddies, turbulence and so forth... disturbing even laminar flow. But wind does gust and change direction as well.

I have said that some form of control on the aircraft would have been programmed in, but it is very unlikely, given the abrupt change in course at two miles out, that this was all there was to guide the plane.

If you think multiple way points were programmed into an autopilot with the main one picked up at only two miles out then there was something the aircraft was moving towards. Programmed in GPS coordinates in an autopilot don't account for the abrupt high speed change in direction at two miles out. Homing beacons for guidance have been used for years and it really does look like there was a beacon handoff at two miles out which caused the change in direction.

definition from McGraw-Hill Science & Technology Dictionary:

homing beacon: (navigation) A radio beacon, either airborne or on the ground, toward which an aircraft can fly if equipped with a radio compass or homing adapter. Also known as radio homing beacon.

 

[SanderO]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

I have said that some form of control on the aircraft would have been programmed in, but it is very unlikely, given the abrupt change in course at two miles out, that this was all there was to guide the plane.

If you think multiple way points were programmed into an autopilot with the main one picked up at only two miles out then there was something the aircraft was moving towards. Programmed in GPS coordinates don't account for the abrupt change at two miles out. Homing beacons for guidance have been used for years.

Homing beacon definition:

(navigation) A radio beacon, either airborne or on the ground, toward which an aircraft can fly if equipped with a radio compass or homing adapter. Also known as radio homing beacon.

This of course, makes no sense. I homing beacon is just another input into the nav system... not different that a new waypoint. 2 miles out is about 15 seconds to the collision and a course change is perfectly possible explanation.

You fail to explain how a homing beacon controls the planes control surface and throttle.

Suppose the person who programmed the AP understood that if the plane was on a straight course and level flight reached a waypoint and then a new waypoint was off to port by a considerable number of degrees... the plane would execute a sharp turn to port because the waypoint was so close. This would bank the plane and perhaps this was one of the objectives to strike the building banked.... not level flight for some reason. Both planes seem to hit while turning and banked.

Regardless a homing device is no different than a new waypoint entered. Many navigation systems do accommodate route planning and not simple point to point navigation.

You continually ignore the impact of the local winds and turbulence near the building as playing a role on each plane's attitude.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

This of course, makes no sense. I homing beacon is just another input into the nav system... not different that a new waypoint. 2 miles out is about 15 seconds to the collision and a course change is perfectly possible explanation.

You fail to explain how a homing beacon controls the planes control surface and throttle.

Suppose the person who programmed the AP understood that if the plane was on a straight course and level flight reached a waypoint and then a new waypoint was off to port by a considerable number of degrees... the plane would execute a sharp turn to port because the waypoint was so close. This would bank the plane and perhaps this was one of the objectives to strike the building banked.... not level flight for some reason. Both planes seem to hit while turning and banked.

Regardless a homing device is no different than a new waypoint entered. Many navigation systems do accommodate route planning and not simple point to point navigation.

You continually ignore the impact of the local winds and turbulence near the building as playing a role on each plane's attitude.

The beacon does not need to control throttle or control surfaces. It simply allows the autopilot to do so by giving it a target point.

The winds would be adjusted for by the autopilot steering towards its designated target.

The official story, which has a human pilot making all of these decisions and maneuvers at high speed at sea level, cannot be true. My main point is that the South Tower aircraft was not under human control. Do you agree?

There are several ways and combinations of equipment which could have been involved and I am not saying exactly what they all were. Laser target designation could have even been used when the plane was in range. I would say that the aircraft's autopilot had to be involved. However, I will say that I seriously doubt that autopilot programming alone could have done it, as it is unlikely to be moving toward one target until two miles away from the main one and then to suddenly change course.

 

[SanderO]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

The beacon does not need to control throttle or control surfaces. It simply allows the autopilot to do so by giving it a target point.

The winds would be adjusted for by the autopilot steering towards its designated target.

The official story, which has a human pilot making all of these decisions and maneuvers at high speed at sea level, cannot be true. My main point is that the South Tower aircraft was not under human control. Do you agree?

Doesn't matter whether the plane was pilots by a pilot handling the yoke etc. or programming an AP. The officials can't know what was going on in the plane and claiming they do is BS.

The plane was most likely guided by an AP with a waypoint programmed. And if there was some sort of beacon... placed in the towers, there is no reason why this could not have been done by the hijackers.

The actual operation of the plane, manual or computer controlled has nothing to do with the hijacking claim. Admittedly the evidence of the hijakcings themselves are shrouded in confusion. But the officials immediately began to control the narrative because they wanted to assure a certain political outcome. And they got it.

It's called spin.

 

[Quag]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

I have said that some form of control on the aircraft would have been programmed in, but it is very unlikely, given the abrupt change in course at two miles out, that this was all there was to guide the plane.

If you think multiple way points were programmed into an autopilot with the main one picked up at only two miles out then there was something the aircraft was moving towards. Programmed in GPS coordinates in an autopilot don't account for the abrupt high speed change in direction at two miles out. Homing beacons for guidance have been used for years and it really does look like there was a beacon handoff at two miles out which caused the change in direction.

definition from McGraw-Hill Science & Technology Dictionary:

homing beacon: (navigation) A radio beacon, either airborne or on the ground, toward which an aircraft can fly if equipped with a radio compass or homing adapter. Also known as radio homing beacon.

Tony why would a change in direction require a beacon or computer control you make these statements as if they are fact but provide no reasons for them. Why would it be impossible for a human pilot to make an adjustment to trajectory 2 miles out?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Tony why would a change in direction require a beacon or computer control you make these statements as if they are fact but provide no reasons for them. Why would it be impossible for a human pilot to make an adjustment to trajectory 2 miles out?

We have already been through this several times.

The high speed precise adjustment of an airliner at sea level by a human pilot is about as likely as taking a trip to the moon in a flying car.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Doesn't matter whether the plane was pilots by a pilot handling the yoke etc. or programming an AP. The officials can't know what was going on in the plane and claiming they do is BS.

The plane was most likely guided by an AP with a waypoint programmed. And if there was some sort of beacon... placed in the towers, there is no reason why this could not have been done by the hijackers.

The actual operation of the plane, manual or computer controlled has nothing to do with the hijacking claim. Admittedly the evidence of the hijakcings themselves are shrouded in confusion. But the officials immediately began to control the narrative because they wanted to assure a certain political outcome. And they got it.

It's called spin.

I am not talking about hijackers or no hijackers. I am talking about external help. If you think the hijackers could have placed beacons in the towers you have to believe they had help also, as that would require someone involved with the buildings to let them into them. Unless of course you think they could have just gotten to where they wanted to go by posing as business people or something along those lines.

If it was the hijackers who programmed the AP and also set up the beacons at City Hall and in the tower then they need to be given a lot more credit than they already have been publicly. I have to wonder why the official story doesn't want to talk about programming of the AP and possible use of beacons and just goes along as though it was human control, when a serious look at the situation shows it couldn't have been.

 

[Quag]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

We have already been through this several times.

The high speed precise adjustment of an airliner at sea level by a human pilot is about as likely as taking a trip to the moon in a flying car.

I agree we have been through this and you are dead wrong. please provide some proof of this mythical control problems at high speed by airliners.