Skeptic Project

So how do you define "hijacking"? At what point do you class a plane hijacked or not?

What part of this don't you understand? The wikipedia article you cited mentions no successful hijackings in the twenty years preceding the World Trade Center demolition, just two unsuccessful attempts. Go and read the damn article, you're the one who cited it, don't complain now because it supports my claims.

So you don't need scientific analysis, you just use your own eyes even though you're only qualified to chop down trees!

This thread isn't really supposed to be about me, but since you brough tit up, that's not all I'm qualified to do. I'm also a medical doctor, and I develop software, I have extensive experience in various construction jobs and demolition work. That's just a small taste of my experience, but it should settle your stomach a little. I'm not just a treecutter, that's just one profession I've held.

What part of this don't you understand? The wikipedia article you cited mentions no successful hijackings in the twenty years preceding the World Trade Center demolition, just two unsuccessful attempts. Go and read the damn article, you're the one who cited it, don't complain now because it supports my claims.

What part dont I understand?

You claim that no hijackings have been successful in the past therefore hijackngs on 911 couldn't have happened.

So therefore you need to explain to me what a successful hijacking means to you. If as you claim a computer system could instantly render any attempted hijacking foiled as soon as they reach for the controls and someone realised it was a hijacking, that would be a good point.

If however they were able to fly around for rather a long time before "failing" then unfortunately that is not at all a good example. The hijackers did not need to succeed for very long in hijacking the planes, just long enough to murder everyone on it by crashing it into a building.

So unless you define what you mean by successful you have no point. You still haven't shown how this remote control system was ever used or ever talked about by anyone relevant aside from that one crazy nutcase and his friends.

You claim that no hijackings have been successful in the past therefore 911 could've have happened.

That's not exactly the claim I made. It was just ancillary support for the claim that all civilian passenger jets have remote control systems in them that allow NORAD and other military organizations to seize control of the plane from the ground by remote control, making it impossible to hijack the planes from inside the cockpit. This is the reason there have been no successful hijackings. You're trying to put the cart before the horse. The lack of hijackings aren't proof of this system. This system exists, it's known, it was known from its inception and it never has been a secret. People are just ignorant. This system is the reason there have been no successful hijackings, I don't need a lack of hijackings to prove the system exists, it's a given that it exists, it's the reason there have been no hijackings in the United States since its inception. The fact that you can't come up with any successful hijackings is tangential, really, because even a successful hijacking wouldn't disprove this system. This system exists, it is known, it's not a secret. Quit hiding behind your ignorance.

It was just ancillary support for the claim that all civilian passenger jets have remote control systems in them that allow NORAD and other military organizations to seize control of the plane from the ground by remote control, making it impossible to hijack the planes from inside the cockpit. This is the reason there have been no successful hijackings. You're trying to put the cart before the horse. The lack of hijackings aren't proof of this system. This system exists, it's known, it was known from its inception and it never has been a secret. People are just ignorant. This system is the reason there have been no successful hijackings, I don't need a lack of hijackings to prove the system exists, it's a given that it exists, it's the reason there have been no hijackings in the United States since its inception. The fact that you can't come up with any successful hijackings is tangential, really, because even a successful hijacking wouldn't disprove this system. This system exists, it is known, it's not a secret. Quit hiding behind your ignorance.

Religious people tell me they know God exits, I want to know how they know.

I want to know HOW you know that this exists. Evidence please or shut up about it.

See I still don't know what you are talking about, because I see lots of occasions where even the list says the plane was hijacked.

Yet none in the United States, just two attempts that were both foiled.

It may not have been ultimately successful but it is still considered hijacked UNTIL its stopped.

Make up your mind, they're not successful, they're successful, say what you want about me but at least I don't contradict myself or talk in circles.

Again, prove this remote control rubbish of STFU.

I don't have to prove it, I was alive when the system was being devised, I remember Ronald Reagan declaring a war on terrorism and announcing the end of that war, saying there would never again be another successful hijacking...and there never was...until NORAD decided to hijack four planes by remote control.

There is one other alternative explanation, that somebody outside the loop managed to crack the security on this system and seize control of the planes remotely from the ground. That still wouldn't explain how they were able to maintain that control, however. This system is also capable of allowing a military fighter jet to lock onto a plane and tandem it down to the ground, with the civilian jet mirroring every one of the fighter jet's moves. It's also possible to record flight paths and "play back" the route to a civilian jet so that it follows a predetermined path. This system is typically known as "automatic pilot". Please don't tell me I have to prove automatic pilots exist, now, too.

"She later turned up on the Germany-Austria border and was arrested for immigration violations and counterfeiting charges. "

Original source says "Polish-Austria" border ;)

Original source says "Polish-Austria" border ;)

It must be an error, because I'm not aware of any border between Poland and Austria. I could be wrong. I guess it's time to consult Google Maps.

You didn't say that no other buildings collapsed like WTC1+2 and 7. You said that no other buildings were destroyed, that is 100% nonsense.

Yet the picture you cited was not of a demolished building, but of a damaged building that was still standing. Am I missing something, here?

Make sure you guys take a food break.

Yet none in the United States, just two attempts that were both foiled.

How were they foiled?

Did the remote control system get used?

You said its not a secret so why is there absolutely no mention of it anywhere and no one has any knowledge of it at Bowing or NORAD or anyone relevant aside from one lunatic and his fans (like you)?

Make up your mind, they're not successful, they're successful, say what you want about me but at least I don't contradict myself or talk in circles.

If the aim of a hijacking is to seek money, then they are only "successful" if they get the money.

If the aim of a hijacking is just to hijack the plane and fly it around for a while, then its successful if they can do that it makes no difference if they are stopped after a while.

If the aim of a hijacking is to hijack a plane and fly it into a building then it is still successful even if they all died. So the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon were successful hijackings while United 93's hijacking was unsuccessful.

I don't have to prove it, I was alive when the system was being devised, I remember Ronald Reagan declaring a war on terrorism and announcing the end of that war, saying there would never again be another successful hijacking...and there never was...until NORAD decided to hijack four planes by remote control.

And in 20 years truthers cant say that they were alive when HAARP was around and that therefore they dont have to prove it can create earthquakes or control peoples minds. They'll still need to provide evidence and so do you.

You made the claim that this exits in "all civilian passenger jets" are required to have this remote control anti-hijacking technology and that its not a secret and its well known.

Well why cant you find any information about it? Why does no one apart from Vialls know about it or seem to be aware of it?

You made the claim prove it so evidence or stfu and stop playing stupid games.

When the multinationals and DARPA finally came on the scene in the mid-seventies, aircraft systems were even more advanced, with computers controlling onboard autopilots, which in turn were capable of controlling all of the onboard hydraulics. In combination these multiple different functions were now known as the "Flight Control System" or FCS, in turn integrated with sophisticated avionics capable of automatically landing the aircraft in zero visibility conditions. In summary, by the mid-seventies most of the large jets were capable of effectively navigating hundreds of miles and then making automatic landings at a selected airport in zero-zero fog conditions. All of this could be accomplished unaided, but in theory at least, still under the watchful eyes of the flight deck crews.

In order to make Home Run truly effective, it had to be completely integrated with all onboard systems, and this could only be accomplished with a new aircraft design, several of which were on the drawing boards at that time. Under cover of extreme secrecy, the multinationals and DARPA went ahead on this basis and built "back doors" into the new computer designs. There were two very obvious hard requirements at this stage, the first a primary control channel for use in taking over the flight control system and flying the aircraft back to an airfield of choice, and secondly a covert audio channel for monitoring flight deck conversations. Once the primary channel was activated, all aircraft functions came under direct ground control, permanently removing the hijackers and pilots from the control loop.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/home_run.htm

I asked for evidence not repeated nonsense from conspiracy theorists.

The guy who wrote that is the lunatic I am referring to and that those other TRUTHERS I showed you are calling a disinfo "shill", "insane" and "absurd".

Do you actually understand what a SOURCE is Plautus?

What SOURCE do they give backing up their claims?

"Do you actually understad what a SOURCE is Plautus?"

If its on the Internet, it has to be true.

Unless it is on a government website.

That means its disinfo.

Transponder and ‘Home Run’: Technically a transponder is a combined radio transmitter and receiver which operates automatically, in reference to 9/11 relaying data between the four aircrafts and air traffic controls on the ground. The communication protocols provide a unique “identity” for each aircraft, which are essential to avoid mid-air collisions in crowded airspace, and equally essential for ‘Home Run’ controllers lock onto the intended aircrafts for remote control manoeuvrings. Once the correct aircraft has been located, Home Run “piggy backs” a data transmission onto the transponder channel and takes direct control from the ground. Per 9-11 commission time line, all 9/11 planes had transponders turned off during hijacking! This explains why none of the 9/11 aircraft sent a special “I have been hijacked” transponder code, despite multiple activation points on all four aircrafts. Because once the transponder frequency had already been piggy backed by Home Run, transmission of the special hijack code was rendered impossible. This was the first hard proof that the 9/11 target aircrafts had been hijacked electronically from the ground.

Helpless Pilots: Once control has been taken away from the ground using top secret computer codes (known only to top secret military and Boeing specialists), regardless of the wishes of the hijackers or flight deck crew, the hijacked aircraft could be recovered remotely forcing it to land at an airport of choice or programmed destination, with no more difficulty than flying radio-controlled model planes or military drones like Global Hawk. With reference to 9/11, the orchestrators selected World Trade Centre (WTC) and Pentagon as well as, probably Capitol/White House (aborted Flight 93) as the targeted destinations. All flights were delayed for convenience of remote hijacking! Unfortunately, Flight 93 encountered additional delay due to unpredictable traffic situation disrupting the rather precision plan. Donald Rumsfeld admitted it was shot down by the same people who hijacked the other planes.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message394673/pg1