|
sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/7/2007 8:24:52 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
Way wrong
In what way is easier to create a new wiring loom and all the necessary hydraulic circuits than use existing ones? Even if I accept your idea of a hulk, why not just pick one from the yard that has loom & hydraulics still in place?
To ensure that it is untraceable. No long wiring to the cockpit, that is not in use anyway, is required.
The overwheming majority necessary wiring is already leading too, or in the cockpit area. Replace existing guage with radio sender unit, extra wiring that may be discovered - nil.
You are claiming to make things untraceable by adding, that is not the best method at all and totally fails any logical analysis.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
So technology to interface with controls and instrumentation directly and externally invisibly did exist back then, but with all the leaps forward in technology you now have to bolt a great big lump on the outside of the hull to achieve the same effect?
If you have a stripped hulk an off the shelf pod is easiest to install. The photograph of flight 175 shows a pod where none has any business to be.
If you have an airworthy frame the amount of extra work required to make it capable of remote control is practically nil compared to making a stripped hulk flyable by remote. Seriously lets scale it down, take a car that you want to be remote controlled for a hollywood movie. so you go down to the scrap yard having figured you need a ford tempo. When you get there there is an empty ford tempo shell, and there is a tempo that was driven in by its owner yesterday and is otherwise untouched, which is easiest to make do your job?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
Also bear in mind that any external pod will alter the look of the hull and make any eyewitness identification of the aircraft null and void, unless they say "It was a 737 with a great big pod on"
That may be one reason for the handful of non-credible witnesses: to swamp any testimony of a pod being present.
But your own, un-investigated witness that claims a 737 (your sole reason for choosing 737 despite lots of evidence to the contrary) does not claim a pod, therefore his testimony is suspect. If he was that hot on aircraft recognition he would have seen a 737 with a pod, or failing that the presecence of a pod would have not matched a 737 in his mind so he would not have made the recognition.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
Also try webfairy and debunk in google, even the majority of the pro-conspiracy web groups have distanced themselves from such patent nonsense (or are they all in on it too?)
Nevertheless there is photographic evidence of such a pod. I have no interest in what conspiracy groups distance themselves from. I make up my own mind.
Substantiate that claim
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
Incorrect instruments are placed where the pilots can see them
There was nobody alive on those four planes. Then why put instruments in a cockpit if the actual pilot is at some distance in a c130?
Well unless that hull was purpose built for this one mission (contrary to your hulk claims) I think it fair to presume it was flown by humans in its own cockpit at some point and therefore will have required instruments installed at some time in its history.
Read the full context and (hopefully obvious implications) rather than picking a sentence
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
Off hand the only sensors I can think of that would be placed anywhere near wing root are
Various fuel level/pressure/etc sensors as that is where the bulk of the fuel is
Main gear sensors (raised lowered tyre pressure door status etc
Wing control surfaces flap, speed brake etc
Bulb failure for landing light (if light is in wing root)
See? I bet you would wire other sensors also rather to the wing root than to the far away cockpit.
Why would I? you claim to be evidence obsessed but are now working in the realms of supposition, illogical supposition that makes sense on no level at all.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
All the main flight control sensors are based towards the front of the aircraft, saves weight and money for the wiring looms as well as making maintainence considerably easier
Maintenance for a throwaway one-use only airplane?
Ah, so it was a purpose built hull rather than a boneyard salvage then? see the tempo analogy
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
So unverified witnesses are suitable for basing theories upon, intelligent reasoning is not?
I make do with what is available and reliable and will also within limits venture an educated guess. I will not accept reasonable guesses in lieu of facts that should be available. It is recorded when that C130 took off and where it took off. Why is it not recorded when and where it landed?
Ok, there are several options here, in no particular order
Not recorded
recorded but not published
recorded and published where you have not found it
To assume it is not recorded simply because nobody has presented it to you gift wrapped is, well beyond words frankly.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
If you read O'Briens statement he saw the plume of smoke (obvious implication being post-impact) from approximately 17 miles away. So nobody in a rural area saw an aircraft 17 miles away when they likely concentrating on a much closer event, you find that surprising why?
That C130 should not even have been in the air at that time. Anyway, from that time its mean velocity may be calculated and its ETA estimated. Did a C130 at that ETA land at its alleged destination?
Really? why should the c130 have not been airborne? The NOTA forbidding takeoffs was issued at 0929eastern, it was some 3 hours later before the skies were clear of all air traffic except CAPs and AF1
Rather than sending me off to research if a c130 landed at place x within y minutes of time z, do it yourself, you are closer to the sources as you have been able to run exhaustive investigations on invidiuals.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
EDITED to add
"A C-130 military cargo plane was also within 25 miles of the passenger jet when it crashed, FBI spokesman Bill Crowley said yesterday, but was not diverted."
So he says. Now how is that corroborated?
ATC, C130 crew, how are all your eyewitnesses that you claim credible (for which should be read un-investigated) coroborated?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
Do you not have the courage in your convictions that your countries founders did?
No. I lack all courage. Anyway, it obviously is not me who is a potential target, but you. I am just a nut that does not know what he is talking about, whereas you are a sensible person who does know what he is talking about.
Me? A target? surely you are joking, a capitalist warmongering exploitative scum like me could never be a target for the powers that be whilst I agree with the official party line (which will be for some time unless someone is actually going to pull the rabbit out the hat, of course first they need to find a hat that will hold a rabbit and then they need to find a rabbit that does not look like a horse)
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
go look up IIRC, its the posters way of saying "I could be wrong, I am relying on memory not verifiable facts"
I did not know the meaning of that IIRC-code. It is a good thing then that I cut and pasted it without editing and put it between quotes. See, my documentation was not a mess. [;)]
No matter, you posted something without verifying its credibilty. If I was in a similar postion I would find out what IIRC meant, imagine if it had be TIAL at the beigining and that meant This Is A Lie, you would have looked even more foolish. As a quote in that context I would guess it came from a forum similar to this, an aviators forum where there would be more credibilty? a conspiracy forum? just the first hit for "c130 crew of four" on google?
|
|
|
|
