DEBUNKED - 9/11 aircraft black boxes weren't recovered

Efftup

Senior Member.
You mean imcompetent geniuses like Larry Silverstein, who apparently engineered the whole thing with building 7, had loads of thermate/thermite/nano thermiter/supernanomthermite (depending on what's being debunked at the moment) charges laid and set up weeks prior to the event, without anyone in the building noticing, and then is stupid enough to blurt on a TV interview that he demolished the building, or rather blurt on TV that the man from the Fire Department made the decision to blow up the building?
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
...such as faking flight data recorders...
I'm having a bit of trouble with this notion of "faking" a DFDR. This would be a monumental task, what with the literally hundreds of different inputs that would ALL have to be exactly and correctly co-ordinated and time-stamped to not "reveal" any fakery.

(Oh, and who can forget AA 77's "Flight Deck Door" fiasco??).
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
I'm having a bit of trouble with this notion of "faking" a DFDR. This would be a monumental task, what with the literally hundreds of different inputs that would ALL have to be exactly and correctly co-ordinated and time-stamped to not "reveal" any fakery.

(Oh, and who can forget AA 77's "Flight Deck Door" fiasco??).
Really that difficult? Fly a simulator into the Pentagon along the preplanned flight path and record all parameters. I assume that the simulator's instruments would show such things as radalt. That would reduce the number of incidental parameters such as flight deck door open/closed, to manually input.
But perhaps the IG don't have access to a Boeing simulator.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Was it a flight door or cargo hold door?
From memory - not my area of expertise - but it was the "cockpit" or "flight Deck" access door. The record showed it not being opened or similar. Reality was that it wasn't connected to the recorder.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
From memory - not my area of expertise - but it was the "cockpit" or "flight Deck" access door. The record showed it not being opened or similar. Reality was that it wasn't connected to the recorder.
First part I hadn't remembered, second part was so humorous (PfT going on about it) that it did stick with me.
 

econ41

Senior Member
First part I hadn't remembered, second part was so humorous (PfT going on about it) that it did stick with me.
That old problem - so often N/C is interpreted as a definite ZERO rather than "undefined". (N/C - not connected OR N/R not read. The poor machine is monitoring voltages - and N/C sends no voltage - which is physically near enough to zero voltage - but logically a different thing....) (Humans who writing down readings put "0" when they should put "-" or some such.)
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
That old problem - so often N/C is interpreted as a definite ZERO rather than "undefined". (N/C - not connected OR N/R not read. The poor machine is monitoring voltages - and N/C sends no voltage - which is physically near enough to zero voltage - but logically a different thing....) (Humans who writing down readings put "0" when they should put "-" or some such.)
When I was in college we were advised to leave no input unconnected, to always supply a hi or lo ( in TTL a +5V or ground.) so as to avoid such confusions and to limit high transients fubaring things. However electronics has come a long way since then.
 

econ41

Senior Member
When I was in college we were advised to leave no input unconnected, to always supply a hi or lo ( in TTL a +5V or ground.) so as to avoid such confusions and to limit high transients fubaring things. However electronics has come a long way since then.
When I was in college TTL logic hadn't been invented. Well the "L" had but the "TT" was not in commercial use.

Around that time it cost me $AU2.75 for my first zener diode - except it was pounds shillings and pence - twenty seven and sixpence.

And today's stuff is certainly safer against static/transients etc It's a long time since I bothered with grounding straps when pulling boards out of computers. Although you are always in contact with metal case - which does the job. When the first mosfets became available - low noise RF amplifiers IIRC - you couldn't breath on them without blowing their little brains.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Apparently the Government/Illuminati/NWO/Yoos employ people I like to , oxymoronically, refer to as "incompetent geniuses". Capable of planning and arranging for a vast, complicated, complex, hugely expensive, and utterly secret plot while at the same time incapable of some very simple and inexpensive details such as faking flight data recorders properly.
Yes, this phenomenon crops up time and again in just about every "false flag" claim. They are evil masterminds, but they always leave obvious clues that an untrained teenager making YouTube videos on his home PC can uncover!
 

sharpnfuzzy

Active Member
I'm having a bit of trouble with this notion of "faking" a DFDR. This would be a monumental task, what with the literally hundreds of different inputs that would ALL have to be exactly and correctly co-ordinated and time-stamped to not "reveal" any fakery.
I don't see this as difficult at all, "hundreds" of parameters is nothing in computing. In fact that is exactly what a simulator is, it's "faking" real life.

The inputs are different. And of course there is no G-meter, nor accelerometer measurements, for instance.
You don't need to go to the actual effort of recording output values from something (i.e. an actual aircraft simulator) you just calculate the values and put them on the memory unit or record them on the tape. It would probably be the least difficult part of the giant conspiracy that you're trying to mastermind.

This is exactly what I used to do working in real-time process control. To test our control software we would write programs/models that simulated the process we were trying to control (the hot rolling of steel). Once the models were validated against the real thing, there was no need to gather the test values from something anymore, they were just calculated using the models. Therefore if based on the flight profile you calculate that the aircraft should be experiencing +3G at the moment, set the fake G-meter value to +3G, no accelerometer required.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
no accelerometer required.
Incorrect, sorry. There are FAR more inputs than you may realize in a real DFDR (Digital Flight Data Recorder). And accelerometers are not only vertical G-meters...they record laterally as well.

Further? A modern simulator is basically just....a computer. Zeroes and ones...

OTOH, the DFDR records actual, factual parameters....yeah, some of those are zeroes and ones, but many aren't. Point is it would be incredibly difficult to combine SO many "readings" that co-incide...AND coincidentally the CVR (Cockpit Voice Recorder) should ALSO have to match exactly....to the second....or even a fraction of a second. Without that "fake" accuracy, the "illusion" would be revealed.

(ETA): I went 'round-and-round' on this very topic some years ago, on another blogging board (cough, cough...ATS) with a bloke who incidentally used to be a good friend of Rob Balsamo (of "pilots 4 truth" fame), but they've since had a falling out of some sort. This fellow (ex-friend of Balsamo) had a background in computing. It was difficult to explain the differences between a flight simulator, and the real airplane.
 

sharpnfuzzy

Active Member
Incorrect, sorry. There are FAR more inputs than you may realize in a real DFDR (Digital Flight Data Recorder). And accelerometers are not only vertical G-meters...they record laterally as well.
I think you FAR underestimate the abilities of computers. Calculating hundreds, thousands, millions of values each and every second is nothing for a computer. Some of the processing loops that I used to work with only ran at 30KHz, that's 30,000 times per second or 30,000 fractions of a second. So 30,000 times per second the models could calculate real world values such as speed, acceleration, compression forces, expansion forces, flow rates of water, cooling rates of materials, and many many more parameters than I could list here. And 30KHz is nothing compared to the actual speeds of processors which are in the GHz range these days, that's 1,000,000,000 fractions of a second. It's not magic, it's just standard physics equations being performed at mind boggling speeds, nothing out of the ordinary for a computer.

Further? A modern simulator is basically just....a computer. Zeroes and ones...
Not sure what you're trying to say here. Everything that is digital is zeros and ones. Are you saying that a computer cannot produce a number like 5.7612? I just did here, using only zeros and ones. Take a full motion aircraft simulator for example. That is a computer taking a series of zeros and ones (lots and lots of them thousands of times per second) and turning them into analogue motion laterally, vertically, and in many other axes in between simultaneously all while synchronizing it with what is projected on a screen.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Take a full motion aircraft simulator for example. That is a computer taking a series of zeros and ones (lots and lots of them thousands of times per second) and turning them into analogue motion laterally, vertically, and in many other axes in between simultaneously all while synchronizing it with what is projected on a screen.
I'm sure all the parameters recorded in a FDR are available, either directly or calculated, in a modern flight simulator. I don't think it would be as simple as plugging it in though, you'd have to do quite a bit of work to hook it up. But in theory, yes, you could simulate all the parameters.

However it's very likely that there would be detectable differences in the nature of the data between the simulated and real recordings. I suspect it would be very fiddly to get it to work in a way that would be undetectable to a skilled investigator. You would require multiple iterations of the process, and probably months of work, and even then you'd not be certain your final use-case would actually work.

And it this case (Flight 77 into the Pentagon), it seems like a pointless exercise. The plane was observed to fly into the building.

For reference, see page 45 of this pdf, which describes the 32 parameters a FDR records:
http://www.bea.aero/etudes/use.of.fdr/use.of.fdr.pdf
 

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
Anyway, @WeedWhacker and @sharpnfuzzy are saying basically the same thing:
- It would be easy for the conspirators to create a fake black box and plant it to be found with all the data corroborating the official story.

The black box not being found is actually an evidence of NO conspiracy instead of an evidence of conspiracy.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Anyway, @WeedWhacker and @sharpnfuzzy are saying basically the same thing:
- It would be easy for the conspirators to create a fake black box and plant it to be found with all the data corroborating the official story.

The black box not being found is actually an evidence of NO conspiracy instead of an evidence of conspiracy.
That's not what WW is saying. And I don't think it would be easy. I'd actually say that a black box being found would be more likely if there was no conspiracy. If I were planning such a vast conspiracy I'd want to minimize the number of things that could go wrong, so it would make much more sense for the FDR to be lost or damaged.

Of course the fact that they were lost or damaged indicates nothing either, as that's not an unexpected outcome, given the circumstances (highly destructive collapse of the towers).
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
That's not what WW is saying. And I don't think it would be easy. I'd actually say that a black box being found would be more likely if there was no conspiracy. If I were planning such a vast conspiracy I'd want to minimize the number of things that could go wrong, so it would make much more sense for the FDR to be lost or damaged.

Of course the fact that they were lost or damaged indicates nothing either, as that's not an unexpected outcome, given the circumstances (highly destructive collapse of the towers).
Not easy then, but certainly doable for a vast, extremely well funded, technologically adept, secret organization with years to prepare.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I think it would be almost trivially easy for a large sophisticated organisation to make a faultless "digital record" - after all they wouldn't actually HAVE TO make the record itself available to "the general public" - just the printouts, analysis, etc.

Only a handful of technicians who supposedly analyse the data would need to be "in the know".

After all it's pretty easy for these guys to keep secrets....
 

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
That's not what WW is saying. And I don't think it would be easy. I'd actually say that a black box being found would be more likely if there was no conspiracy. If I were planning such a vast conspiracy I'd want to minimize the number of things that could go wrong, so it would make much more sense for the FDR to be lost or damaged.

Of course the fact that they were lost or damaged indicates nothing either, as that's not an unexpected outcome, given the circumstances (highly destructive collapse of the towers).
As this part of the discussion is purely theoretical, let's just agree to disagree. :)
 

sharpnfuzzy

Active Member
Not easy then, but certainly doable for a vast, extremely well funded, technologically adept, secret organization with years to prepare.
Exactly the point that I was trying to make. "Easy" is a relative term, but when you are comparing it to the enormous complexity of the entire conspiracy as a whole, it's easy.
 
Last edited:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
...but certainly doable for a vast, extremely well funded, technologically adept, secret organization with years to prepare.
No, not really "doable"....not to stand up to sustained scrutiny.

I thought I also mentioned the factoring in of the CVR? (A "click" of a switch being moved can be heard, sometimes, on the Voice Recorder. Among other things....)....

But in any case, in order to have a re-creation of the flight of any of the airliners used in the 9/11 attacks recorded? A simulator just doesn't produce the same "data" as the actual instrumentation that provides inputs to a Flight Data Recorder.

I will try to give just one example: During takeoff one will feel an acceleration, correct? (Same as in your car....you feel 'pushed' back slightly, in your seat).

A full-motion airliner simulator provides this "sensation" merely by tilting...and then Earth's gravity gives that 'acceleration' simulation. Similarly, when landing and stopping (decelerating) the machine tips forward, on its hydraulic "legs"....again using Earth gravity to provide the 'sensation'.

Apologies, this is a very short video (after it plays, other similar videos will be available to watch):

Doesn't show much....but I can relate from personal experience, having watched many times from outside (usually as we are waiting our turn to get "into the box"!) we could always tell when the people ahead of us were finishing....the way it sometimes "bump" (if it was a "hard" landing), and would tilt forward, to indicate the slowing down on the ground.
 
Last edited:

Oystein

Senior Member
WW, the accelerometers (don't know if they are actually called that way) on such a simulator surely would not feed into a sim-FDR. The computer knows at each instance what velocity it's doing in all three dimensions, and also all its rotations. Shouldn't be too hard to tell the computer to subtract velocities from frame to frame and calculate accelerations, right? There could even be some algorithm to add an element of randomness due to meters being less than exact - just in case someone notices that delta-v's match the a's too perfectly.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
I can only reply that in a real airplane there are devices called Inertial Reference Systems...(IRSs for short). Even MORE modern airplanes use an ADIRU....Air Data Inertial Reference Unit platform. These basically use laser-ring gyroscopes (you can look this up) that measure acceleration in all three-dimensional axis reference.

(Old days, the "INS" ...or "Inertial Navigation System"...used actual physical gyroscopes. Actual hardware, as it were...this was similar to equipment used in the Apollo space program, just for added technical trivia).

Accompanying YouTube video describing the modern ADIRU (for reference):
 
Last edited:

TWCobra

Senior Member.
I tend to think it could be done relatively easily. Even FSX gives a realistic G value when needed. Sorry Weedie..
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Even FSX gives a realistic G value when needed. Sorry Weedie..
Really??? I mean....different animals....YOU should understand why! (Certainly YOU have seen a full-motion Sim as it operates....from the outside?) I know YOU have also been IN a few of them too....how often has the Instructor pushed a few buttons and "re-set' the Sim so you can repeat the same ILS Approach again, and again???? (I've seen this countless times). Can be a bit "off-putting"...some instructors tell us to close our eyes....I never did).

AND the Instructor needs only to change a few parameters and suddenly you have a 30 knot crosswind? (It goes on and on...)
 

MikeC

Closed Account
You don't need a sim to make fake figures tho - all you need is the signals or values, and you can generate those however you like.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
You don't need a sim to make fake figures tho - all you need is the signals or values, and you can generate those however you like.
This would be the method to use, in conjunction with a flight sim. Your parameter generator takes signals from the sim computer as to attitude, trajectory etc., and computes what the values of such things as vertical and horizontal g forces to record. For things like engine parameters, these are displayed on the sim cockpit so there is already a value being generated. Those later vales might need an interface to produce DFDR inputs but that's not a big issue.
What this really requires is a lot of money, after all its a one-off set up. Best bet would be to completely dismantle it afterwards.
WW is right in that if one looked really hard there may be issues with timing that would stand out a bit to an experienced investigator. However since the NTSB, and frankly the FBI, are not usually looking for evidence of fakery that might go unnoticed.
Then there is the requirement of a secure location and at least a couple dozen dedicated people to carry it out, not to mention the clandestine operation to plant these devices after first having beat them up sufficiently.
 

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
Then there is the requirement of a secure location and at least a couple dozen dedicated people to carry it out, not to mention the clandestine operation to plant these devices after first having beat them up sufficiently.
But please remember that these conspirators have unlimited resources and unlimited people in their payroll, so in this scenario where they faked everything else (kidnapping of airplanes, WTC being demolished by CD, firing a missile at Pentagon, etc, etc), faking and planting a dummy black box is really less than 1% of it, isn't it?

Another very very cheap way of doing that is destroying the FDR and releasing only the fake CVR, with voice actors saying "Allah is the greatest" and "death to america" and explaining the whole plot, isn't it?

That's why I believe that the absence of black boxes is evidence of no conspiracy. ;)
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
But please remember that these conspirators have unlimited resources and unlimited people in their payroll, so in this scenario where they faked everything else (kidnapping of airplanes, WTC being demolished by CD, firing a missile at Pentagon, etc, etc), faking and planting a dummy black box is really less than 1% of it, isn't it?

Another very very cheap way of doing that is destroying the FDR and releasing only the fake CVR, with voice actors saying "Allah is the greatest" and "death to america" and explaining the whole plot, isn't it?

That's why I believe that the absence of black boxes is evidence of no conspiracy. ;)
I would therefore say that WW is correct, it would not be patently easy, ie. no one we know would be able to do it without great drain on resources. OTOH, for a group with near infinite funding, years to plan, and access to enormous physical resources, it would be quite doable.
Its frankly more doable than; retrofitting a Boeing to be able to perform flawlessly near Mach 1; than loading (kilo?)tons of therm?te into the towers; than rigging a skyscraper with explosives while its on fire; than creating a steel dustifying device; than buying off/killing, passengers, relatives, explosives experts, engineering experts, investigative reporters, witnesses, and anyone else who might blow the whistle on the "they" that planned and carried out the nefarious deeds.
 

NoTech64

Member
Evidence it was planted what a joke. So frustrating. Of all the things that were found and this soon after it happened and its one the hijackers passports. It's like shit from a bad Steven seagal movie.(there are a couple good ones)
Hi all
I'm new to this site. You find it frustrating when you are asked for evidence to support a scenario which you are supposing.
I have to say, it is far more frustrating to witness somebody thinking 'something smells fishy' and therefore it didn't happen, even though there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it did happen.
 
They just recovered this past year the landing gear of one of the planes a few blocks away.
Are you suggesting that was planted? No video shows it going there but considering the speed involved
you wouldn't necessarily see an object that small being thrown clear. I guess it is always possible it made it
there when the buildings collapsed.

Ultimately Atta's passport is unimportant.
There is video surveillance of him going through security at the airport.
Why plant something that might arouse suspicion when you already have a smoking gun?

Edit - obviously the black boxes were crushed and burned in the fire/collapse.
The video of Atta passing through security is NOT from Boston's Logan Airport. The only video that exists of Atta passing security comes from the airport in Portland, Maine. I find it extremely suspicious that an international airport like Logan did not have cameras but a much smaller airport in Portland did. Adding to the mystery is the fact that they took a connecting flight from Portland and could have risked the whole operation if that flight happened to be late----What makes this all the more interesting is when one considers the fact that Atta and crew were already in boston on Sept 10 where they rented a car and drove to Portland....The only explanation for beginning their journey in Portland would be to give the impression of being on the hijacked plane: the AA11 flight departing from Boston...and they could now pass off the video of Atta in Portland as being recorded at Boston's Logan's security checkpoint. We all assumed that the hijackers boarded their connecting flight in Boston because they had purchased tickets and because of the video in Portland being passed off as Logan Airport......However the lack of video from Logan Airport and the extremely bizarre data uploaded from the black boxes, (no serial numbers, different flight path, cockpit door never opening, data uploaded 4 hours before black box was found) all which contradict the official story, only adds weight to notion of the planes in the attacks having been military drones. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that those 4 airliners were hijacked and flown into the buildings..
 
Last edited:

NoTech64

Member
The video of Atta passing through security is NOT from Boston's Logan Airport. The only video that exists of Atta passing security comes from the airport in Portland, Maine. I find it extremely suspicious that an international airport like Logan did not have cameras but a much smaller airport in Portland did. Adding to the mystery is the fact that they took a connecting flight from Portland and could have risked the whole operation if that flight happened to be late----What makes this all the more interesting is when one considers the fact that Atta and crew were already in boston on Sept 10 where they rented a car and drove to Portland....The only explanation for beginning their journey in Portland would be to give the impression of being on the hijacked plane: the AA11 flight departing from Boston...and they could now pass off the video of Atta in Portland as being recorded at Boston's Logan's security checkpoint. We all assumed that the hijackers boarded their connecting flight in Boston because they had purchased tickets and because of the video in Portland being passed off as Logan Airport......However the lack of video from Logan Airport and the extremely bizarre data uploaded from the black boxes, (no serial numbers, different flight path, cockpit door never opening, data uploaded 4 hours before black box was found) all which contradict the official story, only adds weight to notion of the planes in the attacks having been military drones. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that those 4 airliners were hijacked and flown into the buildings..
How do you account for the recording of Atta from the cockpit of Flight 11, 22 minutes before it hit WTC? "We have some planes. Just stay quiet and we'll be ok. We are returning to the airport" "nobody move everything will be ok" "if you try to make any moves, you will injure yourself and the airplane, just stay quiet"

How do you account for the Naudet Brothers video of Flight 11 being flown into the North Tower?

If the suicidal Al Qaeda jihadist filmed at Portland, catching a flight to Logan, where Flight 11 was hijacked and flown into the North Tower, didn't do it, who are you suggesting did do it?
If you're suggesting Flight 11 wasn't hijacked, how do you account for Betty Ong flight attandant's conversation with air traffic control, she says "the cockpit's not answering, somebody's stabbed in business class and I think there's mace that we can't breath, I don't know I think we're getting hijacked"
How do you account for the video tape evidence of the hijackers at Dulles Airport, setting off metal detectors, before they hijacked Flight 77.
Where are all the passengers and flight crew of these planes?
How do you account for the 600lbs of human remains, recovered from the crash site at Shanksville?
How do you account for air traffic control's recording from Flight 93, where someone can be heard shouting "we're all going to die here"
How do you account for the cockpit voice recorder in Flight 93, that captured the event and was played to the jury in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui on April 12th 2006?
 
Last edited:

NoTech64

Member
The video of Atta passing through security is NOT from Boston's Logan Airport. The only video that exists of Atta passing security comes from the airport in Portland, Maine. I find it extremely suspicious that an international airport like Logan did not have cameras but a much smaller airport in Portland did. Adding to the mystery is the fact that they took a connecting flight from Portland and could have risked the whole operation if that flight happened to be late----What makes this all the more interesting is when one considers the fact that Atta and crew were already in boston on Sept 10 where they rented a car and drove to Portland....The only explanation for beginning their journey in Portland would be to give the impression of being on the hijacked plane: the AA11 flight departing from Boston...and they could now pass off the video of Atta in Portland as being recorded at Boston's Logan's security checkpoint. We all assumed that the hijackers boarded their connecting flight in Boston because they had purchased tickets and because of the video in Portland being passed off as Logan Airport......However the lack of video from Logan Airport and the extremely bizarre data uploaded from the black boxes, (no serial numbers, different flight path, cockpit door never opening, data uploaded 4 hours before black box was found) all which contradict the official story, only adds weight to notion of the planes in the attacks having been military drones. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that those 4 airliners were hijacked and flown into the buildings..
Which plane had its data uploaded 4 hours before its black box was found?
Where do I find evidence of military drones being used?
Why was a plethora of airplane parts found at all three locations, but not one piece of a military drone?
 
Last edited:

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
... There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that those 4 airliners were hijacked and flown into the buildings..
There is literally tons of evidence four airliners were stolen and used as kinetic energy weapons by faking four hijackings.
RADAR data tracking all four planes from take off to impact. This is easy to find from NTSB sources so I will not waste time giving URLs, it is easy to find. Not only NTSB summaries, but many people have the raw Radar data and have decoded it so to speak, and plotted the data; Even 9/11 truth fantasy inside job people have plotted the data and made up silly claims of swapped planes,etc. Radar data proves it was Flight 11, 175, 93, and 77; these are the facts and they have never been refuted.
FDR for 77 and 93 found where 77 and 93 were crashed on purpose by terrorists - facts in evidence, never refuted.
DNA in NYC, Pentagon, PA are from terrorists who boarded the flights; relatives of the murderers have failed to come forward and claim their kin. Not sure how many terrorist DNA was found in NYC, it is a fact too, it can be researched; the DNA for all passengers except the small boy was recovered at the Pentagon, and PA. Facts, which are evidence 77 and 93 crashed; evidence not refuted.
There are only four planes missing on 9/11, and each of theses planes was seen before crashing where they crashed, and this seeing by witnesses matches the exact time as Radar proves all four flights hit.

Zero evidence was found in the past 14 years for military drones; Which military drones do you know can hold 10,000 gallons, that is 66,000 pounds of jet fuel to make the jet fuel fireballs? Which military drones can hit with 2000 pounds of TNT in kinetic energy? Where is the math to match the kinetic energy damage for the claim of a military drone? Where is the evidence four military drones are missing?

The cockpit door sensor was not hooked up... just a note on other stuff 9/11 truth has claim based on lack of knowledge.

What is the serial number stuff? What is the difference between release of information on a crime vs an NTSB investigation into a accident? Who is up to speed on the legal aspects of crime vs NTSB accidents. All the crashes on 9/11 were crimes, thus the NTSB products are not standard NTSB release rules for accidents, but evidence and products requested by the FBI for investigation into crime.

The FDR for 77 and 93 included 24 to 25 hours of flights which match exactly where the aircraft were - the FDR for 77 and 93 prove they were passengers jets, along with DNA. The point is, access to the raw FDR data is available, and was gains also by 9/11 truth groups who tired to twist the data and make up false claims. Data for many flights; how can anyone ignore the data? Refuting the DNA and FDR evidence is the stuff for the biggest Pulitzer since Watergate - and no one can refute the data, DNA, and aircraft parts.

How do 9/11 truth groups refute the DNA? Where is the inside job scenario explained which covers how many people are in on the military drone, fake Radar, fake DNA, fake witnesses, Fake video, fake aircraft parts, and fake passengers? How can anyone claim military drone and ignore the tons of evidence? Where is the detailed inside job story?

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/
Some of the NTSB data - other sources have the raw data from Radar and FDR - FOIA requests years ago got the data, and no one has refuted it. Can anyone?
http://www.ntsb.gov/about/Documents/Flight_Path_Study_UA93.pdf
There is a speed study which matches the video of 11 and 175... I would post the location, but since the NTSB did it for the FBI, some have the FOIA for DCA01MA063, and even the source for your cockpit door never opened, pilots for truth have the study on their web site , "Radar Data Impact Speed Study, Feb 7, 2002", and the 9/11 truth groups use this data to imply false claims. Ironically, reports and data collected by 9/11 truth groups refute their claims.
 

cjnewson88

Member
The video of Atta passing through security is NOT from Boston's Logan Airport.
We already know this.

I find it extremely suspicious that an international airport like Logan did not have cameras
Who says Boston didn't have any cameras? You mean, because you can't find them on google or youtube they must have therefore had none? What would give you the right to have access to private security footage?

Why are conspiracy theorists the only people I know who think that all material must be available on the internet or it never happened?

The only explanation for beginning their journey in Portland would be to give the impression of being on the hijacked plane
Nonsense and completely unnecessary. There have been plenty of reasons for Atta's trip to Portland, but only one which makes any real sense. They cocked up. Simple. They were never supposed to go to Portland. Someone cocked up badly and it almost ruined the entire plot.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Debunked: MH370: Daily Mail claims new sonar images indicate aircraft debris Flight MH370 3
Rico Debunked: Dane Wigington's Undeniable Footage of Jet Aircraft Spraying [Aerodynamic Contrails] Contrails and Chemtrails 42
TWCobra Max Bliss debunked-Aircraft engine oil systems used to dispense Chemtrail chemicals Contrails and Chemtrails 0
TWCobra Wigington/Max Bliss Debunked. Automated Chemtrail dispersal Commercial aircraft Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
derrick06 Debunked: United Nations creates a "NWO" website Conspiracy Theories 2
N Debunked: Google Mail icon shows linkage to Freemasons Conspiracy Theories 4
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mendel Debunked: Radar Waves Affect Clouds General Discussion 0
Pumpernickel Need Debunking: Foucault's Pendulum debunked through Mach's principle (the Earth is a static object in the center of the Universe) Science and Pseudoscience 16
M Ufos arrive to the central zone of Chile. (Debunked). Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
H Debunked: Cadillac Mountain from 220 miles Flat Earth 7
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Mick West Debunked: DoD prepares for martial law in CONUS: Conspiracy Theories 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
A Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
Greylandra Debunked: media headline "Judea declares war on Germany" [boycott] Conspiracy Theories 20
Mick West Discovery Channel's "Contact: Declassified Breakthrough" was debunked 2.5 years ago UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
A Debunked : Fake Set Moon Landing with TV Camera and Stairs Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: Photo with Sun Rays at Odd Angles Flat Earth 0
Staffan Debunked: Wikileaks releases unused footage of moon landing (Capricorn One movie scenes) Conspiracy Theories 2
Mick West Debunked: Neil deGrasse Tyson : "That Stuff is Flat" Flat Earth 10
Mendel Debunked: Air Map of the World 1945 is a flat Earth map Flat Earth 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Trees being cut down "because they block 5G" (tree replacement in Belgium) 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 44
deirdre Debunked: Exemption from military service doc proves Jews had foreknowledge of WW2 (fake leaflet) General Discussion 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Obama called Michelle "Michael" in a speech. (Referring to Michael Mullen Jr) Quotes Debunked 0
Rory Debunked: 120-mile shot of San Jacinto proves flat earth Flat Earth 39
Rory Debunked: The Lunar Cycle affects birth rates Health and Quackery 26
Rory Debunked: Study shows link between menstrual cycle and the moon Health and Quackery 30
novatron Debunked: California Wildfires Match the Exactly Path of the Proposed Rail System Wildfires 3
Rory Debunked: "You must love yourself before you love another" - fake Buddha quote Quotes Debunked 7
W Debunked: Qanon claims there have been 51k sealed indictments filed this year. Current Events 11
K Debunked: Audio of David Rockefeller "leaked" speech in 1991 [Audio Simulation] General Discussion 2
tadaaa Debunked: Fake photos-Novichok attack Russian 'agents' (side by side gates) General Discussion 34
Mick West Debunked: XYO Device Replacing GPS, Saving $2 Million a Day General Discussion 23
Mick West Debunked: "Tip Top" as a QAnon Clue from Trump [He's said it before] Conspiracy Theories 3
Whitebeard Debunked: Nibiru FOUND? Mysterious gigantic rogue planet spotted lurking outside our solar system Science and Pseudoscience 1
Mick West Debunked: "There Exists a Shadowy Government" — Daniel Inouye Quotes Debunked 0
Mick West Debunked: Delta Lambda Compression General Discussion 16
MisterB Debunked: Isle of Man from Blackpool at water level proves flat earth [refraction] Flat Earth 19
JFDee Debunked: Wernher von Braun confirmed that rockets can't leave earth Conspiracy Theories 23
Mick West Debunked: Missing $21 Trillion / $6.5 Trillion / $2.3 Trillion - Journal Vouchers Conspiracy Theories 33
MikeG Debunked: Obamacare Article 54 (Satire FB Page) General Discussion 2
Mick West Debunked: "Deadly Ultraviolet UV-C and UV-B Penetration to Earth’s Surface:" [Stray Light] Contrails and Chemtrails 30
Astro Debunked: Apollo Lunar Module Hatch Too Small for Spacesuit Science and Pseudoscience 0
Mick West Debunked: NIST's Lack of Explanation for WTC7 Freefall [They Have One - Column Buckling] 9/11 38
Jedo Debunked: WTC7 was the only building not on the WTC block that had a fire on 9/11 9/11 0
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top