Explosives aboard U.S.-bound cargo jets spark global terror alert

[hobanse]

2000 architectural and engineering professionals can not be wrong

http://ae911truth.org/en.html

[Tigs]

geriatrickid

Do you want to take a deep breath and think it through? I provided a timeline. This situation goes back to September. There is now good reason to believe that the mysterious explosion and fire on board the UPS plane out of Dubai may have been a bomb.

... NORAD responded as best it could,and the first 2 US fighter jets to arrive on scene were too late.

Very nice of you! Who are you?

Tell me what is the good reason to believe there was a bomb on board the UPS Flight? And then tell my why someone went to all that trouble and did not as always claim responsibility to get world coverage of their cause?

re NORAD No it didn't.

And do you know why they were too late?

The US government has not been claiming that Osama lives in a cave!

He most likely is living in a Pakistani village. Keep in mind that Osama has diabetes. He has to take care of his health and cave dwelling would kill him. Nor do I think that any of his 5 wives and 20 or so children fancy living in a cave.

Yes they have.

No he is not. The president of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto said quite clearly in an interview with David Frost that Osama Bin laden had been murdered. She was then assassinated 1 month later. The BBC (bless there honest reporting socks!) edited out the comment from the BBC interivew and the unedited version remains on youtube.today, but not on the BBC one. You would have thought with such a scoop the BBC would have gone wild with excitement rather than edit it out. Furthermore, so you now believe that if he is not in a cave he has a family of 25 following him around, all women and children, and he still evades detection from the country with the best intelligence resources in the world.

You need to re-read the 'time-line of events' concerning the aircraft on 9/11 before you make your comments.

chukd

With the transponders turned off, the hijacked aircraft became virtually invisible to the flight controllers.

Can you explain why you think the aircraft would become virtually invisible without the transponder please? I am sure the researchers at the major defence companies would also like to know as it would save hundreds of billions developing stealth technology.

H2oDunc

If I recall correctly the excuse they used at the time was the were in fact holding exercises which dealt with just this scenario ?

Indeed they were, quite funny as well that during the London Bombings on 7/7 the authorities there were also holding an exercise on that day at that time with exactly the same scenario, even down to the same train stations and bus routes. It caused no end of chaos with delaying emergency services, just as on 9/11. Now I am not saying anything but I bet you think that is just a bit odd as well don't you? I am sure geriatrickid and ulysees think nothing of it.

[Tigs]

geriatrickid

Would you also care to give comment and your truthful analysis on both the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and particularly the USS Liberty.

here is just something to get your teeth in to with the USS Liberty.

A former Navy attorney who helped lead the military investigation of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 American servicemen says former President Lyndon Johnson and his defense secretary, Robert McNamara, ordered that the inquiry conclude the incident was an accident.

In a signed affidavit released at a Capitol Hill news conference, retired Capt. Ward Boston said Johnson and McNamara told those heading the Navy's inquiry to "conclude that the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."

I am sure for the rest, Google and youtube are your friends! I look forward to how you explain that neither incidents involved lies and deceptions to the American people by their own Government, let alone the world.

[chuckd]

chukd

With the transponders turned off, the hijacked aircraft became virtually invisible to the flight controllers.

Can you explain why you think the aircraft would become virtually invisible without the transponder please? I am sure the researchers at the major defence companies would also like to know as it would save hundreds of billions developing stealth technology.

A transponder serves the same function, basically, as an IFF system. I'm assuming you know what an IFF system is without Googleing it?

Anyway, moving rapidly forward, a transponder identifies a commercial aircraft with both the airline identifier code and the flight number which then shows up on a radar screen being monitored by an air traffic controller in an FAA control tower.

With the transponder turned off, the ATC only sees a blip on his screen and has no idea what aircraft the blip represents, thereby making that particular aircraft "virtually invisible". It's there but nobody knows who it is.

It ain't stealth technology at all. It's just takes some common sense to figure this one out.

[Ulysses G.]

geriatrickid

Would you also care to give comment and your truthful analysis on both the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and particularly the USS Liberty.

What does either incident have to do with the topic of this thread?

[Tigs]

chukd

With the transponders turned off, the hijacked aircraft became virtually invisible to the flight controllers.

Can you explain why you think the aircraft would become virtually invisible without the transponder please? I am sure the researchers at the major defence companies would also like to know as it would save hundreds of billions developing stealth technology.

A transponder serves the same function, basically, as an IFF system. I'm assuming you know what an IFF system is without Googleing it?

Anyway, moving rapidly forward, a transponder identifies a commercial aircraft with both the airline identifier code and the flight number which then shows up on a radar screen being monitored by an air traffic controller in an FAA control tower.

With the transponder turned off, the ATC only sees a blip on his screen and has no idea what aircraft the blip represents, thereby making that particular aircraft "virtually invisible". It's there but nobody knows who it is.

It ain't stealth technology at all. It's just takes some common sense to figure this one out.

Chukd

I was a military pilot for over 20 years. I am familiar with it all thanks. Your statement that the aircraft becomes virtually invisible is not true though is it, in fact it is very misleading (hence my dig about stealth!). The aircraft is still seen as a 'blip' as you call it on the screen. Certain information given by the transponder is not given but that is all. It becomes an unidentified aircraft/target. All that happens then is that fighters are vectored on to the targets, other radar systems are available that will give accurate speed and height data of the aircraft/target concerned. For seasoned controllers who can identify all the aircraft on the screen with the exception of a few, then you are not interested in the ones you can identify are you, as you are aware of the threat aircraft in that Transponders have been switched off. Any fighters sent up on Cap or intercept would have found and moved in on the transponderless aircraft very quickly.

If only they had been launched!

[rubl]

2000 architectural and engineering professionals can not be wrong

http://ae911truth.org/en.html

There are various reports (official/unofficial) which do explain why the twin towers and WTC-7 felt as they fell. Also documented by lots of professionals. All those people cannot be wrong, now can they?

Can I convince you? Probably not, in a way I couldn't care less either

[Tigs]

geriatrickid

Would you also care to give comment and your truthful analysis on both the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and particularly the USS Liberty.

What does either incident have to do with the topic of this thread?

How convenient for you to say such a thing Ulysses!

You seem to be forgetting that yourself and geriatrickid and a couple of other misguided people are calling other posters for always making the assumption that the US (or UK) governments are involved in conspiracy theories and false flag operations, yet there is more factual evidence available to display that the US have been involved with more false flag ops than we would imagine. Tonkin and Liberty are prime examples, and if the POTUS will ignore and hide the USS Liberty incident, what else would they do in order to gain political advantage. If you cannot see the relevance then perhaps you ought not to be shouting down those that clearly have a better understanding of world events than yourself.

Edited October 31, 2010 by Tigs

[Tigs]

2000 architectural and engineering professionals can not be wrong

http://ae911truth.org/en.html

There are various reports (official/unofficial) which do explain why the twin towers and WTC-7 felt as they fell. Also documented by lots of professionals. All those people cannot be wrong, now can they?

Can I convince you? Probably not, in a way I couldn't care less either

Rubi

You are not really the 'Wondering Type' then are you. You make the perfect citizen for those governments who wish to control populations. You just couldn't care less! One day the folly of your philosophy will become apparent to you.

By the way Rubi, can you link to one credible report that will explain how the twin towers fell and in particular WTC7. Seriously I would be really interested to read it, so would the Architects of the Twin Towers, who are amongst those professionals that say 'no way'.

Edited October 31, 2010 by Tigs

[Ulysses G.]

How convenient for you to say such a thing Ulysses!

The conspiracy nuts can never address a particular topic, so they always roll out some irrelevant straw-man dodge to hide the fact that they don't have a clue about what is being discussed.

Stick to the topic of the thread.

[chuckd]

chukd

With the transponders turned off, the hijacked aircraft became virtually invisible to the flight controllers.

Can you explain why you think the aircraft would become virtually invisible without the transponder please? I am sure the researchers at the major defence companies would also like to know as it would save hundreds of billions developing stealth technology.

A transponder serves the same function, basically, as an IFF system. I'm assuming you know what an IFF system is without Googleing it?

Anyway, moving rapidly forward, a transponder identifies a commercial aircraft with both the airline identifier code and the flight number which then shows up on a radar screen being monitored by an air traffic controller in an FAA control tower.

With the transponder turned off, the ATC only sees a blip on his screen and has no idea what aircraft the blip represents, thereby making that particular aircraft "virtually invisible". It's there but nobody knows who it is.

It ain't stealth technology at all. It's just takes some common sense to figure this one out.

Chukd

I was a military pilot for over 20 years. I am familiar with it all thanks. Your statement that the aircraft becomes virtually invisible is not true though is it, in fact it is very misleading (hence my dig about stealth!). The aircraft is still seen as a 'blip' as you call it on the screen. Certain information given by the transponder is not given but that is all. It becomes an unidentified aircraft/target. All that happens then is that fighters are vectored on to the targets, other radar systems are available that will give accurate speed and height data of the aircraft/target concerned. For seasoned controllers who can identify all the aircraft on the screen with the exception of a few, then you are not interested in the ones you can identify are you, as you are aware of the threat aircraft in that Transponders have been switched off. Any fighters sent up on Cap or intercept would have found and moved in on the transponderless aircraft very quickly.

If only they had been launched!

But they weren't, were they? The controllers didn't know the transponders had been turned off, nor did they know their altered flight plans. Ergo, the hijacked flights were "virtually invisible" since nobody knew where they were or what had happened to them.

Now, back on topic.....

[Ulysses G.]

can you link to one credible report that will explain how the twin towers fell

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

[cdnvic]

The US and Vietnam have both made nice after the war, now I suggest the rest of you drop it as it has nothing to do with the topic.

[Tigs]

How convenient for you to say such a thing Ulysses!

The conspiracy nuts can never address a particular topic, so they always roll out some irrelevant straw-man dodge to hide the fact that they don't have a clue about what is being discussed.

Stick to the topic of the thread.

I am not a conspiracy nut and i am addressing a specific topic. You are the one that is flaming people for their views, I am therefore, giving you information which would show that your flames are both unnecessary and childish, as evidence shows that the governments concerned have indeed been involved in false flag ops before, so why not this time?

It is interesting that the statement from the UK was that the device appeared sinister but was completely harmless, and then after Obama whipping up the pre election fear with his speech, the UK make another statement saying the device had explosives in! Funny that, they weren't in there at the time of the first statement, or did the expert just not see them then? They have (the UK Government) now tried to cover up the first statement and make the second more credible by issuing further confusion, namely. "It is now being admitted that first examinations overlooked the fact that it may have contained explosive material." So we are now asked to believe that the story has changed because a suspicious package was checked but it was not deemed necessary to check for explosives, yet they do explosive residue checks on passengers hand baggage going through security and this 'impounded' package, alerted via the top secret intelligence agencies no less was not worthy of the most basic check, allegedly!

It stinks so bad of bull sh*t you could be living in a cowshed.

[Tigs]

The US and Vietnam have both made nice after the war, now I suggest the rest of you drop it as it has nothing to do with the topic.

It is irrelevant whether they have made nice or not. There are posters on here flaming others for having the opinion that there is a lot more to this than meets the eye. The defence to such a flame is simple, the governments in question have planned sophisticated and some non sophisticated false flag operations in both the distant and recent past. Those false flag operations serve as a constant reminder that governments will and do try to deceive the public, something which those that choose to post pictures of tin foil hats should bear in mind. In terms of your moderation the comment concerning relevance is a valid one but I feel can be rightfully questioned and argued against both in terms of context of the subject matter and the flaming posts. The comment concerning 'making nice' is of absolutely zero relevance at all and perhaps what should be moderated out is the 'tin hat brigade' posters who yet again call everyone else simply because they do not conform (for very good reasons) to a set of government issued statements.

Edited October 31, 2010 by Tigs

[Tigs]

But they weren't, were they? The controllers didn't know the transponders had been turned off, nor did they know their altered flight plans. Ergo, the hijacked flights were "virtually invisible" since nobody knew where they were or what had happened to them.

Now, back on topic.....

You brought the subject up NOT me, so don't come the 'back on topic' routine. The aircraft were NOT virtually invisible on radar, they were visible. I suggest yet again, another read in is required for an accurate version of the course of events.

[Tigs]

can you link to one credible report that will explain how the twin towers fell

http://www.popularme...ry/news/1227842

Ulysses

The 'report' you link to at all is not a report at all and the site is a joke, in line with many of the 9/11 conspiracy sites it is a low class, ill written piece of garbage. Any technical report will do, a technical report backed by named civil engineers, Scientists and Specialists in the field of building collapse (or demolition).

[Richb2004v2]

Does it make you feel like you are special to have uncovered the conspiracy?

I prefer reality.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

I'm sure you won't let that stop you.

Bugger! I've been pipped to the post.

Edited October 31, 2010 by Richb2004v2

[geriatrickid]

Rather than open the door to nonsensical posts about 9-11 conspiracies, I recommend that those with questions read the transcripts and reports from the U.S. Congressional hearings. The failings on 9-11 were human failings. People make errors. It is important to differentiate between the fantasy command systems shownon TV and in the movies and the systems that are actually in place. For example, weather radar systems are out of date at the majority of North American airports. The air traffic control system in North America requires a multi billion dollar overhaul. Equipment does become obsolete overtime.

The cargo incidents are not inventions of U.S. or U.K. intelligence services. Note that the tip off came from the Saudis and the initial interdictions came from UAE authorities. There is an ongoing struggle in Yemen. Yemen has been having problems for the past decade and has clashed with Saudi Arabia. The last thing the USA or the UK needs is to have problems in another arab country, nor is there a desire to dispatch another expeditionary force. Again, I suggest that instead of looking to all sorts of complex conspiracy theories to explain away troubling events, that common sense be considered. The world is filled with bad people that do bad things. The suggestion that President Obama has invented these events is astounding. The events if anything serve to undermine his administration, not to bolster his popularity. It's like saying that when the Iranians seized the U.S. embassy and held hostages, the event was a plot by Jimmy Carter. The reality in that case was that the Iranian terrorism lost Carter the election.

Now, all Ithat is needed to make the thread complete is to have someone offer that the Israelis were behind this and that it's a jewish plot in conjunction with HM Queen Elizabeth II and of course the sinister Pope plotting for world domination from international world domination HQ at the Vatican.

[Ulysses G.]

Don't forget the Illuminati!

[Ulysses G.]

The 'report' you link to at all is not a report at all and the site is a joke

In other words, any report that denies your beliefs will be rejected.

[hobanse]

Don't forget the Illuminati!

and do not forget the US Gov. lies 2001

[Tigs]

The 'report' you link to at all is not a report at all and the site is a joke

In other words, any report that denies your beliefs will be rejected.

Ulysses

It is not a report is it? There is nothing Scientific about it, there is nothing of any Engineering note either. As I said, just like many of the 9/11 conspiracy sites that are filled with garbage and unsubstantiated claims, the 9/11 debunking site you link to is written by equally intellectually challenged individuals. Most of the 'facts' on the pages of the collapse of the WTC7 building are not 'facts' at all and are of the quality of "Mr Smitth a fireman said he had never seen melted steel inside any collapsed building before", and leaves it at that, but fails to say that steel structured buildings have NEVER collapsed in this manner ever before due to fire, no matter how bad the inferno. Therefore the facts which are not referenced are completely useless as they have not been 'tested' by scientific scrutiny. The 9/11 debunking site is as bad in it's selectiveness as the 9/11 conspiracy sites. I said a 'credible' report, based on scientific fact that is referenced correctly to authors, studies and engineering specialists. Just one credible scientific report Ulysses.

Bye the way Ulysses, I have no preconceived beliefs concerning this. I believe whatever the objective scientific evidence tells me. Too many questions remain unanswered for a definitive decision either way.

Edited October 31, 2010 by Tigs

[Tigs]

Ulysses

A slightly more intellectual approach, showing the very poor quality and shoddy arguments on the site you linked to. Makes interesting reading!

Debunking Popular mechanics

[Tigs]

Ulysses

Now realising I set you a hard task for quoting credible scientific papers then here are a few examples ALL peer reviewed by fellow PhD's and correctly and thoroughly referenced.. Great reading if you can spare the time. If you can't spare the time then you may never be able to consider the truth.

Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse Prof Steven Jones PhD

The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True By Prof David Ray Griffin, Ph.D.

Intersecting Facts and Theories on 9/11 Joe Firmage

Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an Inside Job Craig T. Furlong and Gordon Ross, Member, Scholars for 9/11 Truth - quite compelling!

These are all scientific and make compelling reading to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. Now do you have any similar papers that support the official version of events?

[cdnvic]

One post removed. Don't alter other people's quotes.

[Ulysses G.]

Debunking Popular mechanics

The loons would adamantly refute the theory that the wheel turns in a circle if a Conservative brought it up, but no one even bothers to debunk the silly "studies" that you have posted links to, as no one with any common sense would take them seriously.

Edited November 1, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[hobanse]

Stranges, a explosive devise without the sim card and the Saudi GIP let the 2 package take off.

No success: The Railway bomb plot in Germany, the shoe bomb plot, the car bomb plot and now the UPS plot.

Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death."

Edited November 1, 2010 by hobanse

[hobanse]

War propaganda.

[geriatrickid]

Ulysses

Now realising I set you a hard task for quoting credible scientific papers then here are a few examples ALL peer reviewed by fellow PhD's and correctly and thoroughly referenced.. Great reading if you can spare the time. If you can't spare the time then you may never be able to consider the truth.

Why Prof Steven Jones PhD

The Cannot Be True By Prof David Ray Griffin, Ph.D

Intersecting on 9/11 Joe Firmage

Seismic Job Craig T. Furlong and Gordon Ross, Member, Scholars for 9/11 Truth - quite compelling!

These are all scientific and make compelling reading to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. Now do you have any similar papers that support the official version of events?

No they are not "scientific". Look closely at the experience, history and qualifications of the authors. Take Steven Jones for example. He has zero knowledge in respect to civil engineering. And he has zero knowledge of construction material chemistry. His background is in physics. David Ray Griffin's background is religion and theology. etc. etc. I am not even going to get into their track record of of being shunned and laughed at by the science community. The reality is that all of the 9-11 conspiracy theoories are pushed by people that demonstrate one or more of the following attributes;

i) Have no experience in the civil engineering of large office towers.

ii) Have no demonstrable knowledge of the basic chemmical, and phyiscla principles that were involved.

iii) Do not have the educational qualifications to be able to properly assess and review the data.

iv) Have an existing record of aligning with concepts and ideas that are intended to attract personal attention or cause a commotion sand are not responsible positions.

v) Have an existing history of mental illness.

Having a PhD does not mean someone is all there in the head. I will gladly consider your position once it has been endorsed by one of the acceptable authorities on the subject such as the American Society of Engineers, or the American Academy of Science, or the American Soiciety of Architects or onne of their peer groups.

And your reference to peer reviews is crap. Having a bogus theory reviewed by another wacko does not mean it is peer reviewed, although the parties may be peers. Had one of your reports been reviewed by a credible association, then I wouldn't argue, but everything you have presented is built on bogus claims and lies.