|
Post by gillianren on Jan 23, 2010 0:22:32 GMT -4
You know, you might be treated a little better if, you know, you didn't start by saying it's impossible and then show that you didn't know what you're talking about when you did. Asking questions politely is the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jan 23, 2010 0:28:33 GMT -4
Was it turned off in flight 77Ok . Can it be turned off with a modification to the computer program ? I don't know but if this was the case you'll need to explain how, with the cockpit door shut the whole time of course, the pilots were rendered unconscious between their last radio transmission and the transponder being turned off 5-some minutes later. Wait, it gets even better - the plane changed course about 3 minutes after the last radio contact, 2 minutes prior to the loss of the transponder signal. So now you have 2 things to explain: how the pilots were rendered unconscious, Gas That is not important than the two actions were synchronised.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jan 23, 2010 0:38:54 GMT -4
You know, you might be treated a little better if, you know, you didn't start by saying it's impossible and then show that you didn't know what you're talking about when you did. Asking questions politely is the way to go. I say some posts ago than I was looking for some hints. And I was very polite.Go read my posts.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jan 23, 2010 3:02:33 GMT -4
You appear to be inventing to fit your premiss? You mention a nugget with reference to the door but its an albatross for the proponent.
How about this, some hijackers got on board and did bad things.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jan 23, 2010 3:08:58 GMT -4
You appear to be inventing to fit your premiss? You mention a nugget with reference to the door but its an albatross for the proponent. How about this, some hijackers got on board and did bad things. That is obviously an interesting possibility too.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 23, 2010 3:27:54 GMT -4
That is not an explanation, that is a suggestion plucked from thin air. Believe it or not, unlike spaceships in sci-fi films, aircraft are not fitted with a means of pumping a gas other than the air supply into the cabin. To do that would require some pretty serious modification. Actually, it is. If the scenario you are suggesting is true then someone has to have pre-programmed the onboard computer. If I was doing that I would set it to turn off the transponder before I deviated from the flight plan, so as not to arouse as much suspicion. It makes no sense to change course and let the ground controllers see that I have done so for a full two minutes prior to switching off their main means of identifying the plane. Now you could argue that the hijackers should have done the same thing, but once you actually make the events 'live action' the possibility of mistakes and less sensible actions makes sense., as the 'heat of the moment' has its affect on proceedings. It does not make as much sense if you assume someone calmly and coolly pre-set all the events on the ground some time before the flight left. However, it seems that you are simply grasping at straws trying to invent scenarios that are irrelevant since the original premise, that the door was never opened because the FDR said so, has now been shown to be wrong anyway.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jan 23, 2010 3:37:17 GMT -4
You appear to be inventing to fit your premiss? You mention a nugget with reference to the door but its an albatross for the proponent. How about this, some hijackers got on board and did bad things. That is obviously an interesting possibility too. OK. Possibility? Probable given the evidence to the point of certainty. The door evidence foul up is another example of the quality of research and it is almost embarrassing watching certain quarters cling to it. I think that when the data was initially seen, certain people probably though they had hit the jackpot and rushed off to herald to the world that it was impossible. But like the lottery ticket holder that thought they had a winner that had read the last few numbers incorrectly, the house of cards came tumbling down. All that was needed was a bit more restraint and checking. Huge foot in mouth moment was avoidable. And a sad indictment to the quality of research. Same foot in mouth that you trumpeted on here. What next? Back to the facts as they appear. Hijackers got on board and did some bad things.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 23, 2010 5:17:40 GMT -4
I say some posts ago than I was looking for some hints. And I was very polite.Go read my posts. Why? You haven't been bothering with anything you don't want to see. For example, that the title of your thread is pretty blatant even though it's obvious that you were wrong about some important things--as was your source, which doubtless you will quote about the next thing they say makes the hijacking "impossible."
|
|
|
Post by archer17 on Jan 23, 2010 14:14:03 GMT -4
Yeah, sure. Your agency rigs all this and hands you a closed cockpit door on a platter. Putting aside the issue of whether this Matt Helm kinda fantasy could actually be done, what kind of gas would incapacitate the pilots from one second to the next where they couldn't even use their radio? That is not important than the two actions were synchronised. It's not important that a transponder is allowed to function two minutes after a course change?!? What kind of Mickey Mouse cabal are you trying to sell here? First the cockpit door issue eludes them and now this? I'm really finding it hard to take you seriously. First you hitch your wagon to a especially lame truther claim that never really got off the ground (pun intended) because even most truthers see the idiocy of a cockpit door never opening during multiple flights, go on to demonstrate that you aren't even familiar with the time-line and particulars of this hijack, and then pull a rogue computer and knockout gas out of your butt. That doesn't exactly come across as an innocent attempt to "gain some hints."
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jan 23, 2010 16:02:29 GMT -4
That is not an explanation, that is a suggestion plucked from thin air. Believe it or not, unlike spaceships in sci-fi films, aircraft are not fitted with a means of pumping a gas other than the air supply into the cabin. To do that would require some pretty serious modification. I was thinking about a bottle of gas hided in the pilot cabin air arrival with a dispositif set for liberating the gas . Actually, it is. If the scenario you are suggesting is true then someone has to have pre-programmed the onboard computer. If I was doing that I would set it to turn off the transponder before I deviated from the flight plan, so as not to arouse as much suspicion. It makes no sense to change course and let the ground controllers see that I have done so for a full two minutes prior to switching off their main means of identifying the plane. Both action will alert ground controllers. Remember than on that day they have exercise implying simulation of hijacking planes. So when they observed something going wrong they were confuse if the planes were part of that simulation or not. However, it seems that you are simply grasping at straws trying to invent scenarios that are irrelevant since the original premise, that the door was never opened because the FDR said so, has now been shown to be wrong anyway. [/quote] I was just replying to the question.I dont want opening a new thread about my hypothetical scenario. I agree than we dont know if the door was opened or not at some point in the fly.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 23, 2010 19:28:53 GMT -4
I was thinking about a bottle of gas hided in the pilot cabin air arrival with a dispositif set for liberating the gas . So you've just added an extra couple of layers of complexity to your scenario. What gas would you use? The cockpit isn't large. Where would you hide it? How would you ensure enough could be liberated to incapacitate the crew before someone on the plane traced the source and shut it off, or alerted ground control? If you shut down the transponder while still on the same course it could be a technical fault. If you change course while still carrying an active transponder then shut it down no-one will mistake that for a technical fault. Then a hijack still remains the most probable explanation, and the only one for which there is any evidence. Anything else is guesswork.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jan 24, 2010 2:18:11 GMT -4
I was thinking about a bottle of gas hided in the pilot cabin air arrival with a dispositif set for liberating the gas . So you've just added an extra couple of layers of complexity to your scenario. What gas would you use? Carbon monoxide The cockpit isn't large. Where would you hide it? Hided Inside the air intake canalisation of the pilot cabin. How would you ensure enough could be liberated to incapacitate the crew before someone on the plane traced the source and shut it off, or alerted ground control? Here an incident which show how insidious the Carbon monoxide effect is... www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/759562/Is-cabin-air-making-us-sick.htmlnote that excerpt "He managed to land, but said later that if he had delayed by seconds going on to oxygen the plane would have crashed. " If you shut down the transponder while still on the same course it could be a technical fault. If you change course while still carrying an active transponder then shut it down no-one will mistake that for a technical fault. You forget that part of my reply. Remember than on that day they have an exercise implying the simulation of hijacking planes. So when they observed something going wrong they were confuse if the planes were part of that simulation or not.Then a hijack still remains the most probable explanation, My scenario can still work. and the only one for which there is any evidence. Anything else is guesswork. There is still something to take into consideration. It would be interesting to know if the autopilot datas correspond to the original flight path ?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 24, 2010 6:58:28 GMT -4
You have only to look at the flight path traces to see that your autopilot theory fails. Before the hijack it is a nice smooth path, what you would expect from a professional pilot. You would expect a similar smooth path with the autopilot, but what you get after the hijack is a much wobblier path, which is what you'd expect of an inexperienced pilot at the controls.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 24, 2010 7:02:03 GMT -4
Carbon monoxide Hided Inside the air intake canalisation of the pilot cabin. Who would hide it, when, and how would they avoid detection? I am well aware of the effects of carbon monoxide. I happen to be a biochemist. I didn't forget that at all. My point was that simply turning off the transponder first would be more likely to be interpreted as a simple technical fault. The confusion about the simulation would then become irrelevant. Simpler solutions are always best. For some reason conspiracists prefer absurdly complex scenarios. You have yet to demonstrate that, beyond your own hypotheses based on very little understanding of actual aircraft or procedures involved in preparing one for flight. It would be very interesting to know if you have any actual evidence at all for any alternative scenario from the hijack story. Why do you seem so determined to find evidence that something other than a hijack and suicide crash by muslim extremists was involved?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 24, 2010 16:06:47 GMT -4
You know, even if there were a scenario involving a hijacked plane, isn't it kind of dumb to use a real plane in your simulation? Also, I thought it had been established that the "simulation" was something totally different which could not possibly have created real confusion about the events in question for more than a few seconds. I don't really feel like looking it up, though.
|
|