Hoodwinked at Shanksville - 'Back in Black boxes'

Were Flight 93's alleged black boxes planted? I think so...

Google Video Link

[edit on 12-3-2007 by Killtown]

[edit on 12-3-2007 by Killtown]

I feel a FOIA request coming on for the maintenance records..... not from UA, but from Allied-Signal/Honeywell, supplying the maintenance company that changed the CVR on that aircraft (if indeed it was replaced).

All CVRs/FDRs have traceable serial numbers.

Great video!

[edit on 12-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Just another "Shock Doc" rehashing the same old crap fallacies.


The whole "truth movement" propaganda campaign is beginning to look like a retarded Amway -- without the cleaning products.

Same crap--different day. Hey Killtown. How long until that stinker gets pulled due to copyright enfringement? I dobt Dave Navarro or AC/DC wants anything to do with your twisted views of reality.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
I feel a FOIA request coming on for the maintenance records..... not from UA, but from Allied-Signal/Honeywell, supplying the maintenance company that changed the CVR on that aircraft (if indeed it was replaced).

All CVRs/FDRs have traceable serial numbers.

Great video!

Thanks!

Yes, they will be forced to say the CVR had a "malfunction" sometime between '99 and '01.

Originally posted by Killtown

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
I feel a FOIA request coming on for the maintenance records..... not from UA, but from Allied-Signal/Honeywell, supplying the maintenance company that changed the CVR on that aircraft (if indeed it was replaced).

All CVRs/FDRs have traceable serial numbers.

Great video!

Thanks!

Yes, they will be forced to say the CVR had a "malfunction" sometime between '99 and '01.

"OnlyStL" did the research YOU should have done Killtown. His findings are quoted below:

I found some mandatory changes in the fdr that were placed on all commercial aircraft..

QUOTE
In late 1997 the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) adopted a change requiring an increase in the number of recorded signals for flight data recorders (FDR). This rule change will affect many airplanes that operate under FAA rules, including all airplanes registered in the United States and those in other countries where regulatory authorities use the FAA rules as their own. Boeing is prepared to help operators meet the requirements of the rule change by its effective date, which varies according to each airplane's date of manufacture.


QUOTE
AIRPLANES MANUFACTURED AFTER OCTOBER 11, 1991.
The 34 required parameter groups for this category are all recorded, with a few exceptions (some of the required recording rates are not met for flight control surface positions, flight control inputs, or both). The rule gives operators until August 18, 2001, to comply. Since the rule became effective August 18, 1997, the FDR system changes required for airplanes manufactured after August 18, 2000, will affect only new production. The new-production part of the rule changes require 57 parameter groups to be recorded by August 18, 2001, and 88 parameter groups by August 18, 2002.


QUOTE
757S AND 767S MANUFACTURED BEFORE AUGUST 18, 2000 (PRODUCTION CUT-IN OF 57/88 PARAMETER GROUPS).
These models will need a new FDR frame and incorporation of the service bulletins for correction of EICAS filtering of flight control data resulting from PRR 54727 (757) and PRR B12710 (767). Boeing is working with its FDAU suppliers to develop a common data frame across all Boeing models.


My interpretation is that in order to comply with FAA new FDRs were to be installed by the August 2001 deadline...However, I believe (stated in previous post) that fdr and cvr are routinely replaced as part of preventive maintenance programs for commercial aircraft...

Your lack of even TRYING to find the TRUTH is what is wrong with this goofy propaganda you are trying to push on the ignorant.

I'd like to highlight something with those sources GwionX - the CVR is what is open to debate, not the FDR. Your sources are referring to the FDR, which in the above video is identified as an "Allied-Signal". It is the CVR that is the problem, being a Honeywell unit in the official photos, where it should be an Allied-Signal unit.

I think a FOIA request is definitely required here.

Please note carefully that I'm open to this going either way (either supporting the official story or blowing it apart). At this point, there is a LOT of bad information in the official report; so much so, that there HAS to be something going on. Ask yourself this: if it really did happen as the official report states, then why does the official report not stand up to close scrutiny?

I don't usually believe in CTs, but this one goes beyond CT in the events that have occurred. It is only a CT if you are seeing things you want to see. If however, you look closer and find that things are indeed out of place, then the question has to be asked: WHY? To answer the WHY, you have to get to the HOW. HOW did the BBC live archives get pulled so quickly (and indeed, other archives within hours)? Answer that, and you have the WHO, which leads to the WHY.

If there are more questions than answers at the end of an investigation, something was fabricated.

[edit on 13-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 13-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
I'd like to highlight something with those sources GwionX - the CVR is what is open to debate, not the FDR. Your sources are referring to the FDR, which in the above video is identified as an "Allied-Signal". It is the CVR that is the problem, being a Honeywell unit in the official photos, where it should be an Allied-Signal unit.

I think a FOIA request is definitely required here.

Please note carefully that I'm open to this going either way (either supporting the official story or blowing it apart). At this point, there is a LOT of bad information in the official report; so much so, that there HAS to be something going on. Ask yourself this: if it really did happen as the official report states, then why does the official report not stand up to close scrutiny?

I don't usually believe in CTs, but this one goes beyond CT in the events that have occurred. It is only a CT if you are seeing things you want to see. If however, you look closer and find that things are indeed out of place, then the question has to be asked: WHY? To answer the WHY, you have to get to the HOW. HOW did the BBC live archives get pulled so quickly (and indeed, other archives within hours)? Answer that, and you have the WHO, which leads to the WHY.

If there are more questions than answers at the end of an investigation, something was fabricated.

[edit on 13-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 13-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

GwionX should go get some ice. Because he just recieved a wicked burn!

Nice post mirageofdeceit

It's always nice to see these know-it-alls put into their place. They should also quit calling others ignorant because they don't agree with their opinion of something. That's what would be considered ignorant actually.

So does anybody still believe the black boxes WEREN'T planted, regardless if the one of them was changed out w/ a Honeywell before 9/1?

Need to make a few FOIA requests to get maintenance records for the CVR (but not from UA) before we can be 100%, but I'd say it is very likely they were, yes. Why? The lack of wide angle shots showing an overview of the site, that's why. Excavated or not, they'd have to demonstrate where they came from (in the ground) prior to removal. As they are in the tail, it highlights where the tail is (was), too.

As you highlighted: those shots could have been anywhere, which is why you photograph the subject (the CVR in this instance) with the landscape in clear view in the background, to put context to the photo and the location of the box.

If (I'm, at least) to be convinced that is genuine, show me it before it was moved from where it was found, with the location clearly visible in the background. People even do that on archaeological digs.

Anyone remember how the families weren't (initially) allowed to listen to the audio, they could only read transcripts?? Why was that? When were they first allowed to hear it? Why was the decision changed? Why was it initially refused?

[edit on 14-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceitThe lack of wide angle shots showing an overview of the site, that's why. Excavated or not, they'd have to demonstrate where they came from (in the ground) prior to removal. As they are in the tail, it highlights where the tail is (was), too.

Yes, and I forgot to illustrate this point better. We only saw zoomed in shots to prevent seeing the surrounding. And I've never seen BB photos zoomed in like that from another crash.

Originally posted by GwionX
Just another "Shock Doc" rehashing the same old crap fallacies.


The whole "truth movement" propaganda campaign is beginning to look like a retarded Amway -- without the cleaning products.

Same crap--different day. Hey Killtown. How long until that stinker gets pulled due to copyright enfringement? I dobt Dave Navarro or AC/DC wants anything to do with your twisted views of reality.

Talking of twisted views, tell me how can people believe the official story when they have no hard evidence or official reports to support it.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Totally agree.

A quick bump to say "the video is broken" and to add a link to this:

flight93photo.blogspot.com...

The 8th photo down is the most credible of them all. If THAT had been the "original" photo, it would have certain been a LOT harder to refute IMHO, as it is just so more convincing (and what I would have expected to see to begin with).

I like this one though for its effect:



[edit on 19-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by GwionX

Your lack of even TRYING to find the TRUTH is what is wrong with this goofy propaganda you are trying to push on the ignorant.

Gwion... now that your point has been refuted, do you have any comment or explanation for the Honeywell CVR that was allegedly found in the Flight 93 crater?

Also... do I have permission to paraphrase your quote in the future? I don't want to get shut down for copyright violations or anything...

"The government's lack of even TRYING to find the TRUTH is what is wrong with this goofy propaganda thay're trying to push on the ignorant."

It has a nice ring to it...

Hats off to ya.
Great video.

Ummm......flight 93 was shot down in PA.

Just because the 'powers that be' do not want John Q. Public to know does not mean 9/11 was a Government conspiracy.

It is an extremely difficult decision whether to tell the American people that Washington felt there was a large enough threat to the Capitol to shot the plane down. It has to be one of the hardest decisions a President can make. The truth will eventually come out........it will be my generations JKF truth (which is to be released in 2025 when most from that time are dead).

What do you mean? What is difficult about telling the truth? If what your saying is true and the government story is a lie about the crash of flight 93, they are responsible for telling the American Public the truth!!! In no way is there actions justified, by not telling the truth!!!! That is truly sad that you believe it is ok for your government to lie.

Originally posted by ferretman2
Ummm......flight 93 was shot down in PA.

Does this mean the entire cockpit voice recorder transcript is fake?

Originally posted by ferretman2
Ummm......flight 93 was shot down in PA.

Sources/evidence??? You appear to be rather certain of this.

I've expained why I believe in numerous threads since 9/11. I'll do a quick paraphasing:

I was ~4 blocks from the towers on 9/11 and watched the events of that day unfold from my office window. I did not see the first plane hit but it shook our entire building, unfortunately I did see the second plane hit as well as a bunch of other images I'd rather forget. I had an employee who had a brother in MI. During the ensuing chaos and aftermath, when people were trying to get in tough with family members my employee received a phone call from his brother, at that point his brother mentioned flt 93 being shot down. I believe it only because of the timing, with all the chaos going on for that little bit of truth to 'slip' out.

As far as not telling the American people the truth, the Government would of admitted that they were caught with their pants down......eventhough it appears that way anyway.

Originally posted by ferretman2
my employee received a phone call from his brother, at that point his brother mentioned flt 93 being shot down. I believe it only because of the timing, with all the chaos going on for that little bit of truth to 'slip' out.

What does your employee's brother do? I mean for you to say that little bit of truth "slipped" out, you'd have to be talking about Rumsfeld or someone. If he is a Joe Schmoe, then why was his little "slip" enough for you to believe? Confused here.

As far as not telling the American people the truth, the Government would of admitted that they were caught with their pants down......eventhough it appears that way anyway.

Isn't that what the excuse is already? What's one more inneptness going to do to the pile already?