David Ray Griffin's Position on 'Cell Phone Calls' Challenged Within Truth Movement

[A-Train]

David Ray Griffin's position that the phone calls were cell phone calls and therefore suspect is challenged here. Dylan Avery also takes a beating.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/16056

"Avery didn’t seem to have even considered the possibility that some or most of the calls were made on airphones, which is peculiar since, a few minutes later in the film, while describing Mark Bingham’s call to his mother from UAL93, he specifically mentions that Bingham twice told his mom that he was calling from an airphone. The damage to the truth movement by this oversight is incalculable. Was it truly an oversight, or something worse? Whatever it was, millions of 9/11 skeptics were induced from the beginning to reject all the phone call evidence, and the valuable information it contains regarding what happened on the planes. Avery seems to have tacitly admitted his assumption was wrong: Loose Change Final Cut contains no references to phone calls whatsoever. Why has Griffin decided to carry on such a dubious notion?"
"Why does Griffin want to turn away from this evidence by imagining that the calls were cell phone calls, and therefore presumably faked, when it is perfectly plausible that the calls were real, made on airphones, and draw a very different picture than the one promoted by the government?".........

"David Ray Griffin wants us to confront FBI officials, and ask them why the evidence they collected contradicts the “official” story of phone calls being made on cell phones as portrayed in the mass media and several Hollywood films. But we really ought to be asking questions of ourselves. Why have we allowed ourselves to be duped into rejecting such important evidence that comes to us first hand from honest people who talked to their loved ones on the flights?"

[fullflavormenthol]

I think the fact that every new incarnation of Loose Change is actually a subtraction and a revisionist attempt to remove past errors is a testament to how loose they are with the facts. Actually loose change is a great description for the film given that the only thing constant in it is that its always changing, and its loose with its facts.

[Horatius]

Eh:

Those of us who have studied the phone calls, however, have learned that none of the evidence reported in the calls implicates al-Qaeda, or any other other Arab group. While many of the passengers did indeed report hijackers who were “Middle Eastern looking,” that in no way implicates the alleged hijackers reported by the authorities, since the real hijackers may very likely have been posing as Arabs while carrying out the hijackings for the purpose of framing Arabs for the attacks.


Just more of the same from A-Train. Move along, move along....

[Pardalis]

So we're back to cell phones now?

The wheel keeps spinning.

[twinstead]

Not only were they non-Arabs impersonating hijackers, but they were obviously dirty JOOOOS impersonating hijackers.

[Bobert]

It really does seem that ANY DAY NOW the truth movement will finally blow the lid off of 9-11!!!!
All of you Bush loyalists will then have to have sex with a satanic goat as punishment!

[Horatius]

...as punishment!




Punishment?

[Bobert]

well one mans vinegar is another mans wine.

[zorro99]

Seems like the Truth Movement is becoming increasingly desperate, as they're turning upon each other.

[CHF]

Nice to see that twoofers are sloooowly starting to figure out that Avery and Griffin are complete frauds.

[HyJinX]

What, exactly, is the piece of evidence that the movement hangs their hats on now? Is there any one piece of evidence that runs solidly through the entire group?

[T.A.M.]

wtc7

TAM:)

[HyJinX]

ahhhhh...yes. And yet none of them can see how absolutely silly that claim is. No wonder the movement is on its last breath.

[Alferd_Packer]

Of course the Cell phone calls were fake! How would a bunch of Arabs living in a cave know how to use cell phones?

[JamesB]

Of course the Cell phone calls were fake! How would a bunch of Arabs living in a cave know how to use cell phones?

You need a credit card to do that!

[A-Train]

These strained attempts at humor are most unfunny. It seems you're all nervously trying to avoid the topic at hand. Do any of you JREF debunkers have any reasoned responses to the article linked to in the opening post?

[Bobert]

I take great offense because I was agreeing with you when I posted this

It really does seem that ANY DAY NOW the truth movement will finally blow the lid off of 9-11!!!!
All of you Bush loyalists will then have to have sex with a satanic goat as punishment!

I really do think that any day now the JREF BUSH LOYALIST SHEEPLE will be BEGGING Dylan to help them avoid FEMA camp detention.

[twinstead]

It really does seem that ANY DAY NOW the truth movement will finally blow the lid off of 9-11!!!!
All of you Bush loyalists will then have to have sex with a satanic goat as punishment!

Yawn. Just another normal Saturday night at the twinstead residence. So what's your point?

[funk de fino]

These strained attempts at humor are most unfunny. It seems you're all nervously trying to avoid the topic at hand. Do any of you JREF debunkers have any reasoned responses to the article linked to in the opening post?

Yes, its junk and anti semetic. There were no mossad on the planes and they did not parachute out through the nose landing gear door.

The author is delusional

[SDC]

These strained attempts at humor are most unfunny. It seems you're all nervously trying to avoid the topic at hand. Do any of you JREF debunkers have any reasoned responses to the article linked to in the opening post?

Yes. The fact that you are trying to pin this on the Jews is a foolish, stupid, totally bankrupt position. Your statements lack facts. Your statements lack even common sense.

There you have a reasoned response.

[T.A.M.]

These strained attempts at humor are most unfunny. It seems you're all nervously trying to avoid the topic at hand. Do any of you JREF debunkers have any reasoned responses to the article linked to in the opening post?

you're the only one not laughing here, so yes, it is funny.

when does ridiculousness ever require a "reasoned response"?

TAM:)

[RKOwens4]

I began noticing this a few months ago, when I uploaded a video onto YouTube debunking the faked cell phone calls. Instead of the typical truther comments, accusing me of lies and being a government shill, most truthers received the info pretty well and rejected the faked cell phone calls theory, if they hadn't done so already. That recent poll sent exclusively to truthers shows that (#65) only 6% of truthers believe that the faked phone calls theory is strongly supported by evidence. 6%! For comparison, 5% believe that the videos showing the planes crashing into the WTC were faked.

It's nice to see truthers abandoning such a ridiculous and offensive theory, but this just opens up a whole new can of worms for them. If they accept the phone calls as real, then it proves that suicidal Arab men hijacked and crashed their planes. Are we supposed to believe that these were really U.S. operatives paid to kill themselves?

Dylan Avery is still (as late as December 2007), claiming that it wasn't Flights 11 and 175 that crashed into the towers. How does this fit with Betty Ong's and Peter Hanson's phone calls? Both were still on the line when the planes crashed into the towers.

It certainly wouldn't fit with Flight 77 not hitting the Pentagon. Or with Flight 93 being shot down. The list goes on. It's not an exagerration to say that the entire MIHOP story hangs on the phone calls being faked.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It really does seem that ANY DAY NOW the truth movement will finally blow the lid off of 9-11!!!!
All of you Bush loyalists will then have to have sex with a satanic goat as punishment!


What will the goat be wearing?

Furthermore... has the goat been a baa-aa-aa-aad girl?

[SDC]

What will the goat be wearing?

Furthermore... has the goat been a baa-aa-aa-aad girl?

Girl??

The goat will be dressed as Fetzer.

[pomeroo]

It really does seem that ANY DAY NOW the truth movement will finally blow the lid off of 9-11!!!!
All of you Bush loyalists will then have to have sex with a satanic goat as punishment!


Now I'm really confused. I was under the impression that sex with a satanic goat was supposed to be a reward. Anyway, that's what they told me.

[pomeroo]

Not only were they non-Arabs impersonating hijackers, but they were obviously dirty JOOOOS impersonating hijackers.


Are you suggesting that Jooos have to be dirty to look like Arabs?

[Bobert]

Now I'm really confused. I was under the impression that sex with a satanic goat was supposed to be a reward. Anyway, that's what they told me.

YOU need to address this matter with YOUR HANDLER. YOU should know this by now based on your file which I am viewing.
Anyway the Goat is given out per the enrollment form which you must submit along with an ear wax sample.

[pomeroo]

YOU need to address this matter with YOUR HANDLER. YOU should know this by now based on your file which I am viewing.
Anyway the Goat is given out per the enrollment form which you must submit along with an ear wax sample.


Ear wax? You did say "ear wax"? I gave them a sample, but it wasn't exactly ear wax. I fear that I've made a terrible mistake, one that probably explains the warthog.

[ElMondoHummus]

Now I'm really confused. I was under the impression that sex with a satanic goat was supposed to be a reward. Anyway, that's what they told me.

Jesus, Ron, that was the Mexican wrestler faking the bosses voice saying that. Couldn't you tell?

[T.A.M.]

You, young man, have not been paying attention. Go to the back of the classroom and put on a dunce cap.

The phone calls do not in any way, shape, or form prove that suicidal Arabs did anything. The phone calls only prove that:

1. The planes were hijacked by real people, some of whom were "Middle Eastern" looking.

2. That these men used knives to stab passengers and flight attendants, mostly women.

3. That the hijackers had guns.

None of this "proves" that the hijackers were Arab at all, and fits in nicely with a scenario of hijackers acting like Arabs and committing heinous acts so that the phone calls would be made, implicating Arabs in the minds of the average American-- for whom all Middle Eastern men are "Arabs."

This scenario was spelled out in detail in the essay quoted in the opening post. Here it is again:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/16056

There, now go read it start to finish. Then maybe we'll let you take off that dunce cap.

Are you still on about your joo navy seals leaping from the planes once set to crash, and what not??? really??

TAM:)

[Calcas]

How do the phone calls "prove" they had guns?

Did anyone find any evidence of guns?

I think it's much more likely that the hijackers said "We have guns" and that those who made the phone calls simply repeated it.

Is that "proof" to you?

[Bobert]

Ear wax? You did say "ear wax"? I gave them a sample, but it wasn't exactly ear wax. I fear that I've made a terrible mistake, one that probably explains the warthog.

I am sorry Ron but if you cant even follow basic NWO protocol then there is nothing more that I can do.
I see that you have been red flagged and scheduled to be brought out to the desert.
Make sure and get the required Brazilian Wax before they come for you.
I will save your parking space for you while you are gone.

[RKOwens4]

The phone calls do not in any way, shape, or form prove that suicidal Arabs did anything. The phone calls only prove that:

1. The planes were hijacked by real people, some of whom were "Middle Eastern" looking.

What about Betty Ong giving the exact seat numbers for all 5? She was off by a seat number for some of them (understandable in the confusion), but there was no one in those seats and the hijackers were the only ones around so it's obvious who she was talking about. So it's not just that some people said the hijackers were Middle-Eastern. We know their seat numbers, and with this we know their names.

2. That these men used knives to stab passengers and flight attendants, mostly women.

Don't forget that they said the pilots were also stabbed, except for Flight 77 in which Barbara Olson said that both pilots were forced to the back of the plane. If the government truly was in on it, why would they have their "agents" pose as passengers rather than just giving them jobs as the pilots for the airlines? That way it would involve less people and less risk that someone would talk before the events (no need for muscle hijackers), the pilots could just turn their plane off course without the passengers even knowing that something was wrong, no chance that the passengers would fight back (in the case of Flight 93, resulting in a "failed mission"), etc.

3. That the hijackers had guns.

Only one passenger said anything about a gun (Tom Burnett), but no gun or gun parts were found at the crash scene. "Yes, yes, just listen. Our airplane has been hijacked. It’s United Flight 93 from Newark to San Francisco. We are in the air. The hijackers have already knifed a guy, one of them has a gun, they are telling us there is a bomb on board, please call the authorities."

None of this "proves" that the hijackers were Arab at all, and fits in nicely with a scenario of hijackers acting like Arabs

OK, Middle-Eastern, not Arabic. My mistake. You still didn't answer my question as to how the government could convince someone to commit suicide. None of the typical truther excuses (paid off, fear of imprisonment, fear of death) applies here. You're suggesting they were just "acting" like Arabs/Middle-Easterners now???

[A-Train]

What about Betty Ong giving the exact seat numbers for all 5? She was off by a seat number for some of them (understandable in the confusion), but there was no one in those seats and the hijackers were the only ones around so it's obvious who she was talking about. So it's not just that some people said the hijackers were Middle-Eastern. We know their seat numbers, and with this we know their names.

Yes, we know the seat numbers, and the names. The problem for you is that we do not know whether the people sitting in those seats were who the names say they were. It's pretty easy to steal someone's information and assume their identity, you know.

By the way, Ong reported hijackers in seats 1A, 2A, 9A, and 9B. The first two were assigned to Wail al-Shehri and his brother, Waleed. Both of these gentlemen turned up alive and well in the Middle East after the attacks. So someone took their identities and sat in those seats before participating in the hijacking.

If the government truly was in on it, why would they have their "agents" pose as passengers rather than just giving them jobs as the pilots for the airlines?

Because the government wasn't in on it.

Only one passenger said anything about a gun (Tom Burnett), but no gun or gun parts were found at the crash scene. "Yes, yes, just listen. Our airplane has been hijacked. It’s United Flight 93 from Newark to San Francisco. We are in the air. The hijackers have already knifed a guy, one of them has a gun, they are telling us there is a bomb on board, please call the authorities."

Actually, two callers reported guns: Burnett from UAL93 and Betty Ong from AAL11. (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/46741/1/#new)

It is laughable to say Burnett's report was false because no gun was found at the crash scene.

OK, Middle-Eastern, not Arabic. My mistake. You still didn't answer my question as to how the government could convince someone to commit suicide. None of the typical truther excuses (paid off, fear of imprisonment, fear of death) applies here. You're suggesting they were just "acting" like Arabs/Middle-Easterners now???

The government didn't persuade anyone to commit suicide, because the government was not behind 9/11. They would be willing to commit suicide if they were fanatics willing to die for their people and beliefs. They may have believed that the 9/11 mission was necessary for the survival of their people and country.

RK, I respect your sincerity in discussing these ideas. At least you are not hiding behind childish "humor," like the other participants in this thread.

[Wolrab]

There was a bomb on the plane too by your reckoning.

[JamesB]

By the way, Ong reported hijackers in seats 1A, 2A, 9A, and 9B. The first two were assigned to Wail al-Shehri and his brother, Waleed. Both of these gentlemen turned up alive and well in the Middle East after the attacks. So someone took their identities and sat in those seats before participating in the hijacking.





:jaw-dropp

No they didn't. Do legends ever die in the troofer community?

http://911myths.com/html/waleed_al-shehri_still_alive.html

[eromitlab]

By the way, Ong reported hijackers in seats 1A, 2A, 9A, and 9B. The first two were assigned to Wail al-Shehri and his brother, Waleed. Both of these gentlemen turned up alive and well in the Middle East after the attacks. So someone took their identities and sat in those seats before participating in the hijacking.

http://star.walagata.com/w/eromitlab/facepalm.jpeg

Do troofers only accept news updates if it benefits their theories, and throw out the rest as something forced upon them by the government, or Bilderberg, or djooos?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html

[Jonnyclueless]

A-train, what do you suppose the motivation was of these mystery hijackers to kill themselves? Perhaps a get rich scheme that the hadn't quite thought through?

[bio]

the strong reference of Griffin for the cell calls:
The telephonee of the calls prove, they were called by cell-phones. They saw the number of their loved ones in the handy display.
... but most of the calls were impossible, the planes flew too high.
Debunkers reply?

[Shrinker]

It's not impossible, just difficult to make and maintain a connection. For all we know, all of the passengers may have been attempting to get through, but only the ones we read about were successful.

People on the ground report that the calls were often disconnected, which is exactly what you'd expect. Also it makes perfect sense that passengers first tried their cellphones (thus transmitting their cell number), and after getting cut off, or failing to make a voice connection, tried the less user-friendly airphones instead.

Btw, this is a thread about debunkers and truthers alike expressing exasperation with those who still follow this long debunked cellphone nonsense. Try to keep up.

[MikeW]

the strong reference of Griffin for the cell calls:
The telephonee of the calls prove, they were called by cell-phones. They saw the number of their loved ones in the handy display.
... but most of the calls were impossible, the planes flew too high.
Debunkers reply?
Very few of the calls had that kind of caller ID identification.

The claim that calls at altitude were "impossible" comes from A K Dewdney's flawed study. He conducted his tests over an urban area and said it was unlikely that you could make calls over 8,000 feet. But he didn't bother to tell his readers that base stations out in the country have significantly greater range than those in towns (it can be 10x or more), because there's less population to tie them up and the companies don't have to build as many, and so his tests tell us precisely nothing about what was possible on Flight 93.

You don't have to look far to find people saying calls at altitude are possible:

According to industry experts, it is possible to use cell phones with varying success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline flights, although the difficulty of maintaining a signal appears to increase as planes gain altitude. Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles."
http://www.slate.com/id/1008297

More here. (http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Mobiles_at_altitude)

[A-Train]

No they didn't. Do legends ever die in the troofer community?

http://911myths.com/html/waleed_al-shehri_still_alive.html

I have read through the 911Myths link you have cited many times. All it does is contend, based on a few media reports from such dubious sources as The Arab News, that there was another set of al-Shehri brothers conveniently found in the Middle East who may have been the hijackers. No hard evidence of the existence-- live or dead-- of these new brothers is ever produced, although a weeping father is provided.

If you debunkers choose to believe these flimsy fairy tales, actually "legends," that is your perogative. But you will never prove that the men sitting in seats 1A and 1B were who the government says they were. They could have been anyone who happened to steal the identity of the real al-Shehri brothers.

[A-Train]

Do troofers only accept news updates if it benefits their theories, and throw out the rest as something forced upon them by the government, or Bilderberg, or djooos?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html

I visited the BBC link you provided. A quote:

"The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names."Yes, the confusion may have been due to common Arabic names. Then again, maybe it was due to the fact that the real hijackers stole the identities of real people and never bothered to make them disappear before carrying out their false flag. The BBC, however, doesn't delve into that possibility.

The BBC wants to apologize because they posted a living person as hijacker, which was, strictly speaking, an error on their part. Then they wrap up their apology with this statement:
"The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks....."The FBI is confident. How heartwarming. How reassuring.

[A-Train]

Very few of the calls had that kind of caller ID identification.

The claim that calls at altitude were "impossible" comes from A K Dewdney's flawed study. He conducted his tests over an urban area and said it was unlikely that you could make calls over 8,000 feet. But he didn't bother to tell his readers that base stations out in the country have significantly greater range than those in towns (it can be 10x or more), because there's less population to tie them up and the companies don't have to build as many, and so his tests tell us precisely nothing about what was possible on Flight 93.


MikeW,

Please don't derail this thread. The article in the opening post does not contend that cell phone calls are or are not impossible. The article agrees with the FBI contention that most of the calls were on airphones, and were therefore real.

So it is agreed that the calls were possible, and were made, and that passengers on the planes reported in their calls that the planes were hijacked by men, some of them Middle Eastern looking, who also stabbed other passengers.

The challenge for you is to show how these calls support the official story of al-Qaeda hijackers, when those hijackers could just as easily have been disguised as Arabs for the purpose of framing Arabs. You might begin by wrestling with the unambiguous report from Tom Burnett that the hijackers had guns, and the strong evidence that Betty Ong also reported a shooting (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/46741/1/#new) on AAL11.

[Dave Rogers]

By the way, Ong reported hijackers in seats 1A, 2A, 9A, and 9B. The first two were assigned to Wail al-Shehri and his brother, Waleed. Both of these gentlemen turned up alive and well in the Middle East after the attacks. So someone took their identities and sat in those seats before participating in the hijacking.

Interesting - so you are claiming that two brothers, called Wail and Waleed al-Shehri, turned up alive and well after the attacks? Not that an airline pilot called Waleed al-Shehri and the unrelated son of a Saudi diplomat turned up alive and well after the attacks? They weren't brothers, you know.

I have read through the 911Myths link you have cited many times. All it does is contend, based on a few media reports from such dubious sources as The Arab News, that there was another set of al-Shehri brothers conveniently found in the Middle East who may have been the hijackers. No hard evidence of the existence-- live or dead-- of these new brothers is ever produced, although a weeping father is provided.

Not another set, there's only one set of brothers here, and they're the ones claimed to be missing. The evidence, although not concrete, is at least internally consistent and technologically feasible, unlike your impossible postulate of Mossad agents parachuting out of an airliner without depressurising the cabin, which is supported by no evidence whatsoever.

Dave

[applecorped]

How juvenile.

[MikeW]

I have read through the 911Myths link you have cited many times. All it does is contend, based on a few media reports from such dubious sources as The Arab News, that there was another set of al-Shehri brothers conveniently found in the Middle East who may have been the hijackers. No hard evidence of the existence-- live or dead-- of these new brothers is ever produced, although a weeping father is provided.
A "few" media reports? There are considerably more reports fitting the claim that they're dead, then still alive.

And these are all from "dubious" sources, are they? Der Spiegel said this was nonsense years ago. The BBC said it was mistaken identity. The Saudis have admitted their 15 citizens were involved. What are we supposed to look at to counter these: WhatReallyHappened?

You conveniently ignore the fact that the "still alive" al-Shehri was Waleed Ahmed al-Shehri, while the FBI have since September 14th 2001 said they were looking for Waleed M(ohammed) al-Shehri.

You also ignore the issue that the still alive, pilot Waleed Ahmed al-Shehri started his US training in 1993, when the hijacker would have been 14 or 15.

And your explanation of "identify theft" is a joke. You don't honestly believe that you steal someone's identity by pretending to be years younger and having a different name, do you?

And all this is "flimsy"? Like I said, compared to what? Three or four reports that all came out before the FBI released their official photo list of the hijackers?

No, if it were flimsy then it would have been addressed and rebutted already. Instead it's ignored, because the frauds who push this theory know it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[CurtC]

A-train, what do you suppose the motivation was of these mystery hijackers to kill themselves? Perhaps a get rich scheme that the hadn't quite thought through?

1. Hijack plane, crash it into a field in Pennsylvania.
2. ???
3. Profit !!!

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Nice to see that twoofers are sloooowly starting to figure out that Avery and Griffin are complete frauds.


I don't think this is enlightenment; it's just Truther A accusing Truther B of being a disinfo agent merely because Truther B disagrees with Truther A on a certain aspect of the fantasy.

cell phone calls faked = inside job vs. they were actually airphone calls, not faked, but not proof the hijackers were Al-Qaeda = inside job (or, in A-Train's case apparently, a "jew job").

[JamesB]

I have read through the 911Myths link you have cited many times. All it does is contend, based on a few media reports from such dubious sources as The Arab News, that there was another set of al-Shehri brothers conveniently found in the Middle East who may have been the hijackers. No hard evidence of the existence-- live or dead-- of these new brothers is ever produced, although a weeping father is provided.

If you debunkers choose to believe these flimsy fairy tales, actually "legends," that is your perogative. But you will never prove that the men sitting in seats 1A and 1B were who the government says they were. They could have been anyone who happened to steal the identity of the real al-Shehri brothers.

:jaw-dropp

[Horatius]

Said it before, I'll say it again:



Just more of the same from A-Train. Move along, move along....



"The Devil can quote scripture to his own ends; A twoofer can debunk some nonsense in support of other nonsense."

Just because A-Train and his buddies can point out the flaws in others' theories,does not mean they are on the side of truth and accuracy. Their motivation is still to support a ridiculous fantasy, and so they get no points at all for their efforts.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Just because A-Train and his buddies can point out the flaws in others' theories,does not mean they are on the side of truth and accuracy. Their motivation is still to support a ridiculous fantasy, and so they get no points at all for their efforts.


* Cl1mh4224rd predicts that some truther will say the same about debunkers.

[Jonnyclueless]

"If you debunkers choose to believe these flimsy fairy tales, actually "legends," that is your perogative. But you will never prove that the men sitting in seats 1A and 1B were who the government says they were. They could have been anyone who happened to steal the identity of the real al-Shehri brothers."

Oh the irony!!!

What would twoofers do without speculation?

[Bobert]

The FBI is confident. How heartwarming. How reassuring.

Do you feel the FBI is in on the coverup?

[tsig]

A-train, what do you suppose the motivation was of these mystery hijackers to kill themselves? Perhaps a get rich scheme that the hadn't quite thought through?

They killed themselves for the insurance?

[T.A.M.]

No, no, you see A-Train doesn't believe the mystery hijackers killed themselves. In his theory, these top level joo navy seals actually escaped from the plane once they had hijacked it, and set it to auto-control...parachuted out, or something close to the above insanity.

TAM:)

[eromitlab]

I visited the BBC link you provided. A quote:
Yes, the confusion may have been due to common Arabic names. Then again, maybe it was due to the fact that the real hijackers stole the identities of real people and never bothered to make them disappear before carrying out their false flag. The BBC, however, doesn't delve into that possibility.

The BBC wants to apologize because they posted a living person as hijacker, which was, strictly speaking, an error on their part. Then they wrap up their apology with this statement:
The FBI is confident. How heartwarming. How reassuring.

Stomp your feet, plug up your ears and shout LALALALAICANTHEARYOU all you want... that is what happened. There's much more evidence to support that then there is to support the truthists' closed-minded take on this one.
If the al-Shehri "brothers" are still alive, maybe Kevin Barrett can find them. Oh wait, he tried that already.

[RKOwens4]

By the way, Ong reported hijackers in seats 1A, 2A, 9A, and 9B. The first two were assigned to Wail al-Shehri and his brother, Waleed. Both of these gentlemen turned up alive and well in the Middle East after the attacks. So someone took their identities and sat in those seats before participating in the hijacking.

Oh Dear Lord, you didn't just say that did you? Please tell me you're not one of those truthers who believes that some of the hijackers are still alive. Like the faked calls theory and the no-planers, the still-living-hijackers theory is one of the biggest embarassments to the "truth movement". Hey, if these gentlemen are still alive, why don't you follow in Kevin Barrett's footsteps and journey to their homeland to try to catch them/interview them? Warning: It didn't turn out so well for Barrett.

Because the government wasn't in on it.

So 9/11 wasn't an inside job? It was an extraterrestrial job?

It is laughable to say Burnett's report was false because no gun was found at the crash scene.

Who said his report was false??? You're just making stuff up now. I meant that no gun or gun parts were found at the crash scene, therefore the gun (like the bomb) was probably a fake, maybe a plastic toy gun meant to look real.

[T.A.M.]

He not only believes they are all alive, he actually believes they were Israeli intelligence/seals who jumped from the planes prior to their crashing...really...I am not lying.

TAM:)

[Galileo]

I think the fact that every new incarnation of Loose Change is actually a subtraction and a revisionist attempt to remove past errors is a testament to how loose they are with the facts. Actually loose change is a great description for the film given that the only thing constant in it is that its always changing, and its loose with its facts.

Please stay on topic. This thread is about Dr. Griffin, not Loose Change.

[Galileo]

These strained attempts at humor are most unfunny. It seems you're all nervously trying to avoid the topic at hand. Do any of you JREF debunkers have any reasoned responses to the article linked to in the opening post?

I agree with the A-Train and expect better reasoning skills from those that dwell here.

[Galileo]

15 phone call factoids that contradict the official government conspiracy theory

[please note that these were all AIRPHONE CALLS, not cell phone calls, except CeeCee Lyle's unconnected call from FL93]

1) Betty Ong and Madeline Sweeney on FL11 said there were 4 hijackers, not 5. Both gave the "wrong" seat numbers for the hijackers.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=betty_ong

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=madeline_(_amy_)_sweeney

2) Mark Bingham on FL93 said there were 3 hijackers, not 4.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=mark_bingham&printe...

3) Renee May on FL77 said there were 6 hijackers, not 5.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/0...

4) Most of Ong's phone call recording is missing.

5) Ong and/or Sweeney gave specific information that the hijackers had guns (which contradicts the "boxcutters" theory). They even gave the exact seat number of the shooter and the shoo-tee.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a833passengerdead

6) Tom Burnett on FL93 said the hijackers had guns.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=deena_burnett

7) Todd Beamer's call on FL93 lasted until 10:48 AM, long after the plane was shot down/crashed. The person who took Beamer's call, Lisa Jefferson, heard no screaming or crashing noises.

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html

8) Jeremy Glick's call on FL93 lasted until 11:43 AM, long after the plane was shot down/crashed. The person who took Glick's call, Joanne Makely, heard no screaming or crashing noises.

9) No call on FL93 was attempted after 9:53 (Honor Waino's), except unconnected calls by Edward Felt and CeeCee Lyles at 9:58. No call (besides Beamer's and Glick's) lasted beyond 9:58, when the Sandy Bradshaw and Waino calls ended. The plane supposedly crashed at 10:03 or 10:06.

10) Ted Olson on FL77 lied, he never got a phone call from Barbara Olson.

11) Call recordings are missing for calls by Beamer (FL93), Bradshaw (FL93), and Sweeney (FL11).

12) Five "unknown" calls were made from FL77 to unknown numbers.

13) A 95-second "unknown" call was made from FL93 and the recording is missing.

14) The recording of 2 calls on FL175 are missing.

15) Sweeny on FL11 gave the "wrong" time for the cockpit takeover. She said it happened no earlier than 8:22, but communication with FL11 was supposedly lost at 8:15.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?day_of_9/11=aa11&timelin...

Conclusions

1) The hijackers had guns. We don't know exactly who they were, were they were seated, or how many there were.

2) Missing recordings indicate that most of the calls contained information which contradicts the official conspiracy theory.

3) The most heavily promoted calls are most likely to be suspect, and the least promoted calls are most likely to be genuine.

Air Traffic Controller Andy Kornkven (who was mysteriously NOT scheduled to work on 9/11), has some good analysis of the phone calls on his blog:

andrewkornkven's blog
http://www.911blogger.com/blog/253

http://www.911blogger.com/node/16015

[pomeroo]

15 phone call factoids that contradict the official government conspiracy theory

[please note that these were all AIRPHONE CALLS, not cell phone calls, except CeeCee Lyle's unconnected call from FL93]

1) Betty Ong and Madeline Sweeney on FL11 said there were 4 hijackers, not 5. Both gave the "wrong" seat numbers for the hijackers.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=betty_ong

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=madeline_(_amy_)_sweeney

2) Mark Bingham on FL93 said there were 3 hijackers, not 4.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=mark_bingham&printe...

3) Renee May on FL77 said there were 6 hijackers, not 5.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/0...

4) Most of Ong's phone call recording is missing.

5) Ong and/or Sweeney gave specific information that the hijackers had guns (which contradicts the "boxcutters" theory). They even gave the exact seat number of the shooter and the shoo-tee.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a833passengerdead

6) Tom Burnett on FL93 said the hijackers had guns.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=deena_burnett

7) Todd Beamer's call on FL93 lasted until 10:48 AM, long after the plane was shot down/crashed. The person who took Beamer's call, Lisa Jefferson, heard no screaming or crashing noises.

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html

8) Jeremy Glick's call on FL93 lasted until 11:43 AM, long after the plane was shot down/crashed. The person who took Glick's call, Joanne Makely, heard no screaming or crashing noises.

9) No call on FL93 was attempted after 9:53 (Honor Waino's), except unconnected calls by Edward Felt and CeeCee Lyles at 9:58. No call (besides Beamer's and Glick's) lasted beyond 9:58, when the Sandy Bradshaw and Waino calls ended. The plane supposedly crashed at 10:03 or 10:06.

10) Ted Olson on FL77 lied, he never got a phone call from Barbara Olson.

11) Call recordings are missing for calls by Beamer (FL93), Bradshaw (FL93), and Sweeney (FL11).

12) Five "unknown" calls were made from FL77 to unknown numbers.

13) A 95-second "unknown" call was made from FL93 and the recording is missing.

14) The recording of 2 calls on FL175 are missing.

15) Sweeny on FL11 gave the "wrong" time for the cockpit takeover. She said it happened no earlier than 8:22, but communication with FL11 was supposedly lost at 8:15.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?day_of_9/11=aa11&timelin...

Conclusions

1) The hijackers had guns. We don't know exactly who they were, were they were seated, or how many there were.

2) Missing recordings indicate that most of the calls contained information which contradicts the official conspiracy theory.

3) The most heavily promoted calls are most likely to be suspect, and the least promoted calls are most likely to be genuine.

Air Traffic Controller Andy Kornkven (who was mysteriously NOT scheduled to work on 9/11), has some good analysis of the phone calls on his blog:

andrewkornkven's blog
http://www.911blogger.com/blog/253

http://www.911blogger.com/node/16015



Even for a conspiracy liar, pretending that an open phone line means that the caller didn't die when he was known to have died is embarrassing.

Just out of curiosity, why wouldn't your imaginary conspiracy have managed these calls more efficiently?

[Galileo]

Even for a conspiracy liar, pretending that an open phone line means that the caller didn't die when he was known to have died is embarrassing.

Just out of curiosity, why wouldn't your imaginary conspiracy have managed these calls more efficiently?

That information comes from the FBI. Of course, you may not like the FBI, thye accuse a lot of people of conspiracies, including Tim Donaghy not long ago.

[jhunter1163]

Conclusion 1 is false. The hijackers' identities have been established beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion 2 is a logical fallacy (affirming the consequent I believe, but someone better versed in logic than I will no doubt correct me.)

Conclusion 3 is pure speculation.

[Galileo]

Conclusion 1 is false. The hijackers' identities have been established beyond reasonable doubt.



Really?

None of the hijackers received basic Constitutional protections. None were indicted by a Grand jury, none had a defense attorney, none were allowed a jury of their peers, none had a right to receive the evidence used against them at trial, and none had a right to cross-examine witnesses against them.

[jhunter1163]

Do you have any evidence that anyone other than the 19 men named by the FBI were involved in the hijacking?

[Galileo]

Do you have any evidence that anyone other than the 19 men named by the FBI were involved in the hijacking?

First of all, it's your burden to prove when you accuse, not mine.

But in answer to your question:

1) Renee May said there were 6 hijackers on FL77. That means at least one of those hijackers is not among our 19 alleged hijackers.

2) Ong and Sweeney gave seat numbers (some of them) of different people than the alleged hijackers.

3) Tom Burnett said the hijackers had guns. These must have been different hijackers than the ones who had only boxcutters.

4) Ong and Sweeney also described hijackers with guns. Presumably, these were the people in the seat numbers that differed from the hijackers who had only boxcutters.

5) Sweeney said the cockpit was stormed at 8:25. This must have been a different wave of hijackers, as the cockpit lost contact with ground control at 8:14.

[RKOwens4]

He not only believes they are all alive, he actually believes they were Israeli intelligence/seals who jumped from the planes prior to their crashing...really...I am not lying.

TAM:)

Barrett or A-Train?

[Arus808]

First of all, it's your burden to prove when you accuse, not mine.

no its your burden. 19 hijackers have been identified as being the ones as stated through out every report.

If there are more, you must provide proof there were.


But in answer to your question:

1) Renee May said there were 6 hijackers on FL77. That means at least one of those hijackers is not among our 19 alleged hijackers.

As we know now, she was MISTAKEN.


2) Ong and Sweeney gave seat numbers (some of them) of different people than the alleged hijackers.

As we know now, in the confusion, BOTH were mistaken.



3) Tom Burnett said the hijackers had guns. These must have been different hijackers than the ones who had only boxcutters.

did he see the guns? did he specifically state he saw guns? Or did he hear the hijackers state they had guns, and just repeated what they said? Like the one about the bomb being onboard.

As we know now, he was mistaken.

4) Ong and Sweeney also described hijackers with guns. Presumably, these were the people in the seat numbers that differed from the hijackers who had only boxcutters.

as we know now, like Tom, they were mistaken.


5) Sweeney said the cockpit was stormed at 8:25. This must have been a different wave of hijackers, as the cockpit lost contact with ground control at 8:14.

As we know now, he was mistaken.




wow, Galileo, you've never made a mistake in your entire life?

[jhunter1163]

You're the one claiming the FBI misidentified the hijackers, so it's your burden of proof. I should advise you to tread lightly; unless you're proposing that other hijackers stowed away on the planes (which creates its own set of problems, as there are no extra bodies among the dead passengers) you're about to accuse some of the other passengers on those planes of being hijackers. I doubt their families would appreciate that much.

I'll ask again; Do you have concrete evidence that any hijackers other than the 19 men named by the FBI were on the planes?

[Galileo]

no its your burden. 19 hijackers have been identified as being the ones as stated through out every report.

If there are more, you must provide proof there were.




As we know now, she was MISTAKEN.




As we know now, in the confusion, BOTH were mistaken.





did he see the guns? did he specifically state he saw guns? Or did he hear the hijackers state they had guns, and just repeated what they said? Like the one about the bomb being onboard.

As we know now, he was mistaken.



as we know now, like Tom, they were mistaken.




As we know now, he was mistaken.




wow, Galileo, you've never made a mistake in your entire life?

No, it is your burden, people are innocent until proven guilty in this country.

Secondly, you have a real gall to disrespect the dead. These witnesses were on the planes. You weren't there, they were. They never said there was any confusion as you allege. They are far less likely to be mistaken than you. Do you have any witnesse to bring forward that contradicts their testimony? Natta.

[Galileo]

You're the one claiming the FBI misidentified the hijackers, so it's your burden of proof. I should advise you to tread lightly; unless you're proposing that other hijackers stowed away on the planes (which creates its own set of problems, as there are no extra bodies among the dead passengers) you're about to accuse some of the other passengers on those planes of being hijackers. I doubt their families would appreciate that much.

I'll ask again; Do you have concrete evidence that any hijackers other than the 19 men named by the FBI were on the planes?

none of the 19 alleged hijackers had an open casket funeral.

[Galileo]

You're the one claiming the FBI misidentified the hijackers, so it's your burden of proof. I should advise you to tread lightly; unless you're proposing that other hijackers stowed away on the planes (which creates its own set of problems, as there are no extra bodies among the dead passengers) you're about to accuse some of the other passengers on those planes of being hijackers. I doubt their families would appreciate that much.

I'll ask again; Do you have concrete evidence that any hijackers other than the 19 men named by the FBI were on the planes?

I'm not claiming it. The witnesses on the planes claimed it. Their claims contradict YOUR rash assertions.

[beachnut]

Really?

None of the hijackers received basic Constitutional protections. None were indicted by a Grand jury, none had a defense attorney, none were allowed a jury of their peers, none had a right to receive the evidence used against them at trial, and none had a right to cross-examine witnesses against them.
They are dead. They did it, they left evidence, unlike you who has zero, zip, no evidence. So your ideas are failed before you post them, due to lack of evidence. 6 years, and you still can't get the phone calls right, or the hijackers. Your posts are self debunking, no need to even repeat the false information; it is clearly false.

Funny, they are murderers and you are defending their rights. They kidnapped all the people and murdered them; and you can't figure it out. They even left video tapes, kind of bragging about their deaths killing Americans. And you are trying with zero evidence to prove what? You support terrorist who actually understand 9/11 better than you may ever!?. You are trying to defend terrorist who murder American citizens, and you have no evidence to save your terrorist buddies. Take a seat unless you have some real evidence. Case closed. You are not a terrorist, you would take credit and not make up lies about 9/11; IRONY!!! Terrorist actually tell the truth, not like the lies spewed by 9/11 truth.

You fail to understand how a line can be kept open? Failure is yours, and it is on the record showing your lack of understanding.

[RKOwens4]

1) Betty Ong and Madeline Sweeney on FL11 said there were 4 hijackers, not 5. Both gave the "wrong" seat numbers for the hijackers.

If the "Betty Ong" was indeed just an actor reading from a script, wouldn't this person have gotten the seat numbers correct? Is confusion indicitive of someone who has just been through a hijacking and in the mayhem was off by a row, or is it indicitive of someone in a studio reading the seat numbers off of a script? Be honest.

Mark Bingham on FL93 said there were 3 hijackers, not 4.

Again, if the government wanted it to be believed that there were 4 hijackers and that this was written in "the script", why would the actor give the wrong number? Same goes for number 3 on your list. Mark Bingham and the others would have been ushered to the back of the plane by the 3 muscle hijackers before it was safe for Jarrah to rise.

4) Most of Ong's phone call recording is missing.

And this proves the call was a fake how? If the actors recorded this entire conversation FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of it proving the government's story, why would the government not release THEIR SCRIPTED CONVERSATION? Did the actor say something that proved it was a fake? If so, why not re-record it? The American Airlines recording system was new and could only record for so many minutes.

5) Ong and/or Sweeney gave specific information that the hijackers had guns (which contradicts the "boxcutters" theory). They even gave the exact seat number of the shooter and the shoo-tee.

Only one passenger on all of the flights said anything about boxcutters. All the others said knives, a gun (Burnett), and a bomb. How does having a boxcutter AND a gun contradict anything at all? If it did contradict something, why would the actors even say it at all?

9) No call on FL93 was attempted after 9:53 (Honor Waino's), except unconnected calls by Edward Felt and CeeCee Lyles at 9:58. No call (besides Beamer's and Glick's) lasted beyond 9:58, when the Sandy Bradshaw and Waino calls ended. The plane supposedly crashed at 10:03 or 10:06.

Now you've gone beyond illogical interpretations of evidence and are now just making up "evidence". Edward Felt's call was connected and recorded. His brother listened to the 9/11 recording. Cee Cee Lyles' call to her husband was connected. Her husband heard screams and her say, "They're doing it! They're doing it!" The airphone operator heard Todd Beamer's "Let's roll" just before the attack began, presumably around 9:58. She continued to listen.

10) Ted Olson on FL77 lied, he never got a phone call from Barbara Olson.

Source? So your evidence for one of your baseless claims is another baseless claim with no evidence? LOL.

[BenBurch]

As I have said here many times, I have done it. I have made cell calls at altitude. It is not impossible at all.

[A-Train]

did he see the guns? did he specifically state he saw guns? Or did he hear the hijackers state they had guns, and just repeated what they said? Like the one about the bomb being onboard.

Yes, he specifically said one of the hijackers had a gun:


"Deena asks, “Are you in the air?” She later recalls, “I didn’t understand how he could be calling me on his cell phone from the air.” According to Deena Burnett, Tom continues: “Yes, yes, just listen. Our airplane has been hijacked. It’s United Flight 93 from Newark to San Francisco. We are in the air. The hijackers have already knifed a guy. One of them has a gun. They’re telling us there’s a bomb on board. Please call the authorities.”"http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=burnett&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

In addition, there is credible evidence (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/46741/1/#new) that Betty Ong reported a shooting on board AAL11. An executive summary (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/faa911memoside.jpg) prepared for top FAA officials on the night of 9/11 detailed a shooting, including the number of shots fired, as reported by a conversation with a flight attendant.

As we know now, he was mistaken.



as we know now, like Tom, they were mistaken.




As we know now, he was mistaken.




wow, Galileo, you've never made a mistake in your entire life?

Why is it every witness who corroborates our side is "mistaken," but the witnesses you like are not?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Wait, so... allegedly fake phone calls that aren't perfectly in line with the generally accepted account of events is evidence that 9/11 was orchestrated by... someone not Al-Qaeda? How the hell does that even work?

All that "evidence" does is apparently reveal the alleged perpetrators in this conspiracy fantasy to be utterly incompetent buffoons.

[A-Train]

If the "Betty Ong" was indeed just an actor reading from a script, wouldn't this person have gotten the seat numbers correct? Is confusion indicitive of someone who has just been through a hijacking and in the mayhem was off by a row, or is it indicitive of someone in a studio reading the seat numbers off of a script? Be honest.



Again, if the government wanted it to be believed that there were 4 hijackers and that this was written in "the script", why would the actor give the wrong number? Same goes for number 3 on your list. Mark Bingham and the others would have been ushered to the back of the plane by the 3 muscle hijackers before it was safe for Jarrah to rise.



And this proves the call was a fake how? If the actors recorded this entire conversation FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of it proving the government's story, why would the government not release THEIR SCRIPTED CONVERSATION? Did the actor say something that proved it was a fake? If so, why not re-record it? The American Airlines recording system was new and could only record for so many minutes.



Only one passenger on all of the flights said anything about boxcutters. All the others said knives, a gun (Burnett), and a bomb. How does having a boxcutter AND a gun contradict anything at all? If it did contradict something, why would the actors even say it at all?

You're missing the entire point of this whole discussion. Neither Galileo nor myself is arguing the phone calls were fake. Therefore, no actors and no script. The calls were real-- with the exception of "Todd Beamer's" which was staged to embellish the Let's Roll narrative by someone who knew the details of Beamer's life, and intentionally made the call to a stranger (Lisa Jefferson) so no voice morphing would be necessary.

Having a boxcutter and a gun only contradicts the official story, which excludes guns. It makes perfect sense, however, in a scenario in which the guns were used to kill the pilots quickly. The boxcutter/knives were used to stage a phony "Arab" hijacking in the cabin so the passengers would think the hijackers were Arab, and pass along that false impression to their loved ones through their phone calls. In this way, Arabs were framed for a crime they didn't commit.

I'll ask you again, RK, please read the article linked to in the opening post.

[MarkyX]

You're missing the entire point of this whole discussion. Neither Galileo nor myself is arguing the phone calls were fake. Therefore, no actors and no script. The calls were real-- with the exception of "Todd Beamer's" which was staged to embellish the Let's Roll narrative by someone who knew the details of Beamer's life, and intentionally made the call to a stranger (Lisa Jefferson) so no voice morphing would be necessary.

Having a boxcutter and a gun only contradicts the official story, which excludes guns. It makes perfect sense, however, in a scenario in which the guns were used to kill the pilots quickly. The boxcutter/knives were used to stage a phony "Arab" hijacking in the cabin so the passengers would think the hijackers were Arab, and pass along that false impression to their loved ones through their phone calls. In this way, Arabs were framed for a crime they didn't commit.

I'll ask you again, RK, please read the article linked to in the opening post.

This isn't exactly much of a step above "the phone calls were faked". Try harder.

[TexasJack]

I really can't believe I'm reading this stuff. We have one person who wants to put dead hijackers on trial (what are they going to do if they convict them, sentence them to death?), and another who thinks there's a fake Arab scheme. Sheesh.

[beachnut]

First of all, it's your burden to prove when you accuse, not mine.

But in answer to your question:

1) Renee May said there were 6 hijackers on FL77. That means at least one of those hijackers is not among our 19 alleged hijackers.

2) Ong and Sweeney gave seat numbers (some of them) of different people than the alleged hijackers.

3) Tom Burnett said the hijackers had guns. These must have been different hijackers than the ones who had only boxcutters.

4) Ong and Sweeney also described hijackers with guns. Presumably, these were the people in the seat numbers that differed from the hijackers who had only boxcutters.

5) Sweeney said the cockpit was stormed at 8:25. This must have been a different wave of hijackers, as the cockpit lost contact with ground control at 8:14.
Take your lockbox of facts to NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, FNN, the Washington Post, or somewhere else, get your Pulitzer Prize; like they did with Watergate. Simple, you got these super facts! Take action and stop posting your failed ideas here when you can get money and fame; and save the free world!

What are you waiting for? Real Facts?

Either you are like this!
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/standup.jpg

Or…







Are you still sitting at the computer? Run! Don't be like these guys and fail to present the real evidence.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12447460d8430f0ca9.jpg


Go do something now before one of us take these earth shattering lies you spew and get the Prize ourselves.

Wait, your stuff is all bad. You have made erroneous conclusions. Failure is the best you get, forget the Pulitzer Prize, you will only win the worse investigator award;


alas, TC329 has you beat to that. You get nothing, because you have nothing.

Does a conclusion go with your poor support of David Ray Griffin?

[RKOwens4]

Having a boxcutter and a gun only contradicts the official story, which excludes guns.

Here's the "official story": No guns or gun parts were found at the Shanksville crash site, or of any of the other crash sites. No bombs or bomb parts were found either, and FBI testing of the debris showed no signs that a bomb had gone off. Here's what the calls reveal: Tom Burnett was under the impression that one of the hijackers had a gun. The hijackers claimed they had a bomb on board and one of them had something that looked like a bomb strapped around his waist. Many of the passengers expressed doubt that the bomb was real.

Now, is there a contradiction here at all? Of course not. The bomb was a fake. Either Tom Burnett saw something which he mistook for a gun, or one of the hijackers was holding a fake gun, or there was an incorrect rumor circulating that someone had a gun.

It makes perfect sense, however, in a scenario in which the guns were used to kill the pilots quickly. The boxcutter/knives were used to stage a phony "Arab" hijacking in the cabin

It might make perfect sense to you, except for one thing. The struggle in the cockpit was recorded. The call to the Air Traffic Controllers started at 9:28:17 with Jason Dahl giving mayday calls. There was a brief silence and then he called back at 9:28:50, in a seemingly weakened voice saying "Get out of here." If the pilots were shot and "killed quickly", Dahl probably wouldn't have even been able to call ATC the first time, much less a second time 33 seconds later. No gunshots can be heard on the recordings.

But let me guess. The phone calls weren't faked, but the ATC recordings were, right?

[A-Train]

Now, is there a contradiction here at all? Of course not. The bomb was a fake. Either Tom Burnett saw something which he mistook for a gun, or one of the hijackers was holding a fake gun, or there was an incorrect rumor circulating that someone had a gun.
Or.... Burnett and Ong really saw a gun, and a shooting, and these facts are being ignored/covered up by people who want to promote the official story.

It is laughable to argue that since allegedly no gun was found at Shanksville, that Burnett's report was false.



It might make perfect sense to you, except for one thing. The struggle in the cockpit was recorded. The call to the Air Traffic Controllers started at 9:28:17 with Jason Dahl giving mayday calls. There was a brief silence and then he called back at 9:28:50, in a seemingly weakened voice saying "Get out of here." If the pilots were shot and "killed quickly", Dahl probably wouldn't have even been able to call ATC the first time, much less a second time 33 seconds later. No gunshots can be heard on the recordings.

But let me guess. The phone calls weren't faked, but the ATC recordings were, right?

That's right. The phone calls were made to a large number of credible witnesses-- family members of the passengers-- who reported their conversations to many others, including media. No way they could have been faked. The ATC recordings made at Cleveland Center, on the other hand, were immediately confiscated by the FBI, and held by the authorities for several years before the "Mayday, Mayday!" recording was released.

If the ATC recordings are to be believed, they seem to support the government's story of a knifefight in the cockpit. But, as I have demonstrated in this essay

"Mayday, Mayday!-- What Really Happened in the UAL93 Cockpit? (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/43692/1/#new)


there is good reason to believe the recording released by the government in 2006 had been doctored while in the government's possession. The recordings do not jibe with two other pieces of evidence in our possession: a transcript of the ATC transmissions released by the NTSB, and another recording of the ATC transmissions released shortly after 9/11 by a private source. Both of these pieces of evidence indicate that neither the ATC controller nor the other pilots on the frequency could make out the noises coming from UAL93. Yet on the government's 2006 tape, they are clear as a bell.

Then there is the recordings themselves, which have an artificial sound to them. It's hard to believe Dahl and Homer are still telling the terrorists to "get out of here" thirty seconds into a life or death knife fight.

[Disbelief]

Really?

None of the hijackers received basic Constitutional protections. None were indicted by a Grand jury, none had a defense attorney, none were allowed a jury of their peers, none had a right to receive the evidence used against them at trial, and none had a right to cross-examine witnesses against them.

So, would the trial be in a cemetery so they can have a jury of their peers? Who would be their defense attorney, Casper?

[CptColumbo]

Really?

None of the hijackers received basic Constitutional protections. None were indicted by a Grand jury, none had a defense attorney, none were allowed a jury of their peers, none had a right to receive the evidence used against them at trial, and none had a right to cross-examine witnesses against them.

So, would the trial be in a cemetery so they can have a jury of their peers? Who would be their defense attorney, Casper?
Not to mention that many of the "witnesses against them" will be very hard to cross-examine.

BTW Galileo, what did the James family say about your claim to be related to Jesse James?

[Galileo]

OK, smarty pants.

There have been thousands of "confusing" events in history.

Name one, besides 9/11, where allegedly dead people gave news interviews to reputable news organizations after the fact? Name one.

After 9/11, six allegedly dead hijackers gave news interviews to the media.

The only other example I can find is Huckleberry Finn, who did news interviews claiming he was still alive after his obituary appeared in the newspaper.

[Galileo]

I really can't believe I'm reading this stuff. We have one person who wants to put dead hijackers on trial (what are they going to do if they convict them, sentence them to death?), and another who thinks there's a fake Arab scheme. Sheesh.

You are ignoring 1100 years of legal precedent, dead people CAN be out on trial:

THE CADAVER SYNOD:
STRANGEST TRIAL IN HISTORY

"One thousand one hundred and four years ago a criminal trial took place in Italy, a trial so macabre, so gruesome, so frightful that it easily qualifies as the strangest and most terrible trial in human history. At this trial, called the Cadaver Synod, a dead pope wrenched from the grave was brought into a Rome courtroom, tried in the presence of a successor pope, found guilty, and then, in the words of Horace K. Mann's The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages (1925), "subjected to the most barbarous violence.""

....

"The Cadaver Synod occurred sometime in January 897 in the Church of St. John Lateran, the pope's official church in his capacity as Bishop of Rome. The defendant on trial was Formosus, an elderly pope who after a reign of five years had died April 4, 896 and been buried in St. Peter's Basilica. (According to P. G. Maxwell-Stuart's Chronicle of the Popes (1997), the name Formosus means "good-looking" in Latin.) The trial of Formosus was ordered by the reigning pontiff, Stephen VII, who had been prodded into issuing the order by a powerful Roman family dynasty and other anti-Formosus political factions, and who apparently also was personally motivated by what The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (1986) calls a "near-hysterical hatred [of Formosus]." Although Formosus had been, according to McBrien, "a man of exceptional intelligence, ability, and even sanctity, he [had] made some bitter political enemies ... including one of his successors, Stephen VII."

No trial transcript of the Cadaver Synod exists. Nonetheless, it is reasonably clear what happened. Sitting on a throne, Stephen VII personally presided over the proceeding. Also present as co-judges were a number of Roman clergy who were there under compulsion and out of fear. The trial began when the disinterred corpse of Formosus was carried into the courtroom. On Stephen VII's orders the putrescent corpse, which had been lying in its tomb for seven months, had been dressed in full pontifical vestments. The dead body was then propped up in a chair behind which stood a teenage deacon, quaking with fear, whose unenviable responsibility was to defend Formosus by speaking in his behalf. The presiding judge, Stephen VII, then read the three charges. Formosus was accused of (1) perjury, (2) coveting the papacy, and (3) violating church canons when he was elected pope.

The trial was completely dominated by Stephen VII, who overawed the assemblage with his frenzied tirades. While the frightened clergy silently watched in horror, Stephen VII screamed and raved, hurling insults at and mocking the rotting corpse. Occasionally, when the furious torrent of execrations and maledictions would die down momentarily, the deacon would stammer out a few words weakly denying the charges. When the grotesque farce concluded, Formosus was convicted on all counts by the court. The sentence imposed by Stephen VII was that all Formosus's acts and ordinations as pope be invalidated, that the three fingers of Formosus's right hand used to give papal blessings be hacked off, and that the body be stripped of its papal vestments, clad in the cheap garments of a lay person, and buried in a common grave. The sentence was rigorously executed. (The body was shortly exhumed and thrown into the Tiber, but a monk pulled it out of the river.)"

http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/his31_cadaver.html

The dead defendent was given Constitutional protections, including a defense attorney and right to appeal conviction, and that was 1100 years ago.

Surely, people, we can do even better than this today, and give Mohamed Atta a fair trial.

[funk de fino]

OK, smarty pants.

There have been thousands of "confusing" events in history.

Name one, besides 9/11, where allegedly dead people gave news interviews to reputable news organizations after the fact? Name one.

After 9/11, six allegedly dead hijackers gave news interviews to the media.

The only other example I can find is Huckleberry Finn, who did news interviews claiming he was still alive after his obituary appeared in the newspaper.

Liar

[applecorped]

Unbelievable.........

[Dave Rogers]

There have been thousands of "confusing" events in history.

Name one, besides 9/11, where allegedly dead people gave news interviews to reputable news organizations after the fact? Name one.

There's a BBC radio program called "Desert Island Discs" in which a celebrity interviewee chooses the twelve records they would want to have with them if marooned on a desert island, and explains their choices. Roy Plomley, the creator and original presenter, once invited Alistair MacLean to appear on the show, and to his surprise MacLean, who was generally known to be a reclusive who didn't give interviews, agreed. The interview went very well until Plomley asked Maclean to talk about how he wrote his novels. MacLean replied, "What novels?" After some confusion Plomley realised that this was not Alistair MacLean, world famous novelist and author of "Where Eagles Dare", "The Guns of Navarone", "Ice Station Zebra" and many other best sellers, but Alistair MacLean, Canadian Minister for Tourism. The program was never broadcast.

The moral of this story is, often different people share the same name. Therefore, the fact that someone called Waleed al-Shehri was interviewed by a reputable news organisation after someone else called Waleed al-Shehri helped to hijack an airliner and crash it into a major public building indicates, not that there is a major coverup going on, but that there were on September 10th 2001 at least two people in the world called Waleed al-Shehri. As of September 11th 2001 there is one less, and those of us with any sense of proportion are unlikely to lament that fact.

Dave

[funk de fino]

OK, smarty pants.

There have been thousands of "confusing" events in history.

Name one, besides 9/11, where allegedly dead people gave news interviews to reputable news organizations after the fact? Name one.

After 9/11, six allegedly dead hijackers gave news interviews to the media.

The only other example I can find is Huckleberry Finn, who did news interviews claiming he was still alive after his obituary appeared in the newspaper.

Here you go smarty pants

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23849928/

[Galileo]

What about Betty Ong giving the exact seat numbers for all 5? She was off by a seat number for some of them (understandable in the confusion), but there was no one in those seats and the hijackers were the only ones around so it's obvious who she was talking about. So it's not just that some people said the hijackers were Middle-Eastern. We know their seat numbers, and with this we know their names.



Don't forget that they said the pilots were also stabbed, except for Flight 77 in which Barbara Olson said that both pilots were forced to the back of the plane. If the government truly was in on it, why would they have their "agents" pose as passengers rather than just giving them jobs as the pilots for the airlines? That way it would involve less people and less risk that someone would talk before the events (no need for muscle hijackers), the pilots could just turn their plane off course without the passengers even knowing that something was wrong, no chance that the passengers would fight back (in the case of Flight 93, resulting in a "failed mission"), etc.



Only one passenger said anything about a gun (Tom Burnett), but no gun or gun parts were found at the crash scene. "Yes, yes, just listen. Our airplane has been hijacked. It’s United Flight 93 from Newark to San Francisco. We are in the air. The hijackers have already knifed a guy, one of them has a gun, they are telling us there is a bomb on board, please call the authorities."



OK, Middle-Eastern, not Arabic. My mistake. You still didn't answer my question as to how the government could convince someone to commit suicide. None of the typical truther excuses (paid off, fear of imprisonment, fear of death) applies here. You're suggesting they were just "acting" like Arabs/Middle-Easterners now???

1) There is no evidence that there was any confusion on the airplanes. None of a the callers mentioned any confusion as to who was a hijacker and who wasn't.

2) According to the FBI, Barbara Olson never made a connected phone call from FL77.

[Galileo]

Wait, so... allegedly fake phone calls that aren't perfectly in line with the generally accepted account of events is evidence that 9/11 was orchestrated by... someone not Al-Qaeda? How the hell does that even work?

All that "evidence" does is apparently reveal the alleged perpetrators in this conspiracy fantasy to be utterly incompetent buffoons.

Never heard that theory before that the phone calls were faked. Is that your theory as to why the phone calls contradict the 9/11 Commission Report,... because they're faked??

If so, you have been overtaken by paranoia, dude, the phone calls are real. Please have a little respect for dead people.

[Alt+F4]

The calls were real-- with the exception of "Todd Beamer's" which was staged to embellish the Let's Roll narrative by someone who knew the details of Beamer's life, and intentionally made the call to a stranger (Lisa Jefferson) so no voice morphing would be necessary.

What if Todd Beamer had missed the plane?

[Galileo]

Liar

are you referring to Mark Twain? He did use a fake name.

[JamesB]

There's a BBC radio program called "Desert Island Discs" in which a celebrity interviewee chooses the twelve records they would want to have with them if marooned on a desert island, and explains their choices. Roy Plomley, the creator and original presenter, once invited Alistair MacLean to appear on the show, and to his surprise MacLean, who was generally known to be a reclusive who didn't give interviews, agreed. The interview went very well until Plomley asked Maclean to talk about how he wrote his novels. MacLean replied, "What novels?" After some confusion Plomley realised that this was not Alistair MacLean, world famous novelist and author of "Where Eagles Dare", "The Guns of Navarone", "Ice Station Zebra" and many other best sellers, but Alistair MacLean, Canadian Minister for Tourism. The program was never broadcast.



Canada has a Minister for Tourism?

[funk de fino]

are you referring to Mark Twain? He did use a fake name.

Do not act denser than previous posts. I bolded the part that I say you are lying about.

Unless you can show me interviews with any of the hijackers of course? Or even show me any are alive?

[Galileo]

There's a BBC radio program called "Desert Island Discs" in which a celebrity interviewee chooses the twelve records they would want to have with them if marooned on a desert island, and explains their choices. Roy Plomley, the creator and original presenter, once invited Alistair MacLean to appear on the show, and to his surprise MacLean, who was generally known to be a reclusive who didn't give interviews, agreed. The interview went very well until Plomley asked Maclean to talk about how he wrote his novels. MacLean replied, "What novels?" After some confusion Plomley realised that this was not Alistair MacLean, world famous novelist and author of "Where Eagles Dare", "The Guns of Navarone", "Ice Station Zebra" and many other best sellers, but Alistair MacLean, Canadian Minister for Tourism. The program was never broadcast.

The moral of this story is, often different people share the same name. Therefore, the fact that someone called Waleed al-Shehri was interviewed by a reputable news organisation after someone else called Waleed al-Shehri helped to hijack an airliner and crash it into a major public building indicates, not that there is a major coverup going on, but that there were on September 10th 2001 at least two people in the world called Waleed al-Shehri. As of September 11th 2001 there is one less, and those of us with any sense of proportion are unlikely to lament that fact.

Dave

Do you have a real example, rather than just a momentary case of someone mistalking on a radio show?

I'm talking about a news story, approved my management for publication, of a dead person doing a media interview after a "confusing" event.

We have lots of "confusing" events with many dead people, earthquakes, floods, tornados, hurricanes, tornados, wars, mass shootings, etc.

Please find me ONE example where there was "confusion", and a dead person was interviewed and portrayed as still being alive by mistake.

I'm waiting....

[funk de fino]

Do you have a real example, rather than just a momentary case of someone mistalking on a radio show?

I'm talking about a news story, approved my management for publication, of a dead person doing a media interview after a "confusing" event.
We have lots of "confusing" events with many dead people, earthquakes, floods, tornados, hurricanes, tornados, wars, mass shootings, etc.

Please find me ONE example where there was "confusion", and a dead person was interviewed and portrayed as still being alive by mistake.

I'm waiting....

I gave you one in post # 95.

[funk de fino]

You are ignoring 1100 years of legal precedent, dead people CAN be out on trial:

The dead defendent was given Constitutional protections, including a defense attorney and right to appeal conviction, and that was 1100 years ago.

Surely, people, we can do even better than this today, and give Mohamed Atta a fair trial.

Did this trial take place in the United States of America?

If not this link is irrelevant, there is no legal precendent.

Unless you want to change the law so that we can put them on trial of course?

Do you think this guy will be tried in court in the UK.

The mother of two children gassed to death by their father says they were "beautiful little angels" and "a reason for living".

Brian Philcox 52, was found dead in his Land Rover with Amy, seven, and Owen, three, in the Conwy valley on Sunday.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7458697.stm

He killed himslef and his two kids by gassing them in the car. Should he be tried?

[Galileo]

Here you go smarty pants

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23849928/

Nice try, smarty pants, but this ain't gonna cut it.

In this case, the alive person who did the interview was really alive, opposite of what you contend about the alleged 9/11 hijackers.

Show me an example where a dead person is really dead, and is reported dead, and a reputable news outlet interviews the "dead person", who claims they aren't dead.

[Galileo]

What if Todd Beamer had missed the plane?

Some of the alleged hijackers were late getting to the airport and almost missed their flights.

Also, here is more evidence that the hijacker identification is wrong:

Alleged Hijacker Booked On Post-9/11 Flights
http://www.infowars.com/?p=509

[Alt+F4]

Some of the alleged hijackers were late getting to the airport and almost missed their flights.

Also, here is more evidence that the hijacker identification is wrong:

Alleged Hijacker Booked On Post-9/11 Flights
http://www.infowars.com/?p=509

I don't find it at all suprising that at least one of the hijackers had flights booked after 9/11, it's called "plan b". What if the flight on 9/11 was cancelled? What if the hijacker missed the flight or was stopped by authorities or got cold feet?

Back to Todd Beamer. Who was this mysterious person who researched all the details of his life and called Lisa Jefferson?

[Dave Rogers]

Show me an example where a dead person is really dead, and is reported dead, and a reputable news outlet interviews the "dead person", who claims they aren't dead.

Since that didn't happen on or after 9-11, why is it relevant?

Dave

ETA: Oh, and: Stundied!

[Galileo]

Back to Todd Beamer. Who was this mysterious person who researched all the details of his life and called Lisa Jefferson?


I don't know, but the FBI says his call lasted until 10:48.

[funk de fino]

Nice try, smarty pants, but this ain't gonna cut it.

In this case, the alive person who did the interview was really alive, opposite of what you contend about the alleged 9/11 hijackers.

Show me an example where a dead person is really dead, and is reported dead, and a reputable news outlet interviews the "dead person", who claims they aren't dead.

Dave beat me to the stundie

The hijackers are dead. They were not interviewed after their deaths. Someone else contacted news outlets saying they were alive. They were not the hijackers. It was a mixup of names. it happens all the time in saudi because there names are all so similar and sometimes have slightly different spelling.

Have you been to saudi? Or any middle east country? I have loads of times.

Show me one interview from any of the dead hijackers smartypants.

In my example it was thought the person was dead, it turned out she was alive and the supposed alive person was actually dead. The person who was not dead but actally alive was interviewd. All just a bit of confusion same as 911

[funk de fino]

I don't know, but the FBI says his call lasted until 10:48.

When did Lisa Jefferson say it ended?

this is a new stupid CT theory to me. Only one call was faked the rest were real? Is this the gist of it?

What about Jeremy Glicks call? Was it real cause it debunks the stupid CT guys?

PS Post 104 please?

[Galileo]

The hijackers are dead. They were not interviewed after their deaths. Someone else contacted news outlets saying they were alive. They were not the hijackers. It was a mixup of names. it happens all the time in saudi because there names are all so similar and sometimes have slightly different spelling.



The people who did the interviews saw their photos on TV. Its not just the names. And it doesn't happen all the time. It happened six times after 9/11 and that's it.

[BenBurch]

Not to mention that many of the "witnesses against them" will be very hard to cross-examine.

BTW Galileo, what did the James family say about your claim to be related to Jesse James?

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, CptColumbo!

BTW, My family always claimed to be related to Daniel Boone, but we have no records to prove that. We certainly go back to that era in a compatible area, though. I'm just going to continue to think its true... :)

[applecorped]

The people who did the interviews saw their photos on TV. Its not just the names. And it doesn't happen all the time. It happened six times after 9/11 and that's it.

Prove it. Oh, with facts, not hearsay.

[Dave Rogers]

The people who did the interviews saw their photos on TV. Its not just the names. And it doesn't happen all the time. It happened six times after 9/11 and that's it.

I realise your entire belief system is based on failing to understand what I'm about to write, but there may be other people reading this who think your arguments have some substance, so this is for them.

Let's look at two people, Waleed al-Shehri 1 and Waleed al-Shehri 2.

Waleed al-Shehri 1 is from Khamis Mushayet, in Saudi Arabia, a 21-year-old college dropout who left his home in December 2000 and hasn't been seen since. The FBI identified Waleed al-Shehri 1 as one of the 9-11 hijackers, and all the evidence points to Waleed al-Shehri 1 as one of the hijackers, including several interviews with members of his family who describe his radicalisation and his disappearance.

Waleed al-Shehri 2 is an airline pilot who lived in Casablanca for most of 2001, and had nothing to do with 9-11. He didn't actually see his picture on the TV, rather he was told by a friend that a picture of him had been shown on CNN. The picture that was actually shown was so indistinct that it's impossible to tell whether it's of Waleed al-Shehri 1 or 2. Waleed al-Shehri 2 was the one interviewed on CNN.

So we have two people, one dead and determined to be one of the 9-11 hijackers, and the other alive and interviewed on CNN. No instance of a dead person being interviewed, therefore, whatever you choose to claim.

Dave

ETA: And Waleed al-Shehri was the only one who believed his photograph had been shown on television, and didn't even see it himself. Your claim that the whole thing happened six times is unfounded.

[applecorped]

THE NWO cloned him silly.

[Grizzly Bear]

The calls were real-- with the exception of "Todd Beamer's" which was staged to embellish the Let's Roll narrative by someone who knew the details of Beamer's life, and intentionally made the call to a stranger (Lisa Jefferson) so no voice morphing would be necessary.


Oh, and who would this 'someone' be? Was this person aware than he was signed up for a suicide mission? Or was he on the ground reading a script to intentionally call the stranger?

This seems to be grasping at every possible straw it can.


Having a boxcutter and a gun only contradicts the official story, which excludes guns.
Hey, whatever they used it was intended to subdue the passengers and intimidate them into cooperation. And apparently it worked... I fail to see how this contradicts anything to begin with... fake bombs, knives guns, whatever they had it apparently served its purpose. You do know that high jackers often play on the fears of passengers to achieve their goals...


It makes perfect sense, however, in a scenario in which the guns were used to kill the pilots quickly. The boxcutter/knives were used to stage a phony "Arab" hijacking in the cabin so the passengers would think the hijackers were Arab

I'm not the greatest debater of facts in the world but something here is really confusing. You're saying that they used guns to 'quickly kill the pilots' while simultaneously using box cutters and knives to give the impression that it was an arab high jacking... what the hell is wrong with this picture? If a gun was fired in the cockpit, it would have been heard by the passengers, which in turn would have relayed it via the phone calls they made. The fact that none reported hearing gun fire on board contradicts your claim that guns were used to kill the pilots. As I distinctly recall, did the passengers not report that flight attendants were stabbed?

Your claim is invalid...


In this way, Arabs were framed for a crime they didn't commit.

By 'Arab's' are you implying that the entire religions and those people who practice it are considered framed for a crime they did not commit? Last I recall it was only a few 'Arabs' who represented a minority among most people practicing Islam in their extremist practices... Please clarify if I misinterpreted this...


Never heard that theory before that the phone calls were faked. Is that your theory as to why the phone calls contradict the 9/11 Commission Report,... because they're faked??

If so, you have been overtaken by paranoia, dude, the phone calls are real. Please have a little respect for dead people.

The 'faked phone calls' were among claims made by the loose change 'documentary'... rather than focus you attention on him, you may want to aim the statement you had at those who initially made the claims, as they are the ones who made it, (no insult intended)... If the claim didn't reach you or you don't buy into it then all the power to you... it seems it an issue where some truthers and skeptics can mutually agree upon...

[Galileo]

I realise your entire belief system is based on failing to understand what I'm about to write, but there may be other people reading this who think your arguments have some substance, so this is for them.

Let's look at two people, Waleed al-Shehri 1 and Waleed al-Shehri 2.

Waleed al-Shehri 1 is from Khamis Mushayet, in Saudi Arabia, a 21-year-old college dropout who left his home in December 2000 and hasn't been seen since. The FBI identified Waleed al-Shehri 1 as one of the 9-11 hijackers, and all the evidence points to Waleed al-Shehri 1 as one of the hijackers, including several interviews with members of his family who describe his radicalisation and his disappearance.

Waleed al-Shehri 2 is an airline pilot who lived in Casablanca for most of 2001, and had nothing to do with 9-11. He didn't actually see his picture on the TV, rather he was told by a friend that a picture of him had been shown on CNN. The picture that was actually shown was so indistinct that it's impossible to tell whether it's of Waleed al-Shehri 1 or 2. Waleed al-Shehri 2 was the one interviewed on CNN.

So we have two people, one dead and determined to be one of the 9-11 hijackers, and the other alive and interviewed on CNN. No instance of a dead person being interviewed, therefore, whatever you choose to claim.

Dave

ETA: And Waleed al-Shehri was the only one who believed his photograph had been shown on television, and didn't even see it himself. Your claim that the whole thing happened six times is unfounded.

Show me a non-9/11 example where this happened.

[Disbelief]

Show me a non-9/11 example where this happened.

Why? What would that prove?

[MikeW]

The people who did the interviews saw their photos on TV. Its not just the names.
But you've "forgotten" to mention the incorrect photos that were shown in the media. Three examples in the CNN clip on this page (http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Hijackers_still_alive).

And of course in many cases it's not "even" the names, at least not in full. The FBI were looking for Waleed M al-Shehri, the still-alive pilot is Waleed A al-Shehri, a teensy little problem that truthers almost entirely ignore.

[Dave Rogers]

Show me a non-9/11 example where this happened.

No. After all, I can't show you a non-9-11 example where hijackers crashed airliners into the Twin Towers, and you can't show me a non-9-11 example where a building higher than 40 storeys was demolished using explosives. In neither case does this strengthen or weaken the case for it having happened on 9-11. You show me why the fact that a simple case of mistaken identity that happened after 9-11 is in any way suspicious.

And while you're at it, find me some evidence of these other five people who saw their pictures on CNN, as you claim.

Dave

[Jonnyclueless]

A friend of mine is a private investigator for companies taking action against counterfeit goods such as clothing, etc. The majority of the criminals behind it are guys from the middle east doing it to raise money for groups like Al Qaeda. He tells me that these guys all intentionally go with the same names (such as Mohammad, etc) as a defense to confuse authorities. Since they all have similar names, it makes it harder to tell who is who.

I also seem to recall that one of the hijackers who's name appeared in one of the military training bases had the same name as 25 other guys there.

[Galileo]

Why? What would that prove?

Please go back and re-read the thread, I think you can figure it out.

[Galileo]

But you've "forgotten" to mention the incorrect photos that were shown in the media. Three examples in the CNN clip on this page (http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Hijackers_still_alive).

And of course in many cases it's not "even" the names, at least not in full. The FBI were looking for Waleed M al-Shehri, the still-alive pilot is Waleed A al-Shehri, a teensy little problem that truthers almost entirely ignore.

Where did CNN get the "incorrect" photos?

[Arus808]

this is an exercise in arguing with racists...

[Disbelief]

Please go back and re-read the thread, I think you can figure it out.

I have read the thread. So, what would it prove? If you need help, Dave already answered for you.

[Galileo]

No. After all, I can't show you a non-9-11 example where hijackers crashed airliners into the Twin Towers, and you can't show me a non-9-11 example where a building higher than 40 storeys was demolished using explosives. In neither case does this strengthen or weaken the case for it having happened on 9-11. You show me why the fact that a simple case of mistaken identity that happened after 9-11 is in any way suspicious.

And while you're at it, find me some evidence of these other five people who saw their pictures on CNN, as you claim.

Dave

Show me some evidence that the media didn't confirm the identity of the people they were were interviewing.

Show me an example of any "confusing" event where people reported dead on TV (with photos), then had imposters do interviews claiming to be alive.

It looks like you gave up.

[Jonnyclueless]

Show me some evidence that the media didn't confirm the identity of the people they were were interviewing.

Show me an example of any "confusing" event where people reported dead on TV (with photos), then had imposters do interviews claiming to be alive.

It looks like you gave up.

Sure thing kid, just as soon as you prove to us that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist.

And for the sake of argument, let's go with your request and pretend that never before have planes been hijacked and had the hijackers misidentified onTV before, since we know this happens ever week at least right? What does that prove? Are you saying that if something has never happened before that it cannot happen at all? Kind would negate all exitence wouldn't it? At some point the very first building fire ever happened. Would that mean a building fire is impossible since it had never happened before?

And a good example for you would be the VA coal miners who were reported to be found alive when indeed they had died. Does that prove a conspiracy and that the miners are really alive?

Think before you post. Please.

[Galileo]

this is an exercise in arguing with racists...

The real racists are those who blames Arabs for 9/11. Not one passenger said the hijackers were Arabs. Anyone who asserts that Arabs did 9/11 is an anti-semite.

[Jonnyclueless]

Where did CNN get the "incorrect" photos?

CNN simply did a search and found people that seemed like they might match the descriptions and posted them. it turned out that they posted pictures of the wrong people, hence the issue in discussion. They wanted to be the first ones to break the news and in their rush, they screwed up. Not surprising when you have a dozen news networks all competing for the biggest story in the history of the world and each of them fighting for everyone's attention.

[funk de fino]

Where did CNN get the "incorrect" photos?

Where are the hijackers then mate?

This would be huge news if they were still alive?

Show us the interviews from them saying it was not them who are dead.

[Jonnyclueless]

The real racists are those who blames Arabs for 9/11. Not one passenger said the hijackers were Arabs. Anyone who asserts that Arabs did 9/11 is an anti-semite.

Wow, we have a definite stundie here. I don't think I have ever seen as big a lack of thought as this. So by your logic (or lack there of) unless a victim verbally states someones race, it cannot be determined? Did you eat paint chips when you were younger or something? Did you really just say that and then try to accuse smart people of being racist because they go by REAL evidence?

They were Arabs because they came from Arab countries. Hello? And BTW, anti-semite refferes to Jews. Like most twoofers you seem to think that putting two words together always means the definition is the combination fo teh two separated words.

But I am willing to bet you are one of the people who seem to think Arabs are not capable of hijacking planes (as they have done so many times in the past) and that they all live in caves and are too stupid to pull off such a plot right?

[MikeW]

Where did CNN get the "incorrect" photos?
We don't know for sure. But let's not change the topic. They showed photos that are clearly not of the same people named by the FBI. And so, for instance, the fact that the CNN broadcast led to a Saeed al-Ghamdi coming forward and saying he wasn't involved doesn't say anything about the FBI's identification. Nor does it prove that one of the named hijackers is "still alive".

[Alt+F4]

Where are the hijackers then mate?

This would be huge news if they were still alive?

Show us the interviews from them saying it was not them who are dead.

If someone was falsely accusing me of murdering almost 3000 people you'd be damn sure I'd speak up about it. Why don't these "live hijackers"?

[Galileo]

CNN simply did a search and found people that seemed like they might match the descriptions and posted them. it turned out that they posted pictures of the wrong people, hence the issue in discussion. They wanted to be the first ones to break the news and in their rush, they screwed up. Not surprising when you have a dozen news networks all competing for the biggest story in the history of the world and each of them fighting for everyone's attention.

Really, CNN is going to surf the Internet for photos, rather than get them from the FBI. The FBI gave CNN the names, but not the photos? Really.

:jaw-dropp

[Galileo]

If someone was falsely accusing me of murdering almost 3000 people you'd be damn sure I'd speak up about it. Why don't these "live hijackers"?

not if they are already wanted for other charges, like failure to pay child support, back taxes or something. Don't they cut your leg off in Saudi for that?

[Galileo]

Wow, we have a definite stundie here. I don't think I have ever seen as big a lack of thought as this. So by your logic (or lack there of) unless a victim verbally states someones race, it cannot be determined? Did you eat paint chips when you were younger or something? Did you really just say that and then try to accuse smart people of being racist because they go by REAL evidence?

They were Arabs because they came from Arab countries. Hello? And BTW, anti-semite refferes to Jews. Like most twoofers you seem to think that putting two words together always means the definition is the combination fo teh two separated words.

But I am willing to bet you are one of the people who seem to think Arabs are not capable of hijacking planes (as they have done so many times in the past) and that they all live in caves and are too stupid to pull off such a plot right?

Those brainwashed by the Judeo-Christian propaganda may believe that, for us Akkadians, Assyrians, and Babylonians, we don't think that way.

[applecorped]

Where did CNN get the "incorrect" photos?

So the MSM is trustworthy when you need them to support your position ?

[Galileo]

So the MSM is trustworthy when you need them to support your position ?

I don't have a position, and like Saul of Tarsus, I used to persecute the Christians. Then like Saint Paul I embraced 9/11 Truth.

I get all the facts first. Are you confusing the MSM with the FBI?

[applecorped]

I don't have a position, and like Saul of Tarsus, I used to persecute the Christians. Then like Saint Paul I embraced 9/11 Truth.

I get all the facts first. Are you confusing the MSM with the FBI?

1. Yes, you have taken a position.
2. When did St. Paul embrace 9/11 woo?
3. What facts are you talking about? I have yet to see any.
4. CNN is not the FBI.

[Alt+F4]

So the MSM is trustworthy when you need them to support your position ?

Same thing with the government. The "truthers" call the 9/11 commission report a whitewash, but then say the government was totally correct when:
- the FBI stated Barbara Olsen didn't call her husband
- the FBI stated there wasn't any evidence to charge OBL with 9/11
- the Bureau of Transportation Statistics database shows that the 9/11 flights didn't exist.

[Grizzly Bear]

Anyone who asserts that Arabs did 9/11 is an anti-semite.
Definitions of anti-semite on the Web:

* someone who hates and would persecute Jews
* racist: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
* Antisemitism (alternatively spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is discrimination, hostility or prejudice directed at Jewish persons as a religious, racial, or ethnic group. Instances of antisemitism range from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution. ...


So you've immediately assumed the position that the 'conspirators' or rather 'we', or any one who supports the official story who says that 'Arabs' did this is one of an anti-semite? And that we are immediately assuming that ALL ARABS are guilty because a few lost their marbles and crashed planes into buildings. I see how your argument works now. Got it. Didn't anybody tech you that generalizations aren't the smartest cause...

Sorry... I don't subscribe to it... they were individuals in a group, not the entire arab population... and apparently to you anything 'official' is propaganda regardless of source, gotchya'...

[funk de fino]

And brave sir robin still runs away from the putting them on trial post question when he quotes an Italian law case from over a thousand years ago

The man is walkin talking stundie factory

Has he any proof the FBI gave CNN the photos? No, of course he does not, yet he will still claim it.

[funk de fino]

not if they are already wanted for other charges, like failure to pay child support, back taxes or something. Don't they cut your leg off in Saudi for that?

No, only an ignoramus would claim that.

[Jonnyclueless]

Really, CNN is going to surf the Internet for photos, rather than get them from the FBI. The FBI gave CNN the names, but not the photos? Really.

:jaw-dropp

Uh hello? Have you actually researched this beyond youtube? Seriously?

As the FBI stated, yes. They gave them only the names because at the time the names are all the FBI had. CNN decided to try and skip ahead and provide the pictures on their own so as to have the story before everyone else. CNN used the wrong pictures.

So yes really. Duh!

[Jonnyclueless]

Those brainwashed by the Judeo-Christian propaganda may believe that, for us Akkadians, Assyrians, and Babylonians, we don't think that way.

I see, so you just make up your own propaganda based on absurd arguments such as if the passengers on the plane didn't stop to discuss race that it proves the hijackers weren't arabs. They also didn't mention anything about the hijackers being over 3 feet tall so we can also assume it was done by some dwarfs and gnomes.

[kookbreaker]

The Nation of Saudi Arabia, which does not like to admit that its present government and social structure has led directly to Islamic Extremism, has admitted that 13 of its sons were 9/11 hijackers.

This is a nation that, when caught red handed funding very shady Islamic groups, tries to pretend nothing is wrong. Yet the level of evidence was good enough for them to admit their children were doing the evil deeds.

Yet some fools must be more stubborn than one of the most stubborn nations in the world.

[Galileo]

And brave sir robin still runs away from the putting them on trial post question when he quotes an Italian law case from over a thousand years ago

The man is walkin talking stundie factory

Has he any proof the FBI gave CNN the photos? No, of course he does not, yet he will still claim it.

Great analysis, Sir Galahad! Now please tell us again where CNN got the photos? Maybe the CIA gave them one set and the FBI another set?

[Arus808]

Great analysis, Sir Galahad! Now please tell us again were CNN got the photos? Maybe the CIA gave them one set and the FBI another set?


why dont you go and find out? you are hteo ne speculating that CNN was right with the photos. maybe you should take the time and ask them why they used the wrong photos?

or is that too much work for you?

[Galileo]

Uh hello? Have you actually researched this beyond youtube? Seriously?

As the FBI stated, yes. They gave them only the names because at the time the names are all the FBI had. CNN decided to try and skip ahead and provide the pictures on their own so as to have the story before everyone else. CNN used the wrong pictures.

So yes really. Duh!

Really, even though zillions of Arabs all have confusing names that are spelled alike, CNN just jumped right in and posted those photos?

[Arus808]

again galilieo, ask CNN.

why are you so lazy?

[Galileo]

why dont you go and find out? you are hteo ne speculating that CNN was right with the photos. maybe you should take the time and ask them why they used the wrong photos?

or is that too much work for you?

The FBI probably got mixed up, that's easy to do with double agents. I'll forgive CNN, its not their fault.

:eye-poppi

[applecorped]

Ebonics is easier to understand than you.

[Galileo]

again galilieo, ask CNN.

why are you so lazy?

they wouldn't answer, and referred me to the FBI.

[Arus808]

they wouldn't answer, and referred me to the FBI.

then get to it. return when you have an answer.

[A-Train]

... what the hell is wrong with this picture? If a gun was fired in the cockpit, it would have been heard by the passengers, which in turn would have relayed it via the phone calls they made. The fact that none reported hearing gun fire on board contradicts your claim that guns were used to kill the pilots. As I distinctly recall, did the passengers not report that flight attendants were stabbed?

Your claim is invalid...

Unless the guns were equipped with silencers...... Has that occurred to you?

We've been down this path before on JREF. The last time, it was demanded of me that I prove the guns had silencers. Then it was argued that there were no silencers on the guns because no silencers were found in the wreckage at the crash sites...... It was also argued that the guns did not have silencers because none of the passengers reported silencers......

Can you top these arguments in sheer idiocy?


By 'Arab's' are you implying that the entire religions and those people who practice it are considered framed for a crime they did not commit? Last I recall it was only a few 'Arabs' who represented a minority among most people practicing Islam in their extremist practices... Please clarify if I misinterpreted this...

The reality is that the false impression of Arab hijackings induced Americans into a state of blind rage against all Muslim states in the Middle East. While in this frenzied emotional condition, the American people allowed themselves to be led into wars in Iraq and Afghanistan based on the flimsiest evidence of weapons of mass destruction and terrorist camps.

So, in other words, the planners of 9/11 got exactly what they wanted by staging mock-Arab hijackings on the planes, and allowing real passengers to make real phone calls describing, in emotionally gripping detail, their false impression of Arabs hijacking the planes and stabbing women-- when these acts were actually commited by non-Arabs posing as Arabs.

[funk de fino]

Unless the guns were equipped with silencers...... Has that occurred to you?

We've been down this path before on JREF. The last time, it was demanded of me that I prove the guns had silencers. Then it was argued that there were no silencers on the guns because no silencers were found in the wreckage at the crash sites...... It was also argued that the guns did not have silencers because none of the passengers reported silencers......

Can you top these arguments in sheer idiocy?




The reality is that the false impression of Arab hijackings induced Americans into a state of blind rage against all Muslim states in the Middle East. While in this frenzied emotional condition, the American people allowed themselves to be led into wars in Iraq and Afghanistan based on the flimsiest evidence of weapons of mass destruction and terrorist camps.

So, in other words, the planners of 9/11 got exactly what they wanted by staging mock-Arab hijackings on the planes, and allowing real passengers to make real phone calls describing, in emotionally gripping detail, their false impression of Arabs hijacking the planes and stabbing women-- when these acts were actually commited by non-Arabs posing as Arabs.

You're a nasty little liar

[Alt+F4]

when these acts were actually commited by non-Arabs posing as Arabs.

How does a non-Arab pose as an Arab? How do you know it wasn't Arabs posing as Arabs, but different Arabs than the 9/11 hijackers?

[applecorped]

[QUOTE=A-Train;3787794]Unless the guns were equipped with silencers...... Has that occurred to you?

We've been down this path before on JREF. The last time, it was demanded of me that I prove the guns had silencers. Then it was argued that there were no silencers on the guns because no silencers were found in the wreckage at the crash sites...... It was also argued that the guns did not have silencers because none of the passengers reported silencers......

Can you top these arguments in sheer idiocy?




Well, can you?

[A-Train]

How does a non-Arab pose as an Arab? How do you know it wasn't Arabs posing as Arabs, but different Arabs than the 9/11 hijackers?

Good point. Now we're getting somewhere. You are finally admitting that the real hijackers may not be who the official story says they are.

Some questions:



What Arab group has the sophistication to sneak guns onto US air carriers?



How can we explain the government/media's behavior in ignoring and/or covering up the evidence of guns, if they were used by Arabs?



What would be the point of not only carrying knives, but using them-- against mostly females-- if you have guns? ........ (This makes perfect sense if you are framing Arabs; you are trying to make them look as monstrous as possible to inflame Americans against the Arab/Muslim world.)

[beachnut]

none of the 19 alleged hijackers had an open casket funeral.
Why do you post like pdoh, and jessicarabbit! no substance, no fact, no evidence, just tripe.

What does this have to do with cell phones? You missed pdoh's latest sock while you off for almost a month, he got banned why you were gone. ... cell phones ... the topic ... you are not close.

Got DRG cell phone stuff? Why does DRG make extensive use of hearsay?

[applecorped]

LOL!!!! Gone fishin'

[Alt+F4]

You are finally admitting that the real hijackers may not be who the official story says they are.

I'm admitting no such thing. I'm asking you how a non-Arab could pose as an Arab?

[A-Train]

You're a nasty little liar

This reminds me of what was said about the Holy Roman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire)[962-1806]-- that it was "neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire...."

As for me, I am an agreeable medium-sized truthsayer.

[Galileo]

This reminds me of what was said about the Holy Roman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire)[962-1806]-- that it was "neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire...."

As for me, I am an agreeable medium-sized truthsayer.

Drew;

The people on this forum would not recognize the truth, even if it came special delivered to them in a voice-morphed phone call, from Pope Formosus.

[applecorped]

Yawn.

[Arus808]

Drew;

The people on this forum would not recognize the truth, even if it came special delivered to them in a voice-morphed phone call, from Pope Formosus.

pot. kettle. black.

[A-Train]

...I'm asking you how a non-Arab could pose as an Arab?

Well, it'd be close to impossible if you look like Robert Redford. On the other hand, it'd be a cinch if you look like this guy (http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/%7Emsa/issues/Palestine/MultiMedia/pictures/crimes/crazy_israeli_soldier_look_into_eyes.jpg). (The one with the helmet, in uniform.)

If you happen to have dark-olive skin and black hair, then all you have to do is board the plane under the stolen identity of some hapless Arab named Wail or Waleed, who may or may not still be alive. Once on the plane, you wait till the signal is given, then you don your red headband, jump up and shout "Allah o Akbar!" at the top of your lungs. Then you pull out your knife and start stabbing innocent women, making sure to do this in full view of some passengers. Then you pretend to storm the cockpit, even though you know the pilots have already been shot by another hijacker who looks like a nice American businessman. Finally, you send the passengers to the back of the plane, knowing they will be likely to call their families from the seatback phones installed there.

It's actually a very simple concept. And, I assure you, it has been done many times before.

[Grizzly Bear]

What Arab group has the sophistication to sneak guns onto US air carriers?



So something like the Dawson Creek Hijackings in the 1970's is impossible because these people 'in caves' are incapable of scrounging up the resources?

What of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine?
Please don't BS... hijacking happened, and many perpetrators have used the same tactics... THe only differential factor between past hijackings and 9/11 is that the hijackers took control of flying the aircraft...

So they don't have that ability? By your logic neither should many other hijackers have had the resources to do the same... what a fallacy....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson%27s_Field_hijackings



How can we explain the government/media's behavior in ignoring and/or covering up the evidence of guns, if they were used by Arabs?


What evidence? One report of a gun? Out of how many calls? Now they have silencers? I don't think the passengers were stupid, they'd have found out pretty quickly if there were guns involved.

Would guns have been necessary? What if they bluff having a bomb on-board? Does it need to be real to subdue passenger. You don't know if it's real or not, wanna take the risk?

Your argument is based on a strawman....



What would be the point of not only carrying knives, but using them-- against mostly females-- if you have guns? ........ (This makes perfect sense if you are framing Arabs; you are trying to make them look as monstrous as possible to inflame Americans against the Arab/Muslim world.)


This is speculation based on the assumption that guns were firmly established.

Nice going...

[TexasJack]

Well, it'd be close to impossible if you look like Robert Redford. On the other hand, it'd be a cinch if you look like this guy (http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/%7Emsa/issues/Palestine/MultiMedia/pictures/crimes/crazy_israeli_soldier_look_into_eyes.jpg). (The one with the helmet, in uniform.)

If you happen to have dark-olive skin and black hair, then all you have to do is board the plane under the stolen identity of some hapless Arab named Wail or Waleed, who may or may not still be alive. Once on the plane, you wait till the signal is given, then you don your red headband, jump up and shout "Allah o Akbar!" at the top of your lungs. Then you pull out your knife and start stabbing innocent women, making sure to do this in full view of some passengers. Then you pretend to storm the cockpit, even though you know the pilots have already been shot by another hijacker who looks like a nice American businessman. Finally, you send the passengers to the back of the plane, knowing they will be likely to call their families from the seatback phones installed there.

It's actually a very simple concept. And, I assure you, it has been done many times before.

Please tell me you're a parody, you've got to be.

[Jonnyclueless]

Really, even though zillions of Arabs all have confusing names that are spelled alike, CNN just jumped right in and posted those photos?

Yes. hello? Is this mic on? YES. Just like when a news network just jumped in and declared that those VA miners were all alive when they turned out to be dead. Just like when one newspaper had declared a winner to a presidential election when the other guy had won. These guys sometimes take a risk to try and beat everyone to the headline and sometimes they end up wrong.

Now you can also consider that CNN, the FBI, saudi Arabia, the families of the hijackers and everyone else have all determined that the hijackers were on the planes and are all dead. But instead, you rely on a news network releasing a faulty story that has since been corrected. And you rely on an incident that was corrected a week after 9/11 and has not changed since.

So I guess your investigation stopped within the week of 9/11.And it's funny how when the networks make a misprint its true, but other than that they are controlled by the government and used as propaganda.

[Jonnyclueless]

Drew;

The people on this forum would not recognize the truth, even if it came special delivered to them in a voice-morphed phone call, from Pope Formosus.

By truth you mean an absurd thoughtless conspiracy theory that relies on outdated information and taking quotes out of context?

You have to understand that the definition of truth is much different to those people who don't live in your little fantasy world where you pretend to play detective with your red wagon, your fruit rollups and your tree fort.

OR, if it's truth you present, why not bring up a lawsuit against the government for fraud and explain to the judge how your proof is that CNN provided pictures of live people along with the names of the hijackers? Why don't you see how much truth you get outa that racket?

[Alt+F4]

If you happen to have dark-olive skin and black hair, then all you have to do is board the plane under the stolen identity of some hapless Arab named Wail or Waleed, who may or may not still be alive. Once on the plane, you wait till the signal is given, then you don your red headband, jump up and shout "Allah o Akbar!" at the top of your lungs. Then you pull out your knife and start stabbing innocent women, making sure to do this in full view of some passengers. Then you pretend to storm the cockpit, even though you know the pilots have already been shot by another hijacker who looks like a nice American businessman. Finally, you send the passengers to the back of the plane, knowing they will be likely to call their families from the seatback phones installed there.
jIt's actually a very simple concept. And, I assure you, it has been done many times before.

Why, oh why do "truthers" have to make their theories so gosh darn complicated? The public could possibly wrap their minds around corrupt elements of the federal government controlling suicidal jihadists, but fake arabs...please!

Why use fake arabs when there are lots of real arabs around?

[applecorped]

disinfo

[Galileo]

Well, it'd be close to impossible if you look like Robert Redford. On the other hand, it'd be a cinch if you look like this guy (http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/%7Emsa/issues/Palestine/MultiMedia/pictures/crimes/crazy_israeli_soldier_look_into_eyes.jpg). (The one with the helmet, in uniform.)

If you happen to have dark-olive skin and black hair, then all you have to do is board the plane under the stolen identity of some hapless Arab named Wail or Waleed, who may or may not still be alive. Once on the plane, you wait till the signal is given, then you don your red headband, jump up and shout "Allah o Akbar!" at the top of your lungs. Then you pull out your knife and start stabbing innocent women, making sure to do this in full view of some passengers. Then you pretend to storm the cockpit, even though you know the pilots have already been shot by another hijacker who looks like a nice American businessman. Finally, you send the passengers to the back of the plane, knowing they will be likely to call their families from the seatback phones installed there.

It's actually a very simple concept. And, I assure you, it has been done many times before.

Great analysis. The wild-eyed conspiracy theory which claims (without any evidence) that 'boxcutters' were used to kill the pilots is crazy.

We have multiple reports of guns on board. Guns have always been used for hijackings, always have, always will. We have only one isolated (and bogus, according to the FBI) report of 'boxcutters' and that report specifically says that boxcutters weren't used to kill the pilots.

The vast, elaborate, multi-continent conspiracy, is dead. Glad this 'boxcutter' lunacy has been put to rest.

[beachnut]

The vast, elaborate, multi-continent conspiracy, is dead. Glad this 'boxcutter' lunacy has been put to rest.
The truth movement has so much "ample" evidence, you better go get the Pulitzer Prize!


What?



You have no evidence. Darn, no prize for you!

You just wave your hands and make up a false statement, like above, and say it is the truth. Void of facts and evidence, you have only proven the same.

[Galileo]

The truth movement has so much "ample" evidence, you better go get the Pulitzer Prize!


What?



You have no evidence. Darn, no prize for you!

You just wave your hands and make up a false statement, like above, and say it is the truth. Void of facts and evidence, you have only proven the same.

What's your evidence that a hijacker used a boxcutter to kill a pilot? In this forum, you must back up your claims with evidence.

[TexasJack]

Great analysis. The wild-eyed conspiracy theory which claims (without any evidence) that 'boxcutters' were used to kill the pilots is crazy.

We have multiple reports of guns on board. Guns have always been used for hijackings, always have, always will. We have only one isolated (and bogus, according to the FBI) report of 'boxcutters' and that report specifically says that boxcutters weren't used to kill the pilots.

The vast, elaborate, multi-continent conspiracy, is dead. Glad this 'boxcutter' lunacy has been put to rest.

Sounds like you two would make a great couple, just watch out for squirrels!

[Arus808]

what is your evidence that they used guns? back your claims up with evidence.

[DGM]

What's your evidence that a hijacker used a boxcutter to kill a pilot? In this forum, you must back up your claims with evidence.
When are you going to start abiding by the "rules"?

[A-Train]

Why use fake arabs when there are lots of real arabs around?

Framing someone for a crime is a most diabolical act. Not only do you destroy the person, you destroy his reputation as well. Ask a bunch of hardcore criminals-- murderers, rapists, extortionists-- if they have ever framed anyone. They'll say, no, I wouldn't do that. It's beneath their dignity! Most Americans can't even comprehend the concept of a frame up.

Think William Hurt at the end of Body Heat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_Heat). Sitting in prison for the rest of his life. Set up and eventually framed by Kathleen Turner for the murder of her husband. Now Turner is living of her dead husband's money on her own island, while Hurt will rot in prison for the rest of his life. He probably wished she had just killed him instead.

You've got to really hate someone to frame them. That in addition to being a fiend yourself. Where are you going to get an Arab to volunteer for a suicide mission to frame his own people? No, you'd have to get a volunteer from within a group that hates Arabs and Muslims with a passion.

[BenBurch]

BACK TO THE TOPIC - I have made cell phone calls from a Gulfstream at ~ 10,000' paralleling an interstate. It worked. This was in 1993 or 1994 when I was a Motorola employee. The calls dropped after a minute or so, and I was never billed. But they did connect, and you could communicate. We were also able to send Radiomail using the Ardis wireless data network.

So; Even though the majority of the calls from airliners were indeed GTE Airfone calls, including the "Let's Roll" call, the couple that were claimed to be from a cell phone were not unbelievable in the slightest.

[DGM]

Framing someone for a crime is a most diabolical act. Not only do you destroy the person, you destroy his reputation as well. Ask a bunch of hardcore criminals-- murderers, rapists, extortionists-- if they have ever framed anyone. They'll say, no, I wouldn't do that. It's beneath their dignity! Most Americans can't even comprehend the concept of a frame up.



Hanging out on the "group W bench"? I bet you'll get a different response if you ask the "meanest father raper".:D

[A-Train]

BACK TO THE TOPIC - I have made cell phone calls from a Gulfstream at ~ 10,000' paralleling an interstate. It worked......

Actually, this isn't the topic at all. Everyone here agrees the calls were real, made from airphones and cell phones.

The topic is: what do the calls mean? How do they support the official story, if at all?

[Galileo]

what is your evidence that they used guns? back your claims up with evidence.

we've already gone over this evidence. I am not in the repeat business.

[Alt+F4]

Where are you going to get an Arab to volunteer for a suicide mission to frame his own people? No, you'd have to get a volunteer from within a group that hates Arabs and Muslims with a passion.

No ethnic or religious group is morally superior to any other. It's just as easy to find Arabs that will murder/frame other Arabs as it is to find Asians who will do the same thing.

Keep me mind that the suicidal jihadists murderers of 9/11 did not consider what they did to be wrong. America was to be punished not for it's misguided foreign policy, but for an even worst crime: committing the great evil of actually choosing our own form of government! In their twisted view of Islam we deserve to die, all 300 million of us. To them, our deaths will be wholly justified, for we will be collateral damage in a divinely sanctioned jihad to bring about a fundamentalist, pan-Islamic world.

[Grizzly Bear]

Great analysis. The wild-eyed conspiracy theory which claims (without any evidence) that 'boxcutters' were used to kill the pilots is crazy.

Try searching google for images of box cutter injuries... cut the wrong place and they are fatal... The fact that two flight attendants were stabbed reinforces that they had them... or at least something similar


Guns have always been used for hijackings, always have, always will.

Since when did you decide that all plane hijacking necessitate the use of guns? Rare it may be that 'rule' is already debunked by precedent of DB Cooper, probably the best known case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._B._Cooper

"After the jet had taken off from Portland, he handed a note to a young flight attendant named Florence Schaffner,[10] who was seated in a jumpseat attached to the aft stair door, situated directly behind and to the left of Cooper's seat. She thought he was giving her his phone number, so she slipped it, unopened, into her pocket.[11] Cooper leaned closer and said, "Miss, you'd better look at that note. I have a bomb."[12] In the envelope was a note that read: "I have a bomb in my briefcase. I will use it if necessary. I want you to sit next to me. You are being hijacked."[13]


The note also provided demands for $200,000, in unmarked $20 bills, and two sets of parachutes—two main back chutes and two emergency chest chutes.[14] The note carried instructions ordering the items to be delivered to the plane when it landed at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport; if the demands were not met, he would blow up the plane.[15] When the flight attendant informed the cockpit about Cooper and the note, the pilot, William Scott, contacted Seattle-Tacoma air traffic control, who contacted Seattle police and the FBI. The FBI contacted Northwest Airlines president Donald Nyrop, who instructed Scott to cooperate with the hijacker.[14] Scott instructed Schaffner to go back and sit next to Cooper, and ascertain if the bomb was in fact real. Sensing this, Cooper opened his briefcase momentarily, long enough for Schaffner to see red cylinders, a large battery, and wires, convincing her the bomb was real.[16] He instructed her to tell the pilot not to land until the money and parachutes Cooper had requested were ready at Seattle-Tacoma. She went back to the cockpit to relay Cooper's instructions.[14]"

Apparently with the 'traditional' hijackings guns were not even necessary, again... they can bluff having a bomb and it'd be more than enough if it 'looked' real... They play on the uncertainty of the passengers to achieve it.


and that report specifically says that boxcutters weren't used to kill the pilots.
Forgive me if I'm not looking in the right places but google isn't my best friend today. Would you mind if I asked you to link me to the report, so I don't go unreasonably discrediting a claim?



The vast, elaborate, multi-continent conspiracy, is dead. Glad this 'boxcutter' lunacy has been put to rest.

Oh and one last question... two flight attendants were murdered as well as a passenger... what did they use to kill them? Knives... guns...? Fishing line...?
I imagine the guns in your contention are supposed to have been hidden from passengers and surely they'd have reported the guns being used WITH OR WITHOUT SILENCERS had they used them on passengers... So Galileo... what did they use on the flight attendants and passenger? Clearly you seem to have eliminated box cutters or knives, so what do you propose they used?

[Galileo]

Try searching google for images of box cutter injuries... cut the wrong place and they are fatal... The fact that two flight attendants were stabbed reinforces that they had them... or at least something similar


Since when did you decide that all plane hijacking necessitate the use of guns? Rare it may be that 'rule' is already debunked by precedent of DB Cooper, probably the best known case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._B._Cooper

"After the jet had taken off from Portland, he handed a note to a young flight attendant named Florence Schaffner,[10] who was seated in a jumpseat attached to the aft stair door, situated directly behind and to the left of Cooper's seat. She thought he was giving her his phone number, so she slipped it, unopened, into her pocket.[11] Cooper leaned closer and said, "Miss, you'd better look at that note. I have a bomb."[12] In the envelope was a note that read: "I have a bomb in my briefcase. I will use it if necessary. I want you to sit next to me. You are being hijacked."[13]


The note also provided demands for $200,000, in unmarked $20 bills, and two sets of parachutes—two main back chutes and two emergency chest chutes.[14] The note carried instructions ordering the items to be delivered to the plane when it landed at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport; if the demands were not met, he would blow up the plane.[15] When the flight attendant informed the cockpit about Cooper and the note, the pilot, William Scott, contacted Seattle-Tacoma air traffic control, who contacted Seattle police and the FBI. The FBI contacted Northwest Airlines president Donald Nyrop, who instructed Scott to cooperate with the hijacker.[14] Scott instructed Schaffner to go back and sit next to Cooper, and ascertain if the bomb was in fact real. Sensing this, Cooper opened his briefcase momentarily, long enough for Schaffner to see red cylinders, a large battery, and wires, convincing her the bomb was real.[16] He instructed her to tell the pilot not to land until the money and parachutes Cooper had requested were ready at Seattle-Tacoma. She went back to the cockpit to relay Cooper's instructions.[14]"

Apparently with the 'traditional' hijackings guns were not even necessary, again... they can bluff having a bomb and it'd be more than enough if it 'looked' real... They play on the uncertainty of the passengers to achieve it.



Forgive me if I'm not looking in the right places but google isn't my best friend today. Would you mind if I asked you to link me to the report, so I don't go unreasonably discrediting a claim?



Oh and one last question... two flight attendants were murdered as well as a passenger... what did they use to kill them? Knives... guns...? Fishing line...?
I imagine the guns in your contention are supposed to have been hidden from passengers and surely they'd have reported the guns being used WITH OR WITHOUT SILENCERS had they used them on passengers... So Galileo... what did they use on the flight attendants and passenger? Clearly you seem to have eliminated box cutters or knives, so what do you propose they used?

DB Cooper parachuted out of the plane, debunking your theory that the 9/11 hijackers could not have done so as well.

You also have no proof that Cooper did not have a gun, just because it wasn't mentioned on Wikipedia. The wikipedia article about 9/11 doesn't mention guns either.

[beachnut]

What's your evidence that a hijacker used a boxcutter to kill a pilot? In this forum, you must back up your claims with evidence.
That is how they killed the pilots; or the pilots would have taken the plane back.

Being a pilot, there is no reason when I am in charge of the plane I will give up my position as the pilot! If they do not kill me, they will fail. In fact, if they do not kill me in seconds, I can disable the plane. The plane is my responsibility, and I will not let it be taken away from me.

If you need some more help on flying issues, just ask. You seem to be unfamiliar with flying operations and 9/11. Keep working, you may gain knowledge one day and stop posting like Pdoh and JessicaRabbit, who sock just was banned, just before you showed up again after being gone for almost a month. Looks like you did not study 9/11 issues while you were gone.

I guess you have no clue how the pilots were killed. Why do truthers, like you, have no evidence, and need little effort to debunk?


You post a lot like pdoh, did you see his latest sock?

Approximately from 8:15-8:20 AM— Using box-cutters and small knives, ATTA and his team seize control of Flight 11. According to flight attendant Madeline Amy Sweeney, four attackers had cut the throat of a passenger in business class, killing him. They also stabbed the two flight attendants in First Class, including Karen Martin (who was given oxygen by the other flight attendants) and a pilot, she said. Flight attendant Betty Ong reported that two men in the eighth row [ATTA and ALOMARI] killed a man sitting behind them.. Ong also stated that the hijackers had sprayed something in her face—mace, presumably—that made her eyes burn and made breathing difficult. Three of the hijackers had been sitting in business class themselves and one [this could only be ATTA] spoke very good English. Darn, evidence, and you still have talk and hearsay.

[theprestige]

Ask a bunch of hardcore criminals-- murderers, rapists, extortionists-- if they have ever framed anyone.
Shifting the burden of proof. You're the one making the claim, you're responsible for backing it up.

They'll say, no, I wouldn't do that.
Supposition. Can you support this claim with evidence?

It's beneath their dignity!
Supposition. Can you support this claim with evidence?

Most Americans can't even comprehend the concept of a frame up.
Supposition. Can you support this claim with evidence?

Think William Hurt at the end of Body Heat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_Heat). Sitting in prison for the rest of his life. Set up and eventually framed by Kathleen Turner for the murder of her husband. Now Turner is living of her dead husband's money on her own island, while Hurt will rot in prison for the rest of his life. He probably wished she had just killed him instead.
A Hollywood movie is your idea of supporting evidence? And if "most Americans can't even comprehend the concept of a frame up", how did this movie even get made? According to Box Office Mojo (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=bodyheat.htm), the movie has grossed over $24 million dollars. 8,810 readers of IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082089/) give it an average rating of 7.3 (out of 10). Other popular entertainments that featured the frameup as a plot device include the TV shows The Fugitive, The Dukes of Hazzard, 24, and Prison Break; and the movies Mission Impossible and The Bourne Supremacy. The popularity of these stories undermines your claim that the majority of Americans find the idea of a frame up incomprehensible.

Are you seriously arguing that most people are unable to comprehend the idea of shifting the blame, passing the buck, or setting up a fall guy?

You've got to really hate someone to frame them.
Supposition. Can you support this claim with evidence?

That in addition to being a fiend yourself. Where are you going to get an Arab to volunteer for a suicide mission to frame his own people? No, you'd have to get a volunteer from within a group that hates Arabs and Muslims with a passion.
Supposition. Can you support this claim with evidence?

[Grizzly Bear]

DB Cooper parachuted out of the plane, debunking your theory that the 9/11 hijackers could not have done so as well.

Where did I say the hijackers 'parachuted out'? Please point that out for me... Otherwise don't try to make a straw man out of the precedent I gave...


You also have no proof that Cooper did not have a gun, just because it wasn't mentioned on Wikipedia.
Apparently he didn't require a gun... all he had to do was show something that looked like a bomb...

Source (http://nymag.com/news/features/39617/)
"Armed with an attaché case he claims contains a bomb, Cooper demands, and receives"

Still up as a precedent, there's no evidence that he used a gun:

Source (http://www.fbi.gov/page2/nov06/cooper112406.htm)
He ordered a drink—bourbon and soda—while the flight was waiting to take off. A short time after 3:00 p.m., he handed the stewardess a note indicating that he had a bomb in his briefcase and wanted her to sit with him.

The stunned stewardess did as she was told. Opening a cheap attaché case, Cooper showed her a glimpse of a mass of wires and red colored sticks and demanded that she write down what he told her. Soon, she was walking a new note to the captain of the plane that demanded four parachutes and $200,000 in twenty dollar bills.

[beachnut]

DB Cooper parachuted out of the plane, debunking your theory that the 9/11 hijackers could not have done so as well. ...
Wrong. DB Cooper used a 727. It had a rear stairwell. The only save place to bailout of a plane without a spoiler, is the very back.

Plus DB had the pilots fly low and depressurize the plane so he would not be sucked out and killed. You must fly very slow, or your chute will be damaged!

The 757/767 has no place to bail out! If you can open a door in flight, you will be impaled along the surface of the plane and most likely fail to survive.

So you are wrong on this one too. Must be why you are a truther and post silly ideas like pdoh did before he was banned again as a sock, you may of missed him, you left in May for almost a month. But you post just like him, do you try to emulate him?

But again, you are wrong about this subject; like you are on other 9/11 ideas. This is due to lack of knowledge and reasoning. Brush up and hurry back.

recap -
DB, parachuted from the back of a 727 as it was flying over the northwest. Boeing modified the design so the airstair could not be lowered in flight, due to DB. No safe way out of a 757/767 in flight. Sorry! You will have to ask Boeing to modify one for bailout! Bring lots of money (when you are wrong, you are wrong on so many levels)

[Galileo]

Wrong. DB Cooper used a 727. It had a rear stairwell. The only save place to bailout of a plane without a spoiler, is the very back.

Plus DB had the pilots fly low and depressurize the plane so he would not be sucked out and killed. You must fly very slow, or your chute will be damaged!

The 757/767 has no place to bail out! If you can open a door in flight, you will be impaled along the surface of the plane and most likely fail to survive.

So you are wrong on this one too. Must be why you are a truther and post silly ideas like pdoh did before he was banned again as a sock, you may of missed him, you left in May for almost a month. But you post just like him, do you try to emulate him?

But again, you are wrong about this subject; like you are on other 9/11 ideas. This is due to lack of knowledge and reasoning. Brush up and hurry back.

recap -
DB, parachuted from the back of a 727 as it was flying over the northwest. Boeing modified the design so the airstair could not be lowered in flight, due to DB. No safe way out of a 757/767 in flight. Sorry! You will have to ask Boeing to modify one for bailout! Bring lots of money (when you are wrong, you are wrong on so many levels)

Wow! You seem to know a lot about what hijackers can and cannot do. Very persuasive.

[beachnut]

Wow! You seem to know a lot about what hijackers can and cannot do. Very persuasive.
You should study more. And come up with a position on DRG cell phones instead of hijackers. Why not start a thread with your evidence on 9/11.

DRG, cell phones?

[Arus808]

Wow! You seem to know a lot about what hijackers can and cannot do. Very persuasive.

wow, and you have not put forth anything in all the time you've been here.

care to finally post some evidence to back up your claims?

[DGM]

wow, and you have not put forth anything in all the time you've been here.

care to finally post some evidence to back up your claims?
You might want to add the stipulation that he can't just pull the "evidence" out of his arse.

[Slayhamlet]

Good point. Now we're getting somewhere. You are finally admitting that the real hijackers may not be who the official story says they are.

Some questions:



What Arab group has the sophistication to sneak guns onto US air carriers?



How can we explain the government/media's behavior in ignoring and/or covering up the evidence of guns, if they were used by Arabs?



What would be the point of not only carrying knives, but using them-- against mostly females-- if you have guns? ........ (This makes perfect sense if you are framing Arabs; you are trying to make them look as monstrous as possible to inflame Americans against the Arab/Muslim world.)


I'm sure these points make perfect sense to nasty little racists who know squat about the Arab world. They are correctly dismissed as garbage by decent and informed people.

[pomeroo]

Framing someone for a crime is a most diabolical act. Not only do you destroy the person, you destroy his reputation as well. Ask a bunch of hardcore criminals-- murderers, rapists, extortionists-- if they have ever framed anyone. They'll say, no, I wouldn't do that. It's beneath their dignity! Most Americans can't even comprehend the concept of a frame up.

Think William Hurt at the end of Body Heat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_Heat). Sitting in prison for the rest of his life. Set up and eventually framed by Kathleen Turner for the murder of her husband. Now Turner is living of her dead husband's money on her own island, while Hurt will rot in prison for the rest of his life. He probably wished she had just killed him instead.

You've got to really hate someone to frame them. That in addition to being a fiend yourself. Where are you going to get an Arab to volunteer for a suicide mission to frame his own people? No, you'd have to get a volunteer from within a group that hates Arabs and Muslims with a passion.


Wouldn't it be great for your insane fantasy if real jihadists actually complained that they were being framed instead of crowing all the time about their victory?

[RKOwens4]

1) There is no evidence that there was any confusion on the airplanes. None of a the callers mentioned any confusion as to who was a hijacker and who wasn't.

Oh? So the passengers never asked those on the ground if they knew what these hijackers wanted? Which airlines were involved? How many planes? The passengers stated that they knew for a fact that the bomb was real? Betty Ong and Peter Hanson didn't say that they thought the hijackers may have been in the cockpit? Both knew for certain who was flying?

The passengers were able to tell the people on the ground, who repeatedly asked if they had any idea where they currently were or which direction they were headed in, exactly where they were at that point in time?

2) According to the FBI, Barbara Olson never made a connected phone call from FL77.

Source? Are you talking about the Flash Player program showing the calls released after the Moussoui trial? If so, what about the 4 connected calls ranging from 102 seconds to 274 seconds? Could two of these have been the two from Barbara Olson?

[pomeroo]

Well, it'd be close to impossible if you look like Robert Redford. On the other hand, it'd be a cinch if you look like this guy (http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/%7Emsa/issues/Palestine/MultiMedia/pictures/crimes/crazy_israeli_soldier_look_into_eyes.jpg). (The one with the helmet, in uniform.)

If you happen to have dark-olive skin and black hair, then all you have to do is board the plane under the stolen identity of some hapless Arab named Wail or Waleed, who may or may not still be alive. Once on the plane, you wait till the signal is given, then you don your red headband, jump up and shout "Allah o Akbar!" at the top of your lungs. Then you pull out your knife and start stabbing innocent women, making sure to do this in full view of some passengers. Then you pretend to storm the cockpit, even though you know the pilots have already been shot by another hijacker who looks like a nice American businessman. Finally, you send the passengers to the back of the plane, knowing they will be likely to call their families from the seatback phones installed there.

It's actually a very simple concept. And, I assure you, it has been done many times before.


When I asked the Icelandic liar on Richard Greene's show if the entire FBI was in on it, he threw a hissy-fit and screeched that I was a liar. So, how about it--were all 7,000 agents detailed to the investigation part of your imaginary conspiracy?

Speak up.

[jhunter1163]

Hanging out on the "group W bench"? I bet you'll get a different response if you ask the "meanest father raper".:D

JREF: Dr. Griffin, we found your name on a book containing a half-a-ton of garbage, and we just wanted to know if you had any information about that.

Dr. Griffin: Yes, sir, Mr. Randi, I cannot tell a lie... I put those covers around that garbage.

[A-Train]

Wouldn't it be great for your insane fantasy if real jihadists actually complained that they were being framed instead of crowing all the time about their victory?

Who exactly are these "jihadists" who crow about "their victory"?

The truth is that poll after poll shows the vast majority of Muslims around the world do NOT believe Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks.

(http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002/02/27/usat-poll.htm)"Many in Islamic world doubt Arabs behind 9/11" (http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002/02/27/usat-poll.htm)
"A sweeping poll of attitudes in the Islamic world shows that most Muslims don't believe Arabs carried out the Sept. 11 attacks and disapprove of the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan. The Gallup Organization poll, released Tuesday, is the most comprehensive survey of Muslim countries taken since Sept. 11. It confirms anecdotal evidence of a huge gulf between the West and Muslim nations that existed before the attacks and remains deep."

-USA Today 2/27/2002Despite the headline, however, this piece in the USA Today never goes in to detail about what Muslims really believe happened on 9/11, instead focusing on their opposition to the wars, etc. Like most mainstream media, USA Today doesn't want Americans to even get exposed to the frame-up idea, lest it begin to catch on among the masses.

[fullflavormenthol]

Who exactly are these "jihadists" who crow about "their victory"?

The truth is that poll after poll shows the vast majority of Muslims around the world do NOT believe Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks.

(http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002/02/27/usat-poll.htm)"Many in Islamic world doubt Arabs behind 9/11" (http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002/02/27/usat-poll.htm)
Despite the headline, however, this piece in the USA Today never goes in to detail about what Muslims really believe happened on 9/11, instead focusing on their opposition to the wars, etc. Like most mainstream media, USA Today doesn't want Americans to even get exposed to the frame-up idea, lest it begin to catch on among the masses.
And a large section of the Islamic world also believes that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a real historical document. What is the point of this? An appeal to popularity doesn't prove anything. USA today also doesn't seem to go into detail on theories about Aliens controlling the world, doesn't mean they are trying to cover it up.

[Dave Rogers]

Show me some evidence that the media didn't confirm the identity of the people they were were interviewing.

Your level of confusion here is staggering. Are you asking that the media should have made certain that the person they were interviewing was not only dead, but thoroughly incinerated? Or are you asking that they should have made certain that the person they were interviewing had the same name as one of the hijackers? The first proposal is absurd, the second trivial. Your entire position is so far from making sense that you couldn't see it with a telescope.

Show me an example of any "confusing" event where people reported dead on TV (with photos), then had imposters do interviews claiming to be alive.

Show me where this happened on 9-11. And while you're at it, show me some evidence of these six people who saw their photographs on CNN. If you can't do so and you don't retract the claim, then you're a liar.

It looks like you gave up.

Trying to have a rational conversation with someone who denies the possibility that one person could be mistaken for another with the same name, despite the fact that he posts under the name of someone who's been dead for centuries? Who wouldn't give up?

Dave

[gumboot]

Who exactly are these "jihadists" who crow about "their victory"?

The truth is that poll after poll shows the vast majority of Muslims around the world do NOT believe Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks.

(http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002/02/27/usat-poll.htm)"Many in Islamic world doubt Arabs behind 9/11" (http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002/02/27/usat-poll.htm)
Despite the headline, however, this piece in the USA Today never goes in to detail about what Muslims really believe happened on 9/11, instead focusing on their opposition to the wars, etc. Like most mainstream media, USA Today doesn't want Americans to even get exposed to the frame-up idea, lest it begin to catch on among the masses.



From the article...

02/27/2002 - Updated 01:53 AM ET

Many in Islamic world doubt Arabs behind 9/11

Gallup conducted in-person interviews during December and January of 9,924 residents in nine Muslim countries: Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

For instance, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Morocco did not allow the question about Arab responsibility for the Sept. 11 attacks.

Congratulations... your "vast majority of Muslims from around the world" turns out to be 60% of less than 10,000 Muslims in six countries, only a couple of months after the attacks, before any of the investigations had been completed.

Genius.

[funk de fino]

Well, it'd be close to impossible if you look like Robert Redford. On the other hand, it'd be a cinch if you look like this guy (http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/%7Emsa/issues/Palestine/MultiMedia/pictures/crimes/crazy_israeli_soldier_look_into_eyes.jpg). (The one with the helmet, in uniform.)

If you happen to have dark-olive skin and black hair, then all you have to do is board the plane under the stolen identity of some hapless Arab named Wail or Waleed, who may or may not still be alive. Once on the plane, you wait till the signal is given, then you don your red headband, jump up and shout "Allah o Akbar!" at the top of your lungs. Then you pull out your knife and start stabbing innocent women, making sure to do this in full view of some passengers. Then you pretend to storm the cockpit, even though you know the pilots have already been shot by another hijacker who looks like a nice American businessman. Finally, you send the passengers to the back of the plane, knowing they will be likely to call their families from the seatback phones installed there.

It's actually a very simple concept. And, I assure you, it has been done many times before.

Again with the nasty little liar thing eh?

[Clippy]

A-Train,

Sorry if you've already mentioned this somewhere else, but what do you think happened to the hijackers? Were the planes switched? Or were they in the planes when they hit the towers?

[Dave Rogers]

A-Train,

Sorry if you've already mentioned this somewhere else, but what do you think happened to the hijackers? Were the planes switched? Or were they in the planes when they hit the towers?

Oh good, this should be fun to watch.

Dave

[A-Train]

A-Train,

Sorry if you've already mentioned this somewhere else, but what do you think happened to the hijackers? Were the planes switched? Or were they in the planes when they hit the towers?

Apparently you can't beat me on the issues we're discussing here, so you want to lead me to speculate, so I'll give you something easier to contend with than the straightforward theory presented above that the hijackers were posing as Arabs to frame Arabs.

OK, I'll take the bait. The planes were not switched. Only one of two things could have happened to the hijackers. Either it was a suicide mission, and they stayed in the planes and died in the crashes. That does not imply they flew the planes. Based on the flight paths of the planes, especially AAL77, the planes were flown by remote control while the hijackers sat in the cabin or cockpit and awaited their deaths.

The other possibility is that the hijackers escaped the planes somehow, most likely with parachutes, using a maneuver similar to the HAHO and HALO jumps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HALO/HAHO) practiced by such commando units as the Navy SEALS. Such jumps are sometimes clandestine as described here (http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9781588363527&view=excerpt).

Of course the first scenario seems far more likely and is obviously simpler. However I have yet to see any credible evidence that the hijackers-- the real ones-- were still on the planes in the last 10 minutes of flight, or that their bodies were recovered at the crash scenes.

[Alt+F4]

Based on the flight paths of the planes, especially AAL77, the planes were flown by remote control while the hijackers sat in the cabin or cockpit and awaited their deaths.

The other possibility is that the hijackers escaped the planes somehow, most likely with parachutes.

Could please explain the technology (in layperson's terms) of how a Boeing 757 can be flown via remote control? In addition, how did the hijackers get parachutes on board the plane?

Thanks in advance.

[pomeroo]

Apparently you can't beat me on the issues we're discussing here, so you want to lead me to speculate, so I'll give you something easier to contend with than the straightforward theory presented above that the hijackers were posing as Arabs to frame Arabs.

OK, I'll take the bait. The planes were not switched. Only one of two things could have happened to the hijackers. Either it was a suicide mission, and they stayed in the planes and died in the crashes. That does not imply they flew the planes. Based on the flight paths of the planes, especially AAL77, the planes were flown by remote control while the hijackers sat in the cabin or cockpit and awaited their deaths.

The other possibility is that the hijackers escaped the planes somehow, most likely with parachutes, using a maneuver similar to the HAHO and HALO jumps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HALO/HAHO) practiced by such commando units as the Navy SEALS. Such jumps are sometimes clandestine as described here (http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9781588363527&view=excerpt).

Of course the first scenario seems far more likely and is obviously simpler. However I have yet to see any credible evidence that the hijackers-- the real ones-- were still on the planes in the last 10 minutes of flight, or that their bodies were recovered at the crash scenes.


Correction: you have SEEN overwhelming evidence that the jihadists died on the planes they hijacked. You are incapable of PROCESSING that information.

[SpitfireIX]

Apparently you can't beat me on the issues we're discussing here, so you want to lead me to speculate, so I'll give you something easier to contend with than the straightforward theory presented above that the hijackers were posing as Arabs to frame Arabs.

OK, I'll take the bait. The planes were not switched. Only one of two things could have happened to the hijackers. Either it was a suicide mission, and they stayed in the planes and died in the crashes. That does not imply they flew the planes. Based on the flight paths of the planes, especially AAL77, the planes were flown by remote control while the hijackers sat in the cabin or cockpit and awaited their deaths.

The other possibility is that the hijackers escaped the planes somehow, most likely with parachutes, using a maneuver similar to the HAHO and HALO jumps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HALO/HAHO) practiced by such commando units as the Navy SEALS. Such jumps are sometimes clandestine as described here (http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9781588363527&view=excerpt).

Of course the first scenario seems far more likely and is obviously simpler. However I have yet to see any credible evidence that the hijackers-- the real ones-- were still on the planes in the last 10 minutes of flight, or that their bodies were recovered at the crash scenes.


For the benefit of anyone reading who's unfamiliar, the fact that such jumps are only possible from airliners with rear stairs, notably the 727 and the DC-9, has been explained to A-Train ad nauseam. Note that the aircraft in the account to which A-Train links is a 727. The fact that such jumps cannot be accomplished about 10,000 feet without depressurizing the plane, and that no depressurization was reported by any of the passengers or flight attendants who called to report the hijackings, has also been repeatedly explained to him. Despite this, A-Train continues to parrot his nonsense, ignoring or attempting to handwave away the facts that utterly destroy his Israeli commando fantasy.

[Alt+F4]

For the benefit of anyone reading who's unfamiliar, the fact that such jumps are only possible from airliners with rear stairs, notably the 727 and the DC-9, has been explained to A-Train ad nauseam. Note that the aircraft in the account to which A-Train links is a 727. The fact that such jumps cannot be accomplished about 10,000 feet without depressurizing the plane, and that no depressurization was reported by any of the passengers or flight attendants who called to report the hijackings, has also been repeatedly explained to him. Despite this, A-Train continues to parrot his nonsense, ignoring or attempting to handwave away the facts that utterly destroy his Israeli commando fantasy.

I'm sure he's going to say that they jumped shortly before the plane crashed, therefore no need for decompression, which leads me to the parachute question: were the parachutes checked luggage or carry on?

[TruthMakesPeace]

RK, I respect your sincerity in discussing these ideas. At least you are not hiding behind childish "humor," like the other participants in this thread.

Yes, I agree. We need more posts like this on JREF to make it a place for university level discussion with adults. The ad hominems must be from junior high kids. But, at least JREF does not censor. It is better to endure some verbal abuse and have an open forum for getting to the truth. Otherwise discussion is limited to the censor's opinion of the truth.

My question about cell phone calls has been censored on 2 so called "open truther boards" (911Blogger and Pumpitout). So my question remains unanswered. I have tried many times to make a cell phone call from a jet at cruising altitude, to see if it was really possible on 9/11. I video taped 3 of the experiments, which you can find at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgQTVTJ2yIM CHI-DCA 2010-12 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYOjkOmIn44 DCA-ATL 2011-01 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJk8qdrv6AM ATL-MLI 2011-01 pm

Verizon is a pretty good carrier. Whether or not this has anything to do with 9/11, these tests indicate that cell phones don't work from cruising altitudes, even in 2011, much less in 2001. Does anyone know of any proof, preferably video, showing cell phones DO work from high altitudes?

[16.5]

Verizon is a pretty good carrier. Whether or not this has anything to do with 9/11, these tests indicate that cell phones don't work from cruising altitudes, even in 2011, much less in 2001. Does anyone know of any proof, preferably video, showing cell phones DO work from high altitudes?

I am going to put aside the whole premise of your claims about cell phones, and what they have to do with 9-11, and ask how you managed to get a Digital Verizon Smart Phone on a plane in 2001?

[DGM]

Yes, I agree. We need more posts like this on JREF to make it a place for university level discussion with adults. The ad hominems must be from junior high kids. But, at least JREF does not censor. It is better to endure some verbal abuse and have an open forum for getting to the truth. Otherwise discussion is limited to the censor's opinion of the truth.

My question about cell phone calls has been censored on 2 so called "open truther boards" (911Blogger and Pumpitout). So my question remains unanswered. I have tried many times to make a cell phone call from a jet at cruising altitude, to see if it was really possible on 9/11. I video taped 3 of the experiments, which you can find at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgQTVTJ2yIM CHI-DCA 2010-12 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYOjkOmIn44 DCA-ATL 2011-01 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJk8qdrv6AM ATL-MLI 2011-01 pm

Verizon is a pretty good carrier. Whether or not this has anything to do with 9/11, these tests indicate that cell phones don't work from cruising altitudes, even in 2011, much less in 2001. Does anyone know of any proof, preferably video, showing cell phones DO work from high altitudes?
I believe a big problem you're going to find doing these kinds of tests is power out-put of phones today is much less then 10 years ago. Cell towers are more plentiful so transmitting and receiving distances are not a great and digital signals carry better so less power is needed (saving battery for fun apps).

My question is, Why do you doubt the ones that were said to be made were real?

[TruthMakesPeace]

I believe a big problem you're going to find doing these kinds of tests is power out-put of phones today is much less then 10 years ago. Cell towers are more plentiful so transmitting and receiving distances are not a great and digital signals carry better so less power is needed (saving battery for fun apps).

Thanks for an interesting and informative answer. One would think that cell phones would become more powerful as time goes on. But you presented a good argument that they don't need to be as powerful. I'll start Googling on that. If you know of a particularly good URL, I'm all ears.

[DGM]

Thanks for an interesting and informative answer. One would think that cell phones would become more powerful as time goes on. But you presented a good argument that they don't need to be as powerful. I'll start Googling on that. If you know of a particularly good URL, I'm all ears.
Not off the top of my head but, I know it's discussed on other threads in this forum.


You didn't touch my question. Why's that?

[16.5]

Thanks for an interesting and informative answer. One would think that cell phones would become more powerful as time goes on. But you presented a good argument that they don't need to be as powerful. I'll start Googling on that. If you know of a particularly good URL, I'm all ears.

9/11 Myths.

/ps: why in the hell are you reanimating all these zombie threads anyway?

[Animal]

Yes, I agree. We need more posts like this on JREF to make it a place for university level discussion with adults. The ad hominems must be from junior high kids. But, at least JREF does not censor. It is better to endure some verbal abuse and have an open forum for getting to the truth. Otherwise discussion is limited to the censor's opinion of the truth.

My question about cell phone calls has been censored on 2 so called "open truther boards" (911Blogger and Pumpitout). So my question remains unanswered. I have tried many times to make a cell phone call from a jet at cruising altitude, to see if it was really possible on 9/11. I video taped 3 of the experiments, which you can find at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgQTVTJ2yIM CHI-DCA 2010-12 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYOjkOmIn44 DCA-ATL 2011-01 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJk8qdrv6AM ATL-MLI 2011-01 pm

Verizon is a pretty good carrier. Whether or not this has anything to do with 9/11, these tests indicate that cell phones don't work from cruising altitudes, even in 2011, much less in 2001. Does anyone know of any proof, preferably video, showing cell phones DO work from high altitudes?

And I was reprimanded by a flight attendant for having by phone ring at cruising altitude (it was hanging in the wardrobe in !st class) Forgot to turn it off before she took my jacket. She heard it ringing , pulled it out and asked who owned the phone.

[Dave Rogers]

Thanks for an interesting and informative answer. One would think that cell phones would become more powerful as time goes on. But you presented a good argument that they don't need to be as powerful.

It's more than that; they need, in effect, to be less powerful.

Remember, first, that there are two elements to mobile telephony: the phone itself, and the base station it communicates with. The range of the phone, in isolation, is a meaningless concept; what is important is the range of the link between the phone and the base station. This depends on the transmitting power of the phone and the responsivity of the base station in one direction, and on the transmitting power of the base station and the responsivity of the phone in the other. The range can be increased or decreased simply by adjusting the base station, and in fact this is how it is done in practice; all phones will conform to a uniform standard.

As the cellular network increases capacity, it does so by increasing the number of base stations available. Since there is only a limited number of wavelengths available, if the range is too great then any given phone can communicate with several different antennas at similar signal strength, leading to confusion on choosing which one should carry the signal. The range of mobile phones - or, more properly, the range of mobile phone base stations - has therefore to be carefully tailored to their location. The range will typically be less than the next-nearest-neighbour separation; where there are large numbers of base stations, this can be a few hundred metres or less.

This is the major flaw, in fact, with A. K. Dewdney's Project Achilles, in which he tried to assess the range of mobile phone communications. For the location, he chose London, Ontario, where he felt that the large number of base stations would ensure a good signal range. Ironically, had he not been so ignorant of the basics of mobile telephony, he would immediately have realised that this would ensure a very poor signal range. Your work is flawed because cellphone networks are much denser now than in 2001, so by the same argument ranges must have decreased.

It's also interesting to note that many of the cellphone calls on 9/11 were made at relatively low altitude over rural areas, with very sparse cellphone coverage - the exact areas where the longest range would be expected.

Dave

[carlitos]

Not to mention that the entire argument has to take place by pretending to ignore the seat-back Airfone calls. What's the point of questioning only one part of the phone calls? What could that possibly prove?

[George152]

Could please explain the technology (in layperson's terms) of how a Boeing 757 can be flown via remote control? In addition, how did the hijackers get parachutes on board the plane?

Thanks in advance.
And
Find four airliners that just happen to have a yet undesigned or built 'remote controller' that can be accessed by any-one
And open a hatch in midflight that can't be detected on the 'Black Box'. As for parachutes there -are- some small canopies on the market nowadays but jumping from an aircraft doing around 500 knots ??????
These claims by the conspiracy kooks are getting wilder and wilder by the day

[slyjoe]

It's more than that; they need, in effect, to be less powerful.

Remember, first, that there are two elements to mobile telephony: the phone itself, and the base station it communicates with. The range of the phone, in isolation, is a meaningless concept; what is important is the range of the link between the phone and the base station. This depends on the transmitting power of the phone and the responsivity of the base station in one direction, and on the transmitting power of the base station and the responsivity of the phone in the other. The range can be increased or decreased simply by adjusting the base station, and in fact this is how it is done in practice; all phones will conform to a uniform standard.

As the cellular network increases capacity, it does so by increasing the number of base stations available. Since there is only a limited number of wavelengths available, if the range is too great then any given phone can communicate with several different antennas at similar signal strength, leading to confusion on choosing which one should carry the signal. The range of mobile phones - or, more properly, the range of mobile phone base stations - has therefore to be carefully tailored to their location. The range will typically be less than the next-nearest-neighbour separation; where there are large numbers of base stations, this can be a few hundred metres or less.

This is the major flaw, in fact, with A. K. Dewdney's Project Achilles, in which he tried to assess the range of mobile phone communications. For the location, he chose London, Ontario, where he felt that the large number of base stations would ensure a good signal range. Ironically, had he not been so ignorant of the basics of mobile telephony, he would immediately have realised that this would ensure a very poor signal range. Your work is flawed because cellphone networks are much denser now than in 2001, so by the same argument ranges must have decreased.

It's also interesting to note that many of the cellphone calls on 9/11 were made at relatively low altitude over rural areas, with very sparse cellphone coverage - the exact areas where the longest range would be expected.

Dave

Pretty much all correct except the highlighted part. Depends on the technology to some extent, but modern cell sites generally overlap to a certain degree - the RF power doesn't drop off immediately at the edge of a cell. See Frequency Reuse. This means the same frequency won't be used on two adjacent cells. With hexagonal cell patterns, you typically may see a frequency reuse of 7; 7 frequencies ensure neighbors of a hexagonal cell aren't on the same frequency of the center cell.

The shortcomings the experiment above were described accurately by Dave. I also seem to remember that Dewdney thought flying directly over a cell was significant and "should" help. This is one of the worse places for cell reception, especially in a rural area where the beams may be narrower to get the extended range.

Sorry for being pedantic Dave. :)

[Dave Rogers]

Depends on the technology to some extent, but modern cell sites generally overlap to a certain degree - the RF power doesn't drop off immediately at the edge of a cell. See Frequency Reuse. This means the same frequency won't be used on two adjacent cells. With hexagonal cell patterns, you typically may see a frequency reuse of 7; 7 frequencies ensure neighbors of a hexagonal cell aren't on the same frequency of the center cell.

Yes, that's perfectly correct, which is why it's the next-nearest neighbour separation rather than the nearest neighbour separation that's significant. A hexagonal cell can, I think, use only three frequencies to ensure that no two adjacent cells have the same frequency - at the very least four will do it - but there will always be a cell two steps across that has the same frequency, so it's important that the signal has fallen off significantly by about 1.7 times the cell separation in a hexagonal grid.

Sorry for being pedantic Dave. :)

No problem. It's one of my favourite pastimes.

Dave

[alienentity]

Thanks for an interesting and informative answer. One would think that cell phones would become more powerful as time goes on. But you presented a good argument that they don't need to be as powerful. I'll start Googling on that. If you know of a particularly good URL, I'm all ears.

Oy vey! Where were you when we switched from analog to digital? The power use of digital was dramatically less for me - much better battery life. The salespeople were crowing about the lower wattage of the new phones.....

http://i900.photobucket.com/albums/ac206/alienentity1/first-cell-phone.jpg

[slyjoe]

Yes, that's perfectly correct, which is why it's the next-nearest neighbour separation rather than the nearest neighbour separation that's significant. A hexagonal cell can, I think, use only three frequencies to ensure that no two adjacent cells have the same frequency - at the very least four will do it - but there will always be a cell two steps across that has the same frequency, so it's important that the signal has fallen off significantly by about 1.7 times the cell separation in a hexagonal grid.



No problem. It's one of my favourite pastimes.

Dave

True - depends on the geometry. I read your post as "nearest neighbor", not "next nearest neighbor". English isn't the best for doing math. (At least that's my story :) ).

ETA: I wish the "movement" would figure out physics and math.

[USAFMXOfficer]

Yes, I agree. We need more posts like this on JREF to make it a place for university level discussion with adults. The ad hominems must be from junior high kids. But, at least JREF does not censor. It is better to endure some verbal abuse and have an open forum for getting to the truth. Otherwise discussion is limited to the censor's opinion of the truth.

My question about cell phone calls has been censored on 2 so called "open truther boards" (911Blogger and Pumpitout). So my question remains unanswered. I have tried many times to make a cell phone call from a jet at cruising altitude, to see if it was really possible on 9/11. I video taped 3 of the experiments, which you can find at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgQTVTJ2yIM CHI-DCA 2010-12 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYOjkOmIn44 DCA-ATL 2011-01 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJk8qdrv6AM ATL-MLI 2011-01 pm

Verizon is a pretty good carrier. Whether or not this has anything to do with 9/11, these tests indicate that cell phones don't work from cruising altitudes, even in 2011, much less in 2001. Does anyone know of any proof, preferably video, showing cell phones DO work from high altitudes?

What does getting proof of whether cell phones work at high altitudes have to do with 9/11? Of the 66 phone calls made from the 4 flights on 9/11, two were from cell phones - both on United 93. Those two cell calls were the last calls from the flight and were made at an altitude of approximately 5,000 feet. This from Gravy's research, and the Moussaoui trial exhibits.