Questions. Simply.

[ref]

My first new thread. Yeah. Last time I was accused of hijacking a thread when asking questions there, so now my own thread for them.

1. How many people would you think, it would at least involve if LIHOP was true? What would be the least amount of people needed to create the confusion and allowing everything to take place?

2. The four FDR:s from WTC site have not been found. How come there is not a sighting of any of those four after moving all the rubble? Would they be so destructed?

3. Suppose the FDR's are kept behind closed doors. What, if any, would be the motive for that?

4. It was known that OBL was in Afghanistan and with Taliban. Taliban was already under pressure from the US and others. Do you think they didn't take the counter attack into account, and if did, what was their plan, since Taliban is now out of power and OBL somewhere missing or dead?

5. What is your take on the Barbara Olson phone call from flight 77? There is this claim:

"She was using the phone in the passengers’ seats,” said Mr Olson. Though the American Airlines Boeing 757 is fitted with individual telephones at each seat position, they are not of the variety where you can simply pick up the handset and ask for an operator. On many aircraft you can talk from one seat to another in the aircraft free of charge, but if you wish to access the outside world you must first swipe your credit card through the telephone. By Ted Olson’s own admission, Barbara did not have a credit card with her.

On American Airlines there is a telephone "setup" charge of US$2.50 which can only be paid by credit card, then a US$2.50 (sometimes US$5.00) charge per minute of speech thereafter. The setup charge is the crucial element. Without paying it in advance by swiping your credit card you cannot access the external telephone network."

What is your take on that?

6. Why did Madeline Sweeney, flight attendant for 12 years, not recognize New York City?

"Woodward asks her to look out the window to see where they are. "I see water. I see buildings. We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low. -pause- Oh my God, we are way too low."

Thanks for answers. If already discussed before, my bad.

[Bell]

5. What is your take on the Barbara Olson phone call from flight 77? There is this claim:

"She was using the phone in the passengers’ seats,” said Mr Olson. T[SIZE=2]hough the American Airlines Boeing 757 is fitted with individual telephones at each seat position, they are not of the variety where you can simply pick up the handset and ask for an operator. On many aircraft you can talk from one seat to another in the aircraft free of charge, but if you wish to access the outside world you must first swipe your credit card through the telephone. By Ted Olson’s own admission, Barbara did not have a credit card with her.

On American Airlines there is a telephone "setup" charge of US$2.50 which can only be paid by credit card, then a US$2.50 (sometimes US$5.00) charge per minute of speech thereafter. The setup charge is the crucial element. Without paying it in advance by swiping your credit card you cannot access the external telephone network."

What is your take on that?

She could have used someone else creditcard.

6. Why did Madeline Sweeney, flight attendant for 12 years, not recognize New York City?

"Woodward asks her to look out the window to see where they are. "I see water. I see buildings. We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low. -pause- Oh my God, we are way too low."

Thanks for answers. If already discussed before, my bad.

There is no evidence she did NOT recognize New York.

How long did it take for AA11 to fly over Manhattan? Does someone know?

[8den]

My first new thread. Yeah. Last time I was accused of hijacking a thread when asking questions there, so now my own thread for them.

1. How many people would you think, it would at least involve if LIHOP was true? What would be the least amount of people needed to create the confusion and allowing everything to take place?

You're the one making the assertion. You tell us what you think the minimum amount would be.


2. The four FDR:s from WTC site have not been found. How come there is not a sighting of any of those four after moving all the rubble? Would they be so destructed?


Destructed? I imagine getting flown into the side of a 110 story building, which then fell on them would have something to do with it.


3. Suppose the FDR's are kept behind closed doors. What, if any, would be the motive for that?

Pure speculation.


4. It was known that OBL was in Afghanistan and with Taliban. Taliban was already under pressure from the US and others. Do you think they didn't take the counter attack into account, and if did, what was their plan, since Taliban is now out of power and OBL somewhere missing or dead?

He's missing now? No you cannot find him, doesn't mean he's not active.
The Taliban may not, and probably weren't aware of Osama Bin Laden's plan.



5. What is your take on the Barbara Olson phone call from flight 77? There is this claim:

"She was using the phone in the passengers’ seats,” said Mr Olson. Though the American Airlines Boeing 757 is fitted with individual telephones at each seat position, they are not of the variety where you can simply pick up the handset and ask for an operator. On many aircraft you can talk from one seat to another in the aircraft free of charge, but if you wish to access the outside world you must first swipe your credit card through the telephone. By Ted Olson’s own admission, Barbara did not have a credit card with her.

On American Airlines there is a telephone "setup" charge of US$2.50 which can only be paid by credit card, then a US$2.50 (sometimes US$5.00) charge per minute of speech thereafter. The setup charge is the crucial element. Without paying it in advance by swiping your credit card you cannot access the external telephone network."

What is your take on that?


So whats so incredibly implausible about her borrowing another passengers credit card, and taking the second to running it through the card reader.


6. Why did Madeline Sweeney, flight attendant for 12 years, not recognize New York City?

"Woodward asks her to look out the window to see where they are. "I see water. I see buildings. We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low. -pause- Oh my God, we are way too low."


The answer is in the quote. She was seeing the city from an unfamiliar angle, while in a panic.

[ref]

She could have used someone else creditcard.


Then why make a collect call?

[Rob Lister]

I generally stay out of the 9-11 CT threads but the assertion that Barbara Oslo had neither a credit card or a debit card (which work as credit cards) is beyond belief. While it is true that some people don't like to use their debit/credit cards, that she would not have one, while traveling, is incomprehensible to me.

Heck, I have a debit card (which can be used as a credit card so long as I have money in checking), two types of credit cards I use for secured purchases, and a back-up I keep with a zero balance just in case.

My wife has at least six...most maxed out...of course. She thinks I know about three of them.

[Bell]

He's missing now? No you cannot find him, doesn't mean he's not active.
The Taliban may not, and probably weren't aware of Osama Bin Laden's plan.

Ahmed Shah Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance, was killed 2 days before the 9/11 attacks, presumably by Al Qaida, to win favors with the Taliban.

Massoud was the victim of a suicide attack which occurred at Khvajeh Ba Odin on September 9, 2001, two days before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack in the United States, a timing considered significant by some commentators who believe Osama bin Laden ordered the assassination to ensure he would have the Taliban's protection and cooperation in Afghanistan. The attackers were two Arabs who claimed to be Belgians originally from Morocco. However their passports turned out to be stolen. According to some accounts they were posing as journalists, perhaps intending to attack several Northern Alliance council members simultaneously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Shah_Massoud

[Bell]

Then why make a collect call?

I think I allready gave the asnwer to that:

She could have used someone else creditcard.

[ref]

You're the one making the assertion. You tell us what you think the minimum amount would be.

I think not many. Less than ten. Some to distract the radar/FAA/NORAD response and some to ignore the warnings at the highest levels.


Destructed? I imagine getting flown into the side of a 110 story building, which then fell on them would have something to do with it.

So you mean none were found, because they could not take the hit and collapse?


He's missing now? No you cannot find him, doesn't mean he's not active.
The Taliban may not, and probably weren't aware of Osama Bin Laden's plan.

OK that's possible. Osama was aware of his own plan however. He would bring destruction to the very country that was a safe haven for him. I wonder what was his plan for the events after 9/11 then.


So whats so incredibly implausible about her borrowing another passengers credit card, and taking the second to running it through the card reader.

Why the collect call then?


The answer is in the quote. She was seeing the city from an unfamiliar angle, while in a panic.

Panic is a factor. However she flew over the entire manhattan with it's landmarks and was a seasoned air hostess. Maybe panic is enough to wipe all other out.

[Architect]

Panic is a factor. However she flew over the entire manhattan with it's landmarks and was a seasoned air hostess. Maybe panic is enough to wipe all other out.

Yea, because these wee aeroplane windows really give people a panoramic view, eh?

[MG1962]

Ahmed Shah Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance, was killed 2 days before the 9/11 attacks, presumably by Al Qaida, to win favors with the Taliban.


I recall seeing the press conferences the Taliban ran in the days after 911. I can only describe them as a little paniced and rushed. I suspect (As much as I despise them) That they were between a rock and a hard place. They knew the US would come, but they fear Osmar more at the time.

Perhaps their choice was made in the hindsight of the Soviet invasion. We beat them, we will beat the US as well. Fortunately the US learned from the lessons on offer from the Soviet venture, and pushed the Taliban to the point of extinction pretty fast

[ref]

Yea, because these wee aeroplane windows really give people a panoramic view, eh?

Ok let's assume she did not recognize Manhattan in panic and through small windows. What's your take on the other points?

[Firestone]

On American Airlines there is a telephone "setup" charge of US$2.50 which can only be paid by credit card, then a US$2.50 (sometimes US$5.00) charge per minute of speech thereafter. The setup charge is the crucial element. Without paying it in advance by swiping your credit card you cannot access the external telephone network."Do you have a source for this claim?

Like you, I'm just asking ...

[ref]

I recall seeing the press conferences the Taliban ran in the days after 911. I can only describe them as a little paniced and rushed. I suspect (As much as I despise them) That they were between a rock and a hard place. They knew the US would come, but they fear Osmar more at the time.

Perhaps their choice was made in the hindsight of the Soviet invasion. We beat them, we will beat the US as well. Fortunately the US learned from the lessons on offer from the Soviet venture, and pushed the Taliban to the point of extinction pretty fast

You think Osama had the sama mindstate too, that they could take USA like they did Russia? Because all the parties must have foreseen the evident military retaliation. In Osama's case however, he was bringing war to the very place defending him.

[Bell]

How long did it take for AA11 to fly over Manhattan? Does someone know?

I'll try answering myself :)
(figures taken from Wikipedia)

AA11 flew approximatley 470 miles per hour when it impacted.
That's 7.83 miles per minute.

Manhattan is 13 miles long.
13 / 7.83 = 1.66 minutes or about 1 minute 40 seconds.

I think I calculated that right?

[ref]

Do you have a source for this claim?

Like you, I'm just asking ...

"Sliding my credit card through a slot on the seat-back airplane telephone, a gizmo approaching the size of the walkie-talkies they hauled onto Omaha Beach in 1944."

"By now, even though I had been speaking in a low voice and keeping my head down like a cringing cur, it was clear that I had been branded by fellow passengers as a public nuisance. Grand total in credit card charges to achieve all of this: $45. No wonder you never see anyone using those in-seat phones on airplanes. Still, for those who need to make telephone calls in flight and don't want to sell the second car to finance them, help is on the way."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/10/travel/trshark.php

"AirFone commenced its service in the early 1980s starting with first-class under experimental licenses; the FCC's formal allocation was in 1990. AirFone handsets were gradually extended to include one unit in each row of seats in economy. The service was always priced extremely high--$3.99 per call and $4.99 per minute in 2006--and has seen less and less use as the ready availability of cellular telephones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_telephone) has increased."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airphone

The question is the actuel pricing in 2001, but it was high whatever the case.

[MG1962]

You think Osama had the sama mindstate too, that they could take USA like they did Russia? Because all the parties must have foreseen the evident military retaliation. In Osama's case however, he was bringing war to the very place defending him.

A while ago I read an interesting article about a phenomena called victory disease. Leaders, and sometimes soldiers become embolden by success and become a little less rational and a little more reckless.

Given Osama's excellent military record against the Soviets, and the amount of country the Taliban conqured on the sweep out of Pakistan. It may just be they honestly thought God was on their side, and they could beat anybody.

The other joker in the pack was the outcome. What did Osama actually expect as his best case senario. Maybe one aircraft to be successful. To simply do some damage to the towers, rather than destroy them totally.

For all we know, he may have been as stunned as the rest of us at the results he obtained. Either way I bet there was some frantic phone calls between Osama and the Taliban as everyone saw the full extent of the situation

[Firestone]

"Sliding my credit card through a slot on the seat-back airplane telephone, a gizmo approaching the size of the walkie-talkies they hauled onto Omaha Beach in 1944."

"By now, even though I had been speaking in a low voice and keeping my head down like a cringing cur, it was clear that I had been branded by fellow passengers as a public nuisance. Grand total in credit card charges to achieve all of this: $45. No wonder you never see anyone using those in-seat phones on airplanes. Still, for those who need to make telephone calls in flight and don't want to sell the second car to finance them, help is on the way."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/10/travel/trshark.php

"AirFone commenced its service in the early 1980s starting with first-class under experimental licenses; the FCC's formal allocation was in 1990. AirFone handsets were gradually extended to include one unit in each row of seats in economy. The service was always priced extremely high--$3.99 per call and $4.99 per minute in 2006--and has seen less and less use as the ready availability of cellular telephones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_telephone) has increased."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airphone

The question is the actuel pricing in 2001, but it was high whatever the case.Oh, I was not referring to the pricing, but to the following: "Without paying it in advance by swiping your credit card you cannot access the external telephone network."

It may have been possible to reach an operator without credit-card. For instance, Todd Beamer from flight 93 called an airphone operator by dialing 0 on his airphone. (Source (http://www.s-t.com/daily/09-02/09-10-02/a02wn022.htm))
So maybe Barbara Olson also called an operator, and from there got to call her husband collect?

I'm just speculating, I've never used an airphone.

[CptColumbo]

[Pure speculation mode]Some people don't like to carry credit cards, and use traveler's checks when traveling. Also, if you take the husbands statement verbatim, she may have a debit card. If she used someone else's card (if she needed a card to call collect), it's not a monumental leap to assume she would then call collect to save that person the extra charges, and would give them the set-up fee (in cash) at the next possible moment (they still didn't know they were going to die yet).[/pure speculation mode]

The fact that a flight attendant didn't know the address of the building or city she was passing over, at a low altitude and a high rate of speed in a very frightening situation, is not surprising. However, she didn't say she didn't know where she was. You can speculate all you want on how a person would/should act in those situations, but until you experience it yourself it's only speculation on your part. Further, every person is different and may see a situation differently than you, especially when your looking at it in hindsight.

[Larry Lovage]

OK that's possible. Osama was aware of his own plan however. He would bring destruction to the very country that was a safe haven for him. I wonder what was his plan for the events after 9/11 then.Actual governments have committed actions which brought "destruction" on them, to the level of airstrikes - Iraq, Iran and Syria are three that I can think of to begin with.

As to Osama Bin Laden's post-9/11 plan, it certainly seems to have worked quite well so far. At any rate, he went to war against the United States with the assumption that he would win it, as anybody does who goes to war against another nation. Admiral Yamamoto recognised the possibility that Pearl Harbor was a Pyhrric victory, that "we have merely awaken the giant from its slumber", but he had only done it under orders from the imperialistic Japanese leadership.

[Gravy]

1. How many people would you think, it would at least involve if LIHOP was true? What would be the least amount of people needed to create the confusion and allowing everything to take place?Are you talking LIHOP with or without demolition?

The four FDR:s from WTC site have not been found. How come there is not a sighting of any of those four after moving all the rubble? Would they be so destructed?That's two FDRs and 2 CVRs. Simple answer: they were destroyed. Impact, fire, collapse, underground fire. Look at it this way: firefighters' helmets are heavy and built for strength. 343 firefighters died at the WTC. Very few helmets were found (http://www.tributenyc.org/personal.html).

3. Suppose the FDR's are kept behind closed doors. What, if any, would be the motive for that?Suppose monkeys flew out of my butt? What was their motive for being in there? :)

4. It was known that OBL was in Afghanistan and with Taliban. Taliban was already under pressure from the US and others. Do you think they didn't take the counter attack into account, and if did, what was their plan, since Taliban is now out of power and OBL somewhere missing or dead?The Taliban did not control Al Qaeda.


On American Airlines there is a telephone "setup" charge of US$2.50 which can only be paid by credit card, then a US$2.50 (sometimes US$5.00) charge per minute of speech thereafter. The setup charge is the crucial element. Without paying it in advance by swiping your credit card you cannot access the external telephone network."

What is your take on that?Dial 0. Talk to operator. No credit card needed.

Why did Madeline Sweeney, flight attendant for 12 years, not recognize New York City?
Why in the world do you say that?

[Horatius]

A while ago I read an interesting article about a phenomena called victory disease. Leaders, and sometimes soldiers become embolden by success and become a little less rational and a little more reckless.

Given Osama's excellent military record against the Soviets, and the amount of country the Taliban conqured on the sweep out of Pakistan. It may just be they honestly thought God was on their side, and they could beat anybody.


I think this is exactly right. He made the same mistake the Japanese made in attacking Pearl Harbour. He thought that the Americans were a bunch of lazy playboys who would rather sit and play Xbox than go to war, and pay the price in blood that that would require. He forgot that while some Americans may be like that, not all are, and the ones who aren't are some serious ass-kickers.

The US is such a diverse country, more diverse than almost any other (except maybe Canada). A lot of people outside the US don't understand that, they think it's all one culture, just like their countries, and they make assumptions based on that. Assumptions that quite often are wrong. This time it cost them.


The other joker in the pack was the outcome. What did Osama actually expect as his best case senario. Maybe one aircraft to be successful. To simply do some damage to the towers, rather than destroy them totally.

For all we know, he may have been as stunned as the rest of us at the results he obtained. Either way I bet there was some frantic phone calls between Osama and the Taliban as everyone saw the full extent of the situation

That's another point as well. Considering how many people on the day were surprised by the total collapse of the towers - There's no way Osama thought that would happen. I figure everyone involved was freaking out when they saw that, but they realized they were commited. No backing out after that.

[babazaroni]

The question is the actuel pricing in 2001, but it was high whatever the case.

Why would anyone care about pricing under those circumstances?

Barbara Olson is particularly in for scrutiny due to her conservative commentary and her husband's connection to the government.

[CptColumbo]

Look at it this way: firefighters' helmets are heavy and built for strength. 343 firefighters died at the WTC. Very few helmets were found (http://www.tributenyc.org/personal.html).

GRAVY NOOOOOO!

You know what this will lead to now. NOHELMETS.com

[babazaroni]

For all we know, he may have been as stunned as the rest of us at the results he obtained. Either way I bet there was some frantic phone calls between Osama and the Taliban as everyone saw the full extent of the situation

In fact, on one video he said he thought the upper part might collapse, but not the lower.

This is discussed here (http://www.answers.com/topic/collapse-of-the-world-trade-center).

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/b/bc/20px-Cquote1.png (http://www.answers.com/topic/cquote1-png)
We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (...Inaudible...) Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for.[39] (http://www.answers.com/topic/collapse-of-the-world-trade-center#wp-_note-26)
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/d/d1/20px-Cquote2.png (http://www.answers.com/topic/cquote2-png)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

My first new thread. Yeah. Last time I was accused of hijacking a thread when asking questions there, so now my own thread for them.
<snip>
Thanks for answers. If already discussed before, my bad.
Questions are not evidence. If you want to mentally masturbate to hypothetical scenarios, choose a topic that doesn't involve the loss of human life.

[Larry Lovage]

Dial 0. Talk to operator. No credit card needed.
Forgive me, I have seen this evidence that the call was made collect. However, that does not take away the Truther point that you cannot make a call from an airplane phone without swiping it with a credit card first. I do not know if this is true or false, but I have had experience of many not-quite-public-telephones that required some kind of payment regardless of the kind of call to be made, and it strikes me as quite likely that an airplane phone does not make a provision of freely calling the operator in the conventional way like a bog standard public telephone.

What is perfectly clear is that you cannot simply claim that Barbara Olsen could not have made that phone call because in the phone call she said she didn't have her purse with her. How nonsensical is that? Either you believe in a phone call or not, but not that the evidence for no phone call was what was said in the phone call. If we believe she didn't have her purse with her, she must have made the phone call for us to believe that. If she made the phone call, then the absence of purse must have been irrelevant to the making of the phone call - so she must have had her credit card with her, or borrowed someone else's. Or the simplest explanation (I don't think this conversation was caught on tape, was it?) - that Ted Olsen simply misremembered exactly what was said, and may have conflated the phone call with another conversation.

[Horatius]

My first new thread. Yeah. Last time I was accused of hijacking a thread when asking questions there, so now my own thread for them.

1. How many people would you think, it would at least involve if LIHOP was true? What would be the least amount of people needed to create the confusion and allowing everything to take place?



This seesm to be the only original question not answered yet. Unfortunately, we'd need a lot more info about how the various Intelligence organizations are arranged, to really answer it.

If we want to speculate, that's fun, but it isn't really meaningful without any actual knowlege, but what the hell, let's try.

First off, we assume we're trying to minimize the number, so we won't be recruiting every low-ranking analyst or agent, okay? That decreases our numbers significantly, but it opens up the problem of how to keep them in the dark, while still monitoring them closely enough to make sure they don't "spill the beans" by accident. No good having our own guys blow our cover.

So we have a large group of low-level agents looking for info on terrorist plots, who compile the info they get personally, and then forward it up the chain of command, to be combined with the work of other low-level agents. How many levels do we have? Well, in my office, there's at least 6 levels between the grunts and the top guy, so let's use that as a number.

So somewhere between level 1 and level 6, we need to compromise enough people that anyone who gets enough info to see the outlines of the plot, will keep the plot secret. How much info is that? The work of one analyst typically won't be enough under our assumptions, so it's at least a "level 2" amount or more. Let's make it half way, so anyone level 3 or below is a dupe, and anyone level 4 or above is in on it. So, how many people is that?

Lets say that any one level person "manages" 10 people directly below him. So our 1 top level 6 guy has 10 level 5's, who in turn have 100 level 4's. So that's 111 people in this organization, to keep a firm grasp on it's activities. These people must be reliable enough that the conspiracy guys will trust them, but have enough time in the organization that the people below them won't get suspicious when their reports aren't followed up on. Not very likely to find people with both qualifications, but let's just go with it.

111 people, times how many agencies that were looking into such things? CIA, FBI, NSA, who else? DoD? Add in a few foreign goverments as well, like Canada and Britain, so, RCMP, CSIS, CSE, MI5, MI6. that's at least 8. So we have 888.

And that's just the intelligence community. How many congressional or exectutive level elected officials and their staffs would be in on it?

I'm thinking over a thousand people all told. Probably well over a thousand.

And that doesn't allow for the possibility that someone below level 4 might twig to it, and go straight to the media with the smoking gun. Such people would have to be brought into the plot, or eliminated, opening up new requirements, such as wet work teams to keep them in line.

[Horatius]

Questions are not evidence. If you want to mentally masturbate to hypothetical scenarios, choose a topic that doesn't involve the loss of human life.

opps!

[babazaroni]

I don't know the details of the purse claim, but could it be a possiblity that it could have been in an overhead compartment?

It would still be unavailable to her since she would be fearful or not allowed to get it?

Or, if the passengers were moved to the back of the plane, the purse could have been left under the seat in front of her, or in an overhead forward compartment.

[Bell]

Re Madeline Sweeney, what side of the plane was she on? I think that is not known. Did see look down at Manhattan or at the Hudson river and New Jersey (the latter seems more logical, since she describes seeing water)

Re Madeline Sweeney and Barbara Olson... WHAT THE HELL DOES IT MATTER ANYWAYS??

[CptColumbo]

Forgive me, I have seen this evidence that the call was made collect. However, that does not take away the Truther point that you cannot make a call from an airplane phone without swiping it with a credit card first. I do not know if this is true or false, but I have had experience of many not-quite-public-telephones that required some kind of payment regardless of the kind of call to be made, and it strikes me as quite likely that an airplane phone does not make a provision of freely calling the operator in the conventional way like a bog standard public telephone.


The last few times I've used a pay phone (in NYC, Cleveland, LA and Minneapolis) I didn't have to drop any money in to make a toll free or operator call. However, I've never used an airphone, before or after 9/11/01.

[8den]

I think not many. Less than ten. Some to distract the radar/FAA/NORAD response and some to ignore the warnings at the highest levels.

So you think America's air defense are so effective that they would have intercepted the planes, but didn't because they were distracted by some guys. Distracted how? Juggling? Card tricks?

Secondly, you're saying that the US government had exact intelligence over when they were about to attacked, right down to flight numbers? Where did they get this intelligence? Why hasn't this intelligence source come forward, to deliver this bomb shell. Or that there is an intelligence source that bipasses all and any chain of command and give it to one of these ten.


So you mean none were found, because they could not take the hit and collapse?

I don't think anyone designed a black box to survive being crashed into a 110 story building and then have the bull fall on them.


OK that's possible. Osama was aware of his own plan however. He would bring destruction to the very country that was a safe haven for him. I wonder what was his plan for the events after 9/11 then.


I don't know, not being psyhic, a Pakistani tribesman, or in Al Qaeda. I'll tell you what though, seeing as he's still active five years after the the attack, whatever his plan is, it's bloody good.


Why the collect call then?



Why fixate on that?

[Spektator]

I have flown in and out of New York hundreds of times. I can't recall ever seeing a flight attendant looking out of a window at the scenery as we took off or landed.

[Garb]

Why the collect call then?

Maybe so the person's card she was using didn't have to get charged?:con2:


People can be nice sometimes...

[JimBenArm]

2. The four FDR:s from WTC site have not been found. How come there is not a sighting of any of those four after moving all the rubble? Would they be so destructed?



The flight data recorders were built to survive a plane crash. Not a plane crash, 2 hours of fire, building falling on top of them, days of laying in smoldering fires underground, etc. They were not totally indestructable.

[Arus808]

purchases, and a back-up I keep with a zero balance just in case.

My wife has at least six...most maxed out...of course. She thinks I know about three of them.

I can fully say that I do not own one single credit card, and haven't found the need to own one.

HOwever, if anyone owns any type of bank account since the 90's ... banks usually force a type of a DEBIT card on you as part of being a customer (then have the audacity to charge you a fee to own it ^_~). I've lived with having a Debit card for the 14 years.

[Arus808]

edited

[DavidJames]

My first new thread. Yeah. Last time I was accused of hijacking a thread when asking questions there, so now my own thread for them.

1. How many people would you think, it would at least involve if LIHOP was true? What would be the least amount of people needed to create the confusion and allowing everything to take place?

2. The four FDR:s from WTC site have not been found. How come there is not a sighting of any of those four after moving all the rubble? Would they be so destructed?

3. Suppose the FDR's are kept behind closed doors. What, if any, would be the motive for that?

4. It was known that OBL was in Afghanistan and with Taliban. Taliban was already under pressure from the US and others. Do you think they didn't take the counter attack into account, and if did, what was their plan, since Taliban is now out of power and OBL somewhere missing or dead?

5. What is your take on the Barbara Olson phone call from flight 77? There is this claim:

"She was using the phone in the passengers’ seats,” said Mr Olson. Though the American Airlines Boeing 757 is fitted with individual telephones at each seat position, they are not of the variety where you can simply pick up the handset and ask for an operator. On many aircraft you can talk from one seat to another in the aircraft free of charge, but if you wish to access the outside world you must first swipe your credit card through the telephone. By Ted Olson’s own admission, Barbara did not have a credit card with her.

On American Airlines there is a telephone "setup" charge of US$2.50 which can only be paid by credit card, then a US$2.50 (sometimes US$5.00) charge per minute of speech thereafter. The setup charge is the crucial element. Without paying it in advance by swiping your credit card you cannot access the external telephone network."

What is your take on that?

6. Why did Madeline Sweeney, flight attendant for 12 years, not recognize New York City?

"Woodward asks her to look out the window to see where they are. "I see water. I see buildings. We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low. -pause- Oh my God, we are way too low."

Thanks for answers. If already discussed before, my bad.You see ref, I'm bored with questions like yours. Little kids ask questions. When my kids were little they asked lots of questions. But what's different about CT questions and little kids questions, is little kids learn. Kids grow up and their questions have more depth. The questions become fewer as they learn to answer their own questions.

CTists keep asking the same questions over and over again. CTist never learn. CTists don't try and answer their own questions. CTists are worse then little kids. Their minds don't grow. Unlike little kids, they don't mature.

I feel sorry for CTists since they are stuck in maturing bodies while their brains remain little kids brains. I've been following the 9/11 CTists since early this year and not one of them has come to this forum with answers. Not one of them has come with anything other then questions. (okay, one, Christophera, but his answers are science fiction).

[Arus808]

1. How many people would you think, it would at least involve if LIHOP was true? What would be the least amount of people needed to create the confusion and allowing everything to take place?

.....
6. Why did Madeline Sweeney, flight attendant for 12 years, not recognize New York City?

"Woodward asks her to look out the window to see where they are. "I see water. I see buildings. We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low. -pause- Oh my God, we are way too low."

Thanks for answers. If already discussed before, my bad.


Why dont you answer your own questions first before asking us, and we'll tell you why you are wrong.

[ref]

Are you talking LIHOP with or without demolition?

That's two FDRs and 2 CVRs. Simple answer: they were destroyed. Impact, fire, collapse, underground fire. Look at it this way: firefighters' helmets are heavy and built for strength. 343 firefighters died at the WTC. Very few helmets were found (http://www.tributenyc.org/personal.html).

The Taliban did not control Al Qaeda.

Dial 0. Talk to operator. No credit card needed.


LIHOP without demolition.

FDR's and CVR's are built to take plane crashes. They can take more than helmets I suppose. I there evidence of even parts or remains of them been found? Guess not.

Credit card needed to get a tone, I suppose. Has anyone actually seen them used?

[ref]

You see ref, I'm bored with questions like yours. Little kids ask questions. When my kids were little they asked lots of questions. But what's different about CT questions and little kids questions, is little kids learn. Kids grow up and their questions have more depth. The questions become fewer as they learn to answer their own questions.

CTists keep asking the same questions over and over again. CTist never learn. CTists don't try and answer their own questions. CTists are worse then little kids. Their minds don't grow. Unlike little kids, they don't mature.

I feel sorry for CTists since they are stuck in maturing bodies while their brains remain little kids brains. I've been following the 9/11 CTists since early this year and not one of them has come to this forum with answers. Not one of them has come with anything other then questions. (okay, one, Christophera, but his answers are science fiction).

Thanks for criticism also. No kid anymore, that's for sure. I am new to here, and the search sometimes find everything, sometimes not. Your answer brought nothing new to me either, so I guess we are even now.

[ref]

Why dont you answer your own questions first before asking us, and we'll tell you why you are wrong.

Why would I ask them, if I had the answers?

[Arus808]

FDR's and CVR's are built to take plane crashes. They can take more than helmets I suppose. I there evidence of even parts or remains of them been found? Guess not.

yes, they can take plane crashes, however they are not indestructable as many believe they cna. They were subjected to intense fires, were cooking beneath a pile of rubble ... and 110 story buildings crashed down upon them.

[Spindrift]

1. How many people would you think, it would at least involve if LIHOP was true? What would be the least amount of people needed to create the confusion and allowing everything to take place?

I think we know the least amount of people would be 19, which would be the number of hijackers.



2. The four FDR:s from WTC site have not been found. How come there is not a sighting of any of those four after moving all the rubble? Would they be so destructed?

There are a whole bunch of thinigs that we involved in the crashes that did not survive. Are FDR's designed to survive those type of crashes?


3. Suppose the FDR's are kept behind closed doors. What, if any, would be the motive for that?

Suppose that Martians stole the FDRs. What, if any, would be the motive for that?
Engaging in supposition without first having proof that the FDRs still exist is a waste of time.



4. It was known that OBL was in Afghanistan and with Taliban. Taliban was already under pressure from the US and others. Do you think they didn't take the counter attack into account, and if did, what was their plan, since Taliban is now out of power and OBL somewhere missing or dead?

Who knows? You should ask the Taliban that question.


5. What is your take on the Barbara Olson phone call from flight 77? There is this claim:

"She was using the phone in the passengers’ seats,” said Mr Olson. Though the American Airlines Boeing 757 is fitted with individual telephones at each seat position, they are not of the variety where you can simply pick up the handset and ask for an operator. On many aircraft you can talk from one seat to another in the aircraft free of charge, but if you wish to access the outside world you must first swipe your credit card through the telephone. By Ted Olson’s own admission, Barbara did not have a credit card with her.

On American Airlines there is a telephone "setup" charge of US$2.50 which can only be paid by credit card, then a US$2.50 (sometimes US$5.00) charge per minute of speech thereafter. The setup charge is the crucial element. Without paying it in advance by swiping your credit card you cannot access the external telephone network."

What is your take on that?

There are a myriad of ways she may have made the phone call. Used a debit card, used someone else credit card, etc. Are you trying to say that the phone call never happened? Why would anyone fake something that could so easily be determined as to whether or not it happened by checking phone records.


6. Why did Madeline Sweeney, flight attendant for 12 years, not recognize New York City?

"Woodward asks her to look out the window to see where they are. "I see water. I see buildings. We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low. -pause- Oh my God, we are way too low."


Why would she? Her job, especially at landing, is inside the plane, not sightseeing out a window.

[Arus808]

Why would I ask them, if I had the answers?


Ever thought that you could be wrong? So provide your answers and we will point out why you are wrong.

[stateofgrace]

My first new thread. Yeah. Last time I was accused of hijacking a thread when asking questions there, so now my own thread for them.

1. How many people would you think, it would at least involve if LIHOP was true? What would be the least amount of people needed to create the confusion and allowing everything to take place?


Answered by yourself.

I think not many. Less than ten. Some to distract the radar/FAA/NORAD response and some to ignore the warnings at the highest levels.

So you are proposing a scenario where there less than ten people involved. This scenario is to simply allow 911 to happen by doing nothing. Ten people to distract the FAA /NORAD and ignore all the intelligence warning. If you wish to pursue such a scenario why ask the following?

2. The four FDR:s from WTC site have not been found. How come there is not a sighting of any of those four after moving all the rubble? Would they be so destructed?

You are suggesting that evidence was moved, or misplaced. You are suggesting that something other than ten people who let it happen on purpose happened. You are adding to you list of ten people by simply implying that somebody at ground zero committed a criminal act and removed vital evidence. The FDR from the planes that hit the Towers would show what exactly?

3. Suppose the FDR's are kept behind closed doors. What, if any, would be the motive for that?

Again this is not in keeping with your let it happen on purpose scenario. It is pure speculation and involves people who made it happen.

4. It was known that OBL was in Afghanistan and with Taliban. Taliban was already under pressure from the US and others. Do you think they didn't take the counter attack into account, and if did, what was their plan, since Taliban is now out of power and OBL somewhere missing or dead?


See above
5. What is your take on the Barbara Olson phone call from flight 77? There is this claim:

"She was using the phone in the passengers’ seats,” said Mr Olson. Though the American Airlines Boeing 757 is fitted with individual telephones at each seat position, they are not of the variety where you can simply pick up the handset and ask for an operator. On many aircraft you can talk from one seat to another in the aircraft free of charge, but if you wish to access the outside world you must first swipe your credit card through the telephone. By Ted Olson’s own admission, Barbara did not have a credit card with her.

On American Airlines there is a telephone "setup" charge of US$2.50 which can only be paid by credit card, then a US$2.50 (sometimes US$5.00) charge per minute of speech thereafter. The setup charge is the crucial element. Without paying it in advance by swiping your credit card you cannot access the external telephone network."

What is your take on that?

If you are suggesting the call was not made or was in some way manufactured. It is not in keeping with your ten people, let it happen scenario. So what exactly are you suggesting?


6. Why did Madeline Sweeney, flight attendant for 12 years, not recognize New York City?

"Woodward asks her to look out the window to see where they are. "I see water. I see buildings. We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low. -pause- Oh my God, we are way too low."


See above.

Please when you ask questions and then offer up answers it is better to reinforce your scenario rather than totally contradicting it.

In summary you want to suggest 911 was allowed to happen and with could have been done by less than ten people. Then you have gone on to suggest evidence was removed, evidence is being suppressed and phone calls were not as they seem,please make up your mind what you are suggesting.

[DavidJames]

..No kid anymore, that's for sure...Age has nothing to do with it. Grow up.

[Hornit]

I recently had a flight attendant with me in a van ride to the airport from our layover in Washington DC who was not familair with the Washington monument. I mean she did not know what it was. I dont even know how that is possible in todays world If your a US citizen!

I am a Captain for Delta based out of Atlanta. Its routine for the FA's to NOT KNOW WHERE WE ARE. :)

Hornit

[uk_dave]

I am a Captain for Delta based out of Atlanta. Its routine for the FA's to NOT KNOW WHERE WE ARE. :)

Hornit

Aha! I wanna have a word with you about that landing at Las Vegas in October 2001.........

[geggy]

Black boxes at ground zero were found and recovered by firefighters yet it was concealed by the fbi even though they've denied it was ever found.

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12202005.html

[Arus808]

can you use a different source for that statement.
counterpunch isn't exactly reputable.

[Horatius]

can you use a different source for that statement.
counterpunch isn't exactly reputable.

That would be a "No" on that one.

[uk_dave]

can you use a different source for that statement.
counterpunch isn't exactly reputable.

Whaddya mean?

Surely you cannot argue with......


A source at the National Transportation Safety Board, the agency that has the task of deciphering the date from the black boxes retrieved from crash sites-including those that are being handled as crimes and fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI-says the boxes were in fact recovered and were analyzed by the NTSB.

"Off the record, we had the boxes," the source says. "You'd have to get the official word from the FBI as to where they are, but we worked on them here."

The official word from the NTSB is that the WTC crash site black boxes never turned up. "No recorders were recovered from the World Trade Center," says the NTSB's Lopatkiewicz. "At least none were delivered to us by the FBI." He adds that the agency has "always had a good relationship' with the FBI and that in all prior crime-related crashes or flight incidents, they have brought the boxes to the NTSB for analysis.

For its part, the FBI is still denying everything, though with curious bit of linguistic wiggle room. "To the best of my knowledge, the flight recording devices from the World Trade Center crashes were never recovered. At least we never had them," says FBI spokesman Stephen Kodak.

What the apparent existence of the black boxes in government hands means is unclear.

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12202005.html

A perfectly acceptable bit of reportage..... (twitch twitch)

[CptColumbo]

Black boxes at ground zero were found and recovered by firefighters yet it was concealed by the fbi even though they've denied it was ever found.

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12202005.html

I see nothing in the story that convinces me that the FBI has the boxes.

If it's a conspiracy: They've had 5 years to fake the data, so why deny possession of it.

If not a conspiracy: Putting out the data would satisfy some (but not all; see above) critics.

[Firestone]

Black boxes at ground zero were found and recovered by firefighters yet it was concealed by the fbi even though they've denied it was ever found.

Here is the story of this "finding of the black boxes":
DeMasi, an all-terrain vehicles hobbyist - said he donated 4 ATVs to the clean-up and became known as “the ATV Guy.”

“At one point, I was asked to take Federal Agents around the site to search for the black boxes from the planes,” he wrote. “We were getting ready to go out. My ATV was parked at the top of the stairs at the Brooks Brothers entrance area. We loaded up about a million dollars worth of equipment and strapped it into the ATV...”

“There were a total of four black boxes. We found three.”

Efforts over several days to locate and interview DeMasi, who is now said to be with the FDNY’s Marine Unit, were not successful.

But his account was verified by another member of the so-called TRAC Team, recovery site volunteer Bellone. He recalled FBI agents arriving for the search one day in early October, setting up their equipment near Brooks Brothers. He said he didn’t go out with them on the ATV but observed their search.

At one point, Bellone said he observed the team with a box that appeared charred but was redish-orange with two white stripes. Pictures of the flight recorders on the NTSB and other Web sites show devices that are orange, with two white stripes.

“There was the one that I saw, and two others were recovered in different locations - but I wasn’t there for the other two,” Bellone said. He said the FBI agents left with the boxes.

Source (http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/extra/archives/001139.html#more) That's what I would call a self-debunking story! :)

[Pardalis]

Just a simple question Ref.

If you don't like the Bush administration, why don't you focus on its policies, and try to protest them in a rational and democratic fashion, instead of trying to make this ridiculous house of cards work?

[Bell]

Black boxes at ground zero were found and recovered by firefighters yet it was concealed by the fbi even though they've denied it was ever found.

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12202005.html

Do we have a smilie of Homer slapping himself in the head? D'oh!

[Pardalis]

Uruk's avatar.

http://forums.randi.org/customavatars/avatar1046_1.gif

[Bell]

Black boxes at ground zero were found and recovered by firefighters yet it was concealed by the fbi even though they've denied it was ever found.

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12202005.html

http://forums.randi.org/customavatars/avatar1046_1.gif

[Quad4_72]

LIHOP without demolition.

FDR's and CVR's are built to take plane crashes. They can take more than helmets I suppose. I there evidence of even parts or remains of them been found? Guess not.


Nothing is indestructible ref. With enough force, heat, and damage you can destroy anything. Well, according to Loose Change they are indestructible but that hardly counts as credible. "The recorders themselves are made from the most impervious metals known to man" -Loose Change. *ROLLS EYES*

[Quad4_72]

Oh by they way ref take note of my Sig.

[fuelair]

Suppose monkeys flew out of my butt? What was their motive for being in there? :)

?

They are feces eating CT monkeys!!!

[Oliver]

Well - i don´t live in america - so i´m less confused than 1/3 of
americans, i highly guess. Here are my honest answers:

1. How many people would you think, it would at least involve if LIHOP was true? What would be the least amount of people needed to create the confusion and allowing everything to take place?

Less than 50.

2. The four FDR:s from WTC site have not been found. How come there is not a sighting of any of those four after moving all the rubble? Would they be so destructed?

I thought they found at least two of them. Wrong?

3. Suppose the FDR's are kept behind closed doors. What, if any, would be the motive for that?

Ongoing invetigations? But they should be over after all this time...

4. It was known that OBL was in Afghanistan and with Taliban. Taliban was already under pressure from the US and others. Do you think they didn't take the counter attack into account, and if did, what was their plan, since Taliban is now out of power and OBL somewhere missing or dead?

Well, this is a big mistery. I wonder if they ever thought about
Osama Bin Laden at all or if they were much more interested
in the Taliban/Iraq.

5. What is your take on the Barbara Olson phone call from flight 77? There is this claim:

"She was using the phone in the passengers’ seats,” said Mr Olson. Though the American Airlines Boeing 757 is fitted with individual telephones at each seat position, they are not of the variety where you can simply pick up the handset and ask for an operator. On many aircraft you can talk from one seat to another in the aircraft free of charge, but if you wish to access the outside world you must first swipe your credit card through the telephone. By Ted Olson’s own admission, Barbara did not have a credit card with her.

On American Airlines there is a telephone "setup" charge of US$2.50 which can only be paid by credit card, then a US$2.50 (sometimes US$5.00) charge per minute of speech thereafter. The setup charge is the crucial element. Without paying it in advance by swiping your credit card you cannot access the external telephone network."

What is your take on that?

I dont know for sure - but it sounds more like that there
is a simple explanation for it than it´s a smoking gun...

6. Why did Madeline Sweeney, flight attendant for 12 years, not recognize New York City?

"Woodward asks her to look out the window to see where they are. "I see water. I see buildings. We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low. -pause- Oh my God, we are way too low."

I guess she was pretty much stressed and had no "clear mind"
at all in this situation. Such things are normal in unusal situations.
I´m sure you also made such expieriences when you can´t remember
something in a stressful situation.

[beachnut]

I do not know where I am syndrome!

I bet no one can guess the city I fly them down with a stupid airline window and at high speed and not tell you were we are! I bet you I can fool you all day long, that person never ever had seen NYC at 300 to 500 mph from 1000 feet! End of story! Debunked!

Airlines do not fly down the city at building level going 300 to 500 mph; it is against the law!

So you want to know why something never done before; being able to say where you are when you do not know were you are and the stupid WTC are ahead of you not next to you out the window.

This is the dumb question of the year! But then I am a pilot who would never land at the wrong airport, cause we know better; oops we do land at the wrong airports.

Any grade school class could come up with lots of ideas; what is your idea to keep from proving you are a dumb question asker.

What is the purpose of your question?

If you say you can not make up an good answer you have problems.

Why not say what you think you are trying to learn and why? Much more interesting than proving you have not imagination and are trying to what?

[Oliver]

What is the purpose of your question?

He is in the fallacy that an experienced Stewardess should
remind the location while approaching. The problem i see
is that it was no usual approach at NY-Airport and that
she was under a stress situation. I wonder why ct´ists
can´t figure these simple things out for their own... :boggled:

[beachnut]

Why are FDRs magical? Who cares if you find them? What would be the difference to the CT cult movement of lies? If the facts that four airplanes were destroyed on 9/11 and they happen to be the ones who on radar and on record hit the WTC, PA, and the Pentagon is not enough then you CT guys are dumb. (plus add a bunch of people in on the plot, airlines, all sorts of people, security people, ATC, radar interpreters, etc. 1000s of more in on the LIH dots cult movement)

FDR, why FDRs? What do they prove?

When will a CT guy come up with proof of anything?

[28th Kingdom]

Someone link a resource that has most if not all of the phone calls from the 9/11 flights. I know some of them were obviously faked. "Mom, this is Mark Bingham...your son, you believe me don't you."

This 6456 is worse than soap-opera acting...

[Bell]

Someone link a resource that has most if not all of the phone calls from the 9/11 flights. I know some of them were obviously faked. "Mom, this is Mark Bingham...your son, you believe me don't you."

This 6456 is worse than soap-opera acting...

First, he did not say it in that way.

Second, MARK BINGHAM IS DEAD!!! So stop acting so goddamn disrespectful, you ignorant son of a bitch!! :mad:

[Oliver]

Someone link a resource that has most if not all of the phone calls from the 9/11 flights. I know some of them were obviously faked. "Mom, this is Mark Bingham...your son, you believe me don't you."

This 6456 is worse than soap-opera acting...

But his OWN MOTHER confirmed that Mark Bingham
used to say his full name while calling her. So what
the heck is suspicious about that. Some people
have spleens - what´s the matter about it? :confused:

[Alt+F4]

Someone link a resource that has most if not all of the phone calls from the 9/11 flights. I know some of them were obviously faked.

You KNOW? Evidence please.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Ok let's assume she did not recognize Manhattan in panic and through small windows.
You'd also have to research what landmarks, if any, would be visible along the flight path with, say, a 15-30 second view from an airplane window.

All-in-all, your "why didn't she recognize Manhattan" question wasn't thought out very well.

[ref]

Please when you ask questions and then offer up answers it is better to reinforce your scenario rather than totally contradicting it.

In summary you want to suggest 911 was allowed to happen and with could have been done by less than ten people. Then you have gone on to suggest evidence was removed, evidence is being suppressed and phone calls were not as they seem,please make up your mind what you are suggesting.


So in your opinion I can't ask separate questions? Because if any of the questions had anything to do with each other, they would be 2 and 3. Others are separate, and have nothing to do with a continuing agenda, or some strange theory that I would like to pursue. I hadn't seen the FDR question before answered so I thought I asked your opinion about that. About the calls, I asked your opinion about the theories circulating. Those have nothing to do with any one hypothesis of the day's event that I might consider being the correct one.

[Horatius]

Someone link a resource that has most if not all of the phone calls from the 9/11 flights. I know some of them were obviously faked. "Mom, this is Mark Bingham...your son, you believe me don't you."

This 6456 is worse than soap-opera acting...

Here's my comment on that, from another thread. Not that 28th will see it, but perhaps some pesky non-ignored person could quote it.

I've often wondered if his mother is like me. I have a hard time recognizing people's voices on the phone. Most of the people who call me regularly have figured this out, and just tell me right out who they are. If his mom is like this, and knows a lot of guys named Mark, it could explain a lot.

Even my Mom says, "Hi, it's mom" when she calls.

[ref]

Age has nothing to do with it. Grow up.

Sometimes I forget, that not all people get sarcasm. So let's take this literally then. I know age has nothing to do with it. I hope some of you would also grow up to understand some simple things. Not talking about theories now. Some more everyday things.

[Alt+F4]

So in your opinion I can't ask separate questions? Because if any of the questions had anything to do with each other, they would be 2 and 3. Others are separate, and have nothing to do with a continuing agenda, or some strange theory that I would like to pursue. I hadn't seen the FDR question before answered so I thought I asked your opinion about that. About the calls, I asked your opinion about the theories circulating. Those have nothing to do with any one hypothesis of the day's event that I might consider being the correct one.

Well if you do have a hypothesis that can incompass logical answers to all your questions I'd be curious to hear it.

[Bell]

Someone link a resource that has most if not all of the phone calls from the 9/11 flights. I know some of them were obviously faked. "Mom, this is Mark Bingham...your son, you believe me don't you."

This 6456 is worse than soap-opera acting...

Here's my comment on that, from another thread. Not that 28th will see it, but perhaps some pesky non-ignored person could quote it.

I've often wondered if his mother is like me. I have a hard time recognizing people's voices on the phone. Most of the people who call me regularly have figured this out, and just tell me right out who they are. If his mom is like this, and knows a lot of guys named Mark, it could explain a lot.

Even my Mom says, "Hi, it's mom" when she calls.

No problem.

[ref]

Just a simple question Ref.

If you don't like the Bush administration, why don't you focus on its policies, and try to protest them in a rational and democratic fashion, instead of trying to make this ridiculous house of cards work?

Can you tell me what is my house of cards then? I don't know so glad you do. I don't like many administrations. I have not myself suggested a single hypotheses or theory, so if that is the house of cards for you?

I just speculated, if there was LIHOP then this would be possibly their thing and so on. But seems you need only hard facts, and no speculating whatsoever. Fine. Since there still will be these same topics with or without me, I thought maybe we could see what that mindstate includes and why. It's called taking someone else's position and approaching from that point of view to understand better.

[ref]

Nothing is indestructible ref. With enough force, heat, and damage you can destroy anything. Well, according to Loose Change they are indestructible but that hardly counts as credible. "The recorders themselves are made from the most impervious metals known to man" -Loose Change. *ROLLS EYES*

I know your sig man. You know what? Sometimes people reveal their true selves when irritated. I do sometimes that on purpose. I know the calls could have been made etc. I see a theory on the net and ask, what is your reaction to that. That is/was never my own theory. Seeing how people react to that gives some basis on what they truly base their believes on. And what they are as people. From this short period of time I can already see, whose posts are worth a notice, and who's not. But that aside, everything deserves at least a look, not just the shaking of shoulder, even the dumbest thing that one single person has noticed. They might be useful in other contexts if not the current. And some things I really wonder. That Osama future plan for example. Thinking they could take the retaliation, could he really think like that? Or just take whatever comes and simply go hiding, leaving his former haven and protectors behind.

[Pardalis]

House of cards:

1. How many people would you think, it would at least involve if LIHOP was true? What would be the least amount of people needed to create the confusion and allowing everything to take place?

2. The four FDR:s from WTC site have not been found. How come there is not a sighting of any of those four after moving all the rubble? Would they be so destructed?

3. Suppose the FDR's are kept behind closed doors. What, if any, would be the motive for that?

4. It was known that OBL was in Afghanistan and with Taliban. Taliban was already under pressure from the US and others. Do you think they didn't take the counter attack into account, and if did, what was their plan, since Taliban is now out of power and OBL somewhere missing or dead?

5. What is your take on the Barbara Olson phone call from flight 77? There is this claim:

"She was using the phone in the passengers’ seats,” said Mr Olson. Though the American Airlines Boeing 757 is fitted with individual telephones at each seat position, they are not of the variety where you can simply pick up the handset and ask for an operator. On many aircraft you can talk from one seat to another in the aircraft free of charge, but if you wish to access the outside world you must first swipe your credit card through the telephone. By Ted Olson’s own admission, Barbara did not have a credit card with her.

On American Airlines there is a telephone "setup" charge of US$2.50 which can only be paid by credit card, then a US$2.50 (sometimes US$5.00) charge per minute of speech thereafter. The setup charge is the crucial element. Without paying it in advance by swiping your credit card you cannot access the external telephone network."

What is your take on that?

6. Why did Madeline Sweeney, flight attendant for 12 years, not recognize New York City?

"Woodward asks her to look out the window to see where they are. "I see water. I see buildings. We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low. -pause- Oh my God, we are way too low."

[ref]

I do not know where I am syndrome!

I bet no one can guess the city I fly them down with a stupid airline window and at high speed and not tell you were we are! I bet you I can fool you all day long, that person never ever had seen NYC at 300 to 500 mph from 1000 feet! End of story! Debunked!

Airlines do not fly down the city at building level going 300 to 500 mph; it is against the law!

So you want to know why something never done before; being able to say where you are when you do not know were you are and the stupid WTC are ahead of you not next to you out the window.

This is the dumb question of the year! But then I am a pilot who would never land at the wrong airport, cause we know better; oops we do land at the wrong airports.

Any grade school class could come up with lots of ideas; what is your idea to keep from proving you are a dumb question asker.

What is the purpose of your question?

If you say you can not make up an good answer you have problems.

Why not say what you think you are trying to learn and why? Much more interesting than proving you have not imagination and are trying to what?

I know you have some very good experience and knowledge, so I leave all that other, strange flow of mind unnoticed. I tell you what I try to learn. Mindstates of different believers, and their basis on their views. Seems quite hard in this board however, since I start to learn that everybody has about the same mindstate. Nothing really interesting. No actual conflict of some real topics. Where are all the sane so called twoofers anyway? Someone had a bit sensible theory about the LIHOP, posted by uk_dave from LC forum on another thread. I would like to see him discussing it here with you. But all I see is couple of full deniers. Wake up people like 28th and some others. Really. Everything that the CT'es say is NOT true. When something is debunked ACCEPT IT. Focus on other topics. You do harm to your own side by hanging on to false claims.

[ref]

House of cards:

Okay. Can you then explain, how that is my house of cards, and what are my own beliefs?

[JimBenArm]

Someone link a resource that has most if not all of the phone calls from the 9/11 flights. I know some of them were obviously faked. "Mom, this is Mark Bingham...your son, you believe me don't you."

This 6456 is worse than soap-opera acting...

I said this thing wasn't a man in another thread. I called him a child in a grown man's body. I was wrong. How could I insult children that way?

Absolutely an abomination.

[Grimes]

I said this thing wasn't a man in another thread. I called him a child in a grown man's body. I was wrong. How could I insult children that way?

Absolutely an abomination.

It's comments like 28th's that convince me there can be no common ground with CTists, at least those that spend much of their time online. The demonstrations of their disconnect from reality can be quite shocking.

Not to take the child analogy too far, it does remind me of when I was a child and considered myself immortal - of course I wasn't, I just couldn't perceive anything beyond my own bubble of safety, just as many CTists cannot see beyond their PCs that the real world does not operate like a techno-thriller.

[uk_dave]

Someone had a bit sensible theory about the LIHOP........

I believe you are referring to the LC post made by IVXX. However I personally would not call it sensible.

We consider these events with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, but we and our lords and masters are not so good at predictions.

For strong LIHOP we need to accept that the conspirators knew exactly how things would pan out both on the day and subsequently.

To know that a terrorist attack was going to take place and either hinder the counter terrorism operation or pro-actively facilitate the terrorist act would mean that those pulling the strings would need to be certain that -

1. Their involvement could be covered up

2. That the act itself would be sufficient to acheive whatever nefarious aims they had

3. That the attack wouldn't be so extreme as to seriously cripple their ability to carry out whatever their nefarious aims were

4. That the backlash from the attacks wouldn't be directed at them

5. That they wouldn't embolden (or embiggen) the terrorists by allowing this one act to take place and thus open pandoras box

6. That they themselves would face physical danger (after all rummy was at the pentagon)

The terrorist attacks on 9/11 were planned and executed apparently without flaw, but ultimately they were chaotic events with no guarantee of precision or effectiveness.

The aftermath of 9/11 could have easily been a witch hunt within the US government with major players finding themselves held to account, or a mass of accusations from those tasked with protecting the US claiming that they were obstructed or hindered in that task.

We only see a possible chain of events because that happens to be how it panned out after the attacks, but rather like the Iraq war where we were assured that wmd existed and that liberation of iraq would be universally welcomed and it would all be virtually self financing, none of these things has come to pass and could well have lead to Bush failing to get a second term had the democrats been more effective in their campaign.

So ultimately to believe LIHOP we must believe that the conspirators wanted the outcome which we see today, and quite frankly if that is the case you have to wonder why they would have even bothered.

[beachnut]

Someone link a resource that has most if not all of the phone calls from the 9/11 flights. I know some of them were obviously faked. "Mom, this is Mark Bingham...your son, you believe me don't you."

This 6456 is worse than soap-opera acting...

Only a brainless dolt makes up junk from a phone call from someone who with his fellow Americans fought back against terrorist.

They stood up and beat the terrorist.

Now you, 28th, make fun of them. Good for you! You disrespectful fact less worm. Present facts if you are to disrespect those who had a clue and did something.

You have no clue and you are doing nothing but talk!

Steps for your future:

1 find a brain
2 learn how to use it
3 apologize to all on 9/11 you have disrespected

Mom this is Keith, your son! Hi son! Who does not have some funny way of being the kid with you mom. How many times has my mom thought I was her other sons!

I do not know if Mark's mom is his only mom, his step mom, his father's new wife, his mom in law! You have not set up you lie very well 28th.

You come with junk no back up; just junk. You have less brains than a worm.

Say hello to the worm; Hello 28th.

Say hello to 28th; Hello worm

Good luck brainless worm (just thinking about Mark's mom)

[defaultdotxbe]

Someone link a resource that has most if not all of the phone calls from the 9/11 flights. I know some of them were obviously faked. "Mom, this is Mark Bingham...your son, you believe me don't you."

This 6456 is worse than soap-opera acting...

No actually...me taking time out of my life to try and get justice for the victims of 9/11 equals caring. (Justice will only come when America has united as a whole. I as one person cannot bring justice for the victims) However, posting pictures of cats in a thread like this is equal to pissing on the graves of those who died on 9/11.

This is a serious subject matter...and some of you are completely disgracing the memory of those who died...by spamming this thread with inane junk. Show some class how about it.

so if posting cat pics is pissing on the grave of victims how does comparing their last words to bad soap opera acting stack up?

[Firestone]

Someone link a resource that has most if not all of the phone calls from the 9/11 flights. I know some of them were obviously faked. "Mom, this is Mark Bingham...your son, you believe me don't you."

This 6456 is worse than soap-opera acting...So now you are calling Mark Bingham's mother a liar ! :(

Here's what she said:Once in a while he would say that. He would call up, and he was, he was a young businessman, and used to, used to introduce himself on phone as Mark Bingham, and he was trying to be, uh, strong, and level-headed, and, and strictly business. "Mom, this is Mark Bingham".Listen to her here (http://www.911myths.com/Hoglan.avi).

Source: 911myths (http://www.911myths.com/html/mom__this_is_mark_bingham.html).

[Horatius]

so if posting cat pics is pissing on the grave of victims how does comparing their last words to bad soap opera acting stack up?

Not to mention implicating his Mother in the cover-up, all at the same time.

I've got a new pic of the cat that exemplifies the CT's perfectly:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/94904595b72777de9.jpg


Trying to bite the Mouse, but getting your own paw instead. We'll call it MousePawing, okay?

[Arus808]

I wish I caught video of my cat chasing his own tail.

[Bell]

Not to mention implicating his Mother in the cover-up, all at the same time.

I've got a new pic of the cat that exemplifies the CT's perfectly:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/94904595b72777de9.jpg


Trying to bite the Mouse, but getting your own paw instead. We'll call it MousePawing, okay?

That picture is quite a bit ehm... revealing. I don't think that's allowed. Think of the children!! :boxedin:

[Dog Town]

That picture is quite a bit ehm... revealing. I don't think that's allowed. Think of the children!! :boxedin:

And here I thought, showing the anus of a pussy was apropo! In context anywho...

[Gravy]

Someone link a resource that has most if not all of the phone calls from the 9/11 flights. I know some of them were obviously faked.How does it feel to be the dumbest person on planet Earth? Or are you on this planet? :con2:

[steve s]

4. Do you think they didn't take the counter attack into account, and if did, what was their plan,


Osama may have been hoping for a counter attack. He may have thought that by drawing the U.S. into a war in the middle east that it would result in a muslim uprising against the secular governments in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt.




6. Why did Madeline Sweeney, flight attendant for 12 years, not recognize New York City?

"[/SIZE]Woodward asks her to look out the window to see where they are. "I see water. I see buildings. We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low. -pause- Oh my God, we are way too low."


You've apparently never been on a plane. You can't see forward very well. You can only see out to the side. If the plane is heading straight for Manhattan, the passengers won't be able to see Manhattan.

Also, can you tell us how many times Madeline Sweeney flew into NYC during her career?

Steve S.

[Gravy]

Where are all the sane so called twoofers anyway? ...Wake up people like 28th and some others. Really. Everything that the CT'es say is NOT true. When something is debunked ACCEPT IT. Focus on other topics. You do harm to your own side by hanging on to false claims.I appreciate the sentiment, but what are the "true" truther claims?

This is a serious question. I really want to know what claims you think are backed by evidence.

[Horatius]

That picture is quite a bit ehm... revealing. I don't think that's allowed. Think of the children!! :boxedin:

Sorry, but I don't have a "blur" function in my photo editor program.

:)

[defaultdotxbe]

Sorry, but I don't have a "blur" function in my photo editor program.

:)
fixed it for you

[JimBenArm]

Sorry, but I don't have a "blur" function in my photo editor program.

:)

How about a "fur" function?

[Gravy]

That Osama future plan for example. Thinking they could take the retaliation, could he really think like that? Or just take whatever comes and simply go hiding, leaving his former haven and protectors behind.So you don't think it's feasible that al Qaeda would not appreciate the consequences of their actions, but you do think it's feasible that "inside jobbers" would attempt this enormous (much larger than al Qaeda's plan) enterprise and enormous coverup, without fear of the consequences if one person spilled the beans?

Do you know what that is, ref?

Insane, that's what that is.

[28th Kingdom]

If there were people on Flight 93, they're not heros...just like Jessica Lynch isn't a hero and just like Pat Tillman isn't a hero. THEY'RE VICTIMS and pawns used by the NWO to manipulate the emotions and sentiment of the American people.

Flight 93 was shot down, just like THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TOLD US THREE DIFFERENT TIMES!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0v0_HDwg84

What, you don't believe your leaders... when it becomes inconvenient for you?

[Bell]

If there were people on Flight 93, they're not heros...just like Jessica Lynch isn't a hero and just like Pat Tillman isn't a hero. THEY'RE VICTIMS and pawns used by the NWO to manipulate the emotions and sentiment of the American people.

Flight 93 was shot down, just like THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TOLD US THREE DIFFERENT TIMES!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0v0_HDwg84

What, you don't believe your leaders, when it becomes inconvenient for you?

You are one grave pissing son of a bitch. Grow up.

[defaultdotxbe]

If there were people on Flight 93, they're not heros...just like Jessica Lynch isn't a hero and just like Pat Tillman isn't a hero. THEY'RE VICTIMS and pawns used by the NWO to manipulate the emotions and sentiment of the American people.

Flight 93 was shot down, just like THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TOLD US THREE DIFFERENT TIMES!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0v0_HDwg84


its 3 times now? i dont recall you ever citing a source for the second time

but either way, if there were people on the flight 93, werent they victims? i thought you were in this for the victims?

What, you don't believe your leaders... when it becomes inconvenient for you?
the same could be said for you, seems you only beleive them when its convenient for you

[28th Kingdom]

its 3 times now? i dont recall you ever citing a source for the second time

but either way, if there were people on the flight 93, werent they victims? i thought you were in this for the victims?


the same could be said for you, seems you only beleive them when its convenient for you

what chu cant read/ did I say they were vitcims in large caps letters/a/a/ now/ fhrf 'slfj

this bhas nothign to do with what I believe...i knwo th etruth - i wna t to show how unbelivable illogial your belief are thogh...

dying doesn't make youa hero, a vicitm isn't a hero if that were true all the poepl who died on 9/11 eoud be heros - the only heros of 9/11 were the rescue workers...

[T.A.M.]

Ref:

My first new thread. Yeah. Last time I was accused of hijacking a thread when asking questions there, so now my own thread for them.

1. How many people would you think, it would at least involve if LIHOP was true? What would be the least amount of people needed to create the confusion and allowing everything to take place?

At the very minimum a rough guestimate would be about a couple of hundred.


2. The four FDR:s from WTC site have not been found. How come there is not a sighting of any of those four after moving all the rubble? Would they be so destructed?


ummm...because they did not collect the debris single piece by pience. I am sure even if they were recognizable, which is unlikely, they could have been lost in a huge tractor scoop full of debris.


3. Suppose the FDR's are kept behind closed doors. What, if any, would be the motive for that?

Pure evil and deception, but since this did not happen, the point is moot.



4. It was known that OBL was in Afghanistan and with Taliban. Taliban was already under pressure from the US and others. Do you think they didn't take the counter attack into account, and if did, what was their plan, since Taliban is now out of power and OBL somewhere missing or dead?

I suspect they allowed him to head for the mountains near afghanistan/pakistan border, where he got away.



5. What is your take on the Barbara Olson phone call from flight 77? There is this claim:

"She was using the phone in the passengers’ seats,” said Mr Olson. Though the American Airlines Boeing 757 is fitted with individual telephones at each seat position, they are not of the variety where you can simply pick up the handset and ask for an operator. On many aircraft you can talk from one seat to another in the aircraft free of charge, but if you wish to access the outside world you must first swipe your credit card through the telephone. By Ted Olson’s own admission, Barbara did not have a credit card with her.

On American Airlines there is a telephone "setup" charge of US$2.50 which can only be paid by credit card, then a US$2.50 (sometimes US$5.00) charge per minute of speech thereafter. The setup charge is the crucial element. Without paying it in advance by swiping your credit card you cannot access the external telephone network."

What is your take on that?

1. I highly doubt, for one, that you cannot access an operator without swiping your credit card. If it is the case, than obviously, either Ted was mistaken about his wife having a card, or she used someone elses.

2. Given the judge, defense, and prosecution in the Moussaoui trial accepted as vailid evidence phone calls placed by almost all the passengers from what could only have been airfones (as they list which rows the calls were made from in the evidence, and these rows are different from the seats assigned to said passengers who made the calls...they were at the rear of the planes in most cases), I would say that you either are calling this evidence false, and hence calling into question the judge, and defense and procecution in this trial, or you have to accept that almost all the calls were made by airfones...EOS.



6. Why did Madeline Sweeney, flight attendant for 12 years, not recognize New York City?

"Woodward asks her to look out the window to see where they are. "I see water. I see buildings. We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low. -pause- Oh my God, we are way too low."

Thanks for answers. If already discussed before, my bad.

Oh, I dunno, why do people have trouble remembering certain details about their attackers when they are assaulted. In the heat of the moment, knowing they were probably going to die, do you think maybe for the moment it might have escaped her?

Your welcome for the answers. feel free to reply or add some more.

TAM

[defaultdotxbe]

what chu cant read/ did I say they were vitcims in large caps letters/a/a/ now/ fhrf 'slfj

this bhas nothign to do with what I believe...i knwo th etruth - i wna t to show how unbelivable illogial your belief are thogh...

dying doesn't make youa hero, a vicitm isn't a hero if that were true all the poepl who died on 9/11 eoud be heros - the only heros of 9/11 were the rescue workers...
Someone link a resource that has most if not all of the phone calls from the 9/11 flights. I know some of them were obviously faked. "Mom, this is Mark Bingham...your son, you believe me don't you."

This 6456 is worse than soap-opera acting...

No actually...me taking time out of my life to try and get justice for the victims of 9/11 equals caring. (Justice will only come when America has united as a whole. I as one person cannot bring justice for the victims) However, posting pictures of cats in a thread like this is equal to pissing on the graves of those who died on 9/11.

This is a serious subject matter...and some of you are completely disgracing the memory of those who died...by spamming this thread with inane junk. Show some class how about it.

how is comparing a mans last words to bad soap opera acting not pissing on the graves of victims?

and as far as rumsfelds comments, the youtube video 1, where are the other 2 times he said 93 was shot down?

and why do you believe when he says 93 was shot down, but not everythign else he says in the video? do you beelive al qaeda shot down 93? or was the rest of his sentence a lie, except for the one instant where he sais "shot down"?

[Gravy]

dying doesn't make youa hero, a vicitm isn't a hero if that were true all the poepl who died on 9/11 eoud be herosI would like you to state, with proper spelling and grammar for the sake of clarity, what role you think the passengers on flight 93 played in the destruction of that aircraft, if any. Please provide citations for your claims. Thank you.

[Bell]

what chu cant read/ did I say they were vitcims in large caps letters/a/a/ now/ fhrf 'slfj

this bhas nothign to do with what I believe...i knwo th etruth - i wna t to show how unbelivable illogial your belief are thogh...

dying doesn't make youa hero, a vicitm isn't a hero if that were true all the poepl who died on 9/11 eoud be heros - the only heros of 9/11 were the rescue workers...

Lay off the booz, 28IQ!! You're to young to drink.

Anyway, dying doesn't make you a hero, but the way you die certainly can.

Once again, you are pissing on the graves of the 9/11 victims, 28IQ. You are a sick boy. Grow up.

[T.A.M.]

Someone link a resource that has most if not all of the phone calls from the 9/11 flights. I know some of them were obviously faked. "Mom, this is Mark Bingham...your son, you believe me don't you."

This 6456 is worse than soap-opera acting...

Moussaoui Trial Exhibits (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html)

One of the files is a Slide Show that lists the phone calls for each flight and the seating rows they were made from. Notice that they list the seating rows, even when they were different from the rows that said callers were assigned on the flight. the only way they could know a call was placed from a different row, and id that row, is if the call was made from an AIRFONE.

Your comment above is deplorable. I wonder if the Jersey Girls are aware that while you support them wholeheartedly, you mock their kindred spirits such as Alice Hoglan like this.

Here is what she said in this interview:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1726647.stm

ALICE HOGLAN:
I took the phone and I heard my son's voice and he said to me, "Mom, this is Mark Bingham." I knew from that he was trying to maintain composure, but I could tell he was a little rattled because he was giving me his first and last names. He said, "I want to let you know that I love you. I'm on a flight from Newark to San Francisco, and there are three guys on board who have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb."

You should be ashamed. Even if you believe the calls are fake, on the off chance (to me a very good chance) that you are wrong, you should have respect for the families.

TAM:mad:

[Alt+F4]

Gosh 28th I'm sick of you. Please put me on your ignore list. I've asked you, yet again, just to provide EVIDENCE to one of your claims and as usual, you've changed the subject.

Done. YOU are officially debunked.

[geggy]

Speaking of barbara olson, I don't know anything about the credit card thing but she spent her remaining years pressuring the clintons to come clean in attempt to expose their involvement in the vincent foster assassination in '93. I guess 9/11 took care a lot of things for the clintons.

http://www.amazon.com/Hell-Pay-Unfolding-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0895262746

[defaultdotxbe]

Speaking of barbara olson, I don't know anything about the credit card thing but she spent her remaining years pressuring the clintons to come clean in attempt to expose their involvement in the vincent foster assassination in '93. I guess 9/11 took care a lot of things for the clintons.

http://www.amazon.com/Hell-Pay-Unfolding-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0895262746
so now the clintons are involved too?

im starting the think the whole reason the truthers are so upset is because they feel left out because they are the only ones NOT in on it

[Bell]

Speaking of barbara olson, I don't know anything about the credit card thing but she spent her remaining years pressuring the clintons to come clean in attempt to expose their involvement in the vincent foster assassination in '93. I guess 9/11 took care a lot of things for the clintons.

http://www.amazon.com/Hell-Pay-Unfolding-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0895262746

WHAT THE HELL??

Bill and Hillary orchestrated 9/11? Or what the hell is your point, Geggy?

[Pardalis]

She had planned to take a different flight, but she changed it at the last minute so that she could be with her husband on his birthday.

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html

348

[Dog Town]

im starting the think the whole reason the truthers are so upset is because they feel left out because they are the only ones NOT in on it

Yes, being left out of reality, must be a B#*ch!

[geggy]

so now the clintons are involved too?

Ask sandy berger (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003488234_berger21.html?syndication=rss).

[Bell]

Ask sandy berger (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003488234_berger21.html?syndication=rss).

No, we are asking YOU. What are YOU implying?

[Pardalis]

:run:

Run geggy, run! Find that conspiracy!

[stateofgrace]

If there were people on Flight 93, they're not heros...just like Jessica Lynch isn't a hero and just like Pat Tillman isn't a hero. THEY'RE VICTIMS and pawns used by the NWO to manipulate the emotions and sentiment of the American people.

Flight 93 was shot down, just like THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TOLD US THREE DIFFERENT TIMES!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0v0_HDwg84

What, you don't believe your leaders... when it becomes inconvenient for you?

I am so tempted but will not chastise this post the way it deserves to be.

I have simply quoted it to show the absolute stomach wrenching, revolting,obscene,insanity of the 911 denier.

The same idiots that would piss their pants, curl up in a corner and cry like a baby if they ever faced the terror those onboard this flight faced.

28th grow up you child.

[Pardalis]

Do we have a smilie of Homer slapping himself in the head? D'oh!

Hey Bell, look what I found at mazeguy.net
http://www.mazeguy.net/angry/duh.gif

[stateofgrace]

Someone link a resource that has most if not all of the phone calls from the 9/11 flights. I know some of them were obviously faked. "Mom, this is Mark Bingham...your son, you believe me don't you."

This 6456 is worse than soap-opera acting...

Here is what was actually said.

"Hello, Mom, this is Mark Bingham,"

He then told his mother there were three hijackers onboard.

He then told his mother he loved her and said.

"You believe me don't you?"

His mother replied.

“Yes I believe you "

http://www.sffog.org/markstory (http://www.sffog.org/markstory)

This soap opera was the last words a mother ever said to her son.
How proud are you 28th?

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom http://forums.randi.org/helloworld/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2216246#post2216246)
Someone link a resource that has most if not all of the phone calls from the 9/11 flights. I know some of them were obviously faked. "Mom, this is Mark Bingham...your son, you believe me don't you."

This 6456 is worse than soap-opera acting...
Here is what was actually said.

"Hello, Mom, this is Mark Bingham,"

He then told his mother there were three hijackers onboard.

He then told his mother he loved her and said.

"You believe me don't you?"

His mother replied.

“Yes I believe you "

http://www.sffog.org/markstory (http://www.sffog.org/markstory)

This soap opera was the last words a mother ever said to her son.
How proud are you 28th?



And people wonder why folks such JREF spend so much time trying to slap these fools down.

As Herbet Morrison exclaimed during the crash of the Hindenburg. "Oh the Humanity"

[Cl1mh4224rd]

what chu cant read/ did I say they were vitcims in large caps letters/a/a/ now/ fhrf 'slfj

this bhas nothign to do with what I believe...i knwo th etruth - i wna t to show how unbelivable illogial your belief are thogh...

dying doesn't make youa hero, a vicitm isn't a hero if that were true all the poepl who died on 9/11 eoud be heros - the only heros of 9/11 were the rescue workers...
Wow. If your thinking is as butchered as your spelling, it's no wonder you have trouble with the reality of 9/11.

[Horatius]

And people wonder why folks such JREF spend so much time trying to slap these fools down.

As Herbet Morrison exclaimed during the crash of the Hindenburg. "Oh the Humanity"

We just have to remember that one Mark Bingham is worth a hell of a lot of twoofers. With men like that in the world, we can't be too bad off.

We spend so much time talking to the loons, we lose sight of that.

[T.A.M.]

We just have to remember that one Mark Bingham is worth a hell of a lot of twoofers. With men like that in the world, we can't be too bad off.

We spend so much time talking to the loons, we lose sight of that.

I agree 100%. It is for the people like Mark Bingham that I feel so strongly about 9/11. I do this so the fence sitters see the REAL truth, but the people I do this for, in honor of so to speak, are the Mark Bingham's of the world.

TAM

[Quad4_72]

I know your sig man. You know what? Sometimes people reveal their true selves when irritated. I do sometimes that on purpose. I know the calls could have been made etc. I see a theory on the net and ask, what is your reaction to that. That is/was never my own theory. Seeing how people react to that gives some basis on what they truly base their believes on. And what they are as people. From this short period of time I can already see, whose posts are worth a notice, and who's not. But that aside, everything deserves at least a look, not just the shaking of shoulder, even the dumbest thing that one single person has noticed. They might be useful in other contexts if not the current. And some things I really wonder. That Osama future plan for example. Thinking they could take the retaliation, could he really think like that? Or just take whatever comes and simply go hiding, leaving his former haven and protectors behind.

Well all that you wrote is well and good but it really has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. Can you see that the flight recorders could be destroyed with enough heat, force, and damage? Or do you still believe that they are indestructible as Loose Change would like you to believe?

[Horatius]

I agree 100%. It is for the people like Mark Bingham that I feel so strongly about 9/11. I do this so the fence sitters see the REAL truth, but the people I do this for, in honor of so to speak, are the Mark Bingham's of the world.

TAM

I'm reminded of Heinlein's essay (http://www.heinleinsociety.org/rah/thisibelieve.html) for the "This I Believe (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4538138)" Series. This bit in particular:



"I believe in my fellow citizens. Our headlines are splashed with crime yet for every criminal there are 10,000 honest, decent, kindly men. If it were not so, no child would live to grow up. Business could not go on from day to day. Decency is not news. It is buried in the obituaries, but is a force stronger than crime. I believe in the patient gallantry of nurses and the tedious sacrifices of teachers. I believe in the unseen and unending fight against desperate odds that goes on quietly in almost every home in the land.

"I believe in the honest craft of workmen. Take a look around you. There never were enough bosses to check up on all that work. From Independence Hall to the Grand Coulee Dam, these things were built level and square by craftsmen who were honest in their bones.

[T.A.M.]

Horatius:

That Essay is fantastic. He says so much in so few words. My favorite segment is the following:

From Heinlein's Essay:

"And finally, I believe in my whole race. Yellow, white, black, red, brown. In the honesty, courage, intelligence, durability, and goodness of the overwhelming majority of my brothers and sisters everywhere on this planet. I am proud to be a human being. I believe that we have come this far by the skin of our teeth. That we always make it just by the skin of our teeth, but that we will always make it. Survive. Endure. I believe that this hairless embryo with the aching, oversize brain case and the opposable thumb, this animal barely up from the apes will endure. Will endure longer than his home planet -- will spread out to the stars and beyond, carrying with him his honesty and his insatiable curiosity, his unlimited courage and his noble essential decency.

TAM:)

[defaultdotxbe]

Horatius:

That Essay is fantastic. He says so much in so few words. My favorite segment is the following:

From Heinlein's Essay:



TAM:)
reminds me of a quote from babylon 5 (one of my favorites)

We have to stay here [outer space]. And there's a simple reason why. Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics, and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-Tzu, and Einstein, and Morobuto, and Buddy Holly, and Aristophanes... [and] all of this... all of this... was for nothing. Unless we go to the stars.

[ref]

Well all that you wrote is well and good but it really has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. Can you see that the flight recorders could be destroyed with enough heat, force, and damage? Or do you still believe that they are indestructible as Loose Change would like you to believe?

Nothing is indestructable. Everything can be destroyed with enought heat, force and damage. Except perhaps stupidity and other human flaws :) But everything material.

Honestly, I tried to search for the WTC FDR topic, but couldn't find any. Then thought what the hell, let's see what is the reaction on this since I had no previous material to compare.

They are quite hard to destruct though.

"A recorder must be able to withstand an acceleration of 3400 g (33 km/s²) acceleration for 6.5 milliseconds[/URL]. This is roughly equivalent to an impact velocity of 270 knots and a deceleration or crushing distance of 450 mm. Additionally, there are requirements for penetration resistance, static crush, high and low temperature fires, deep sea pressure, sea water immersion, and fluid immersion."

They are also located in the tail section, so that the entire body of the aircraft reduces the shock.

Also,

"Also, modern FDRs are typically double wrapped, in strong corrosion-resistant stainless steel or titanium, with high-temperature insulation inside. Additionally, since the recorders are sometimes crushed into unreadable pieces, or never located, most modern units are self-ejecting (taking advantage of kinetic energy at impact to separate themselves from the aircraft)."

Saw no self ejection here however. Still some tough sob's those FDR's. But nothing can take anything.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_data_recorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millisecond)

[ref]

Well all that you wrote is well and good but it really has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. Can you see that the flight recorders could be destroyed with enough heat, force, and damage? Or do you still believe that they are indestructible as Loose Change would like you to believe?

BTW. I never said they were indestructible. People here tend to put words in some peoples mouths.

[ref]

I believe you are referring to the LC post made by IVXX. However I personally would not call it sensible.

We consider these events with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, but we and our lords and masters are not so good at predictions.

For strong LIHOP we need to accept that the conspirators knew exactly how things would pan out both on the day and subsequently.

To know that a terrorist attack was going to take place and either hinder the counter terrorism operation or pro-actively facilitate the terrorist act would mean that those pulling the strings would need to be certain that -

1. Their involvement could be covered up

2. That the act itself would be sufficient to acheive whatever nefarious aims they had

3. That the attack wouldn't be so extreme as to seriously cripple their ability to carry out whatever their nefarious aims were

4. That the backlash from the attacks wouldn't be directed at them

5. That they wouldn't embolden (or embiggen) the terrorists by allowing this one act to take place and thus open pandoras box

6. That they themselves would face physical danger (after all rummy was at the pentagon)

The terrorist attacks on 9/11 were planned and executed apparently without flaw, but ultimately they were chaotic events with no guarantee of precision or effectiveness.

The aftermath of 9/11 could have easily been a witch hunt within the US government with major players finding themselves held to account, or a mass of accusations from those tasked with protecting the US claiming that they were obstructed or hindered in that task.

We only see a possible chain of events because that happens to be how it panned out after the attacks, but rather like the Iraq war where we were assured that wmd existed and that liberation of iraq would be universally welcomed and it would all be virtually self financing, none of these things has come to pass and could well have lead to Bush failing to get a second term had the democrats been more effective in their campaign.

So ultimately to believe LIHOP we must believe that the conspirators wanted the outcome which we see today, and quite frankly if that is the case you have to wonder why they would have even bothered.

I see what you are saying. I would still like to see IVXX here debating with you on the alternative theories, rather than 28th. 28th pick up your act.

The pandora's box topic is more an issue of politics rather than 9/11. What has really opened the box is the ever growing hatred on US policies worldwide. Rather than brought more stable global environment, the actions have only fueled more hate and widened the gap between countries, religions etc. But that is not an issue of conspiracy theories. That belongs to the politics forum.

[ref]

So you don't think it's feasible that al Qaeda would not appreciate the consequences of their actions, but you do think it's feasible that "inside jobbers" would attempt this enormous (much larger than al Qaeda's plan) enterprise and enormous coverup, without fear of the consequences if one person spilled the beans?

Do you know what that is, ref?

Insane, that's what that is.

You lower yourself too much to namecalling in this board. You have great points Gravy/M, speak with them. You make too hasty conclusions. I never mentioned inside jobbers. It would be as insane not to take into account the backlash at homefront if there ever was an inside job. Everytime I try to figure out the thinking from some other perspective, everyone keeps putting CT words in my mouth.

I was thinking from their perspective. How insane that may be. If you recall what I actually said was two options. Osama either thought they could take the US like they did Soviet Union in the 80'es, or he never even thought to fight but abandoned his old buddies and went hiding. That is all I said. Stop assuming anything beyond that, please.

[ref]

I appreciate the sentiment, but what are the "true" truther claims?

This is a serious question. I really want to know what claims you think are backed by evidence.

What I really would be looking for, is more co-operation between the sides. Right now you are in and endless situation. The other side makes claims, and the other side debunks them. Then comes namecalling and ridiculing. After that the wall between the sides grows even more.

You and I want to respect all relatives. But there are still families who still have questions. They still feel they have not been treated well in the aftermath. What good does this endless pickering do to them? Nothing.

I'm not trying to make the world a better place or anything. But I would like to see people sit on the same table. A bit like You with the LC guys. But it requires a lot. It requires that everybody must make sacrifices. Admit that they are not always right, maybe change their beliefs on major topics. Or even agree to take a look at a specific topic from another point of view. Maybe the families still have some very open issues? Let's find if there are any and see if we can make any conclusions. That would make more sense.

How to make the sides closer? I have no idea. But this endless namecalling and defending of own positions does nothing to the people who actually have had a part in this tragedy.

Thank You.

[Dog Town]

What I really would be looking for, is more co-operation between the sides. Right now you are in and endless situation. The other side makes claims, and the other side debunks them. Then comes namecalling and ridiculing.

This is a result of the CT "side", not letting go of their nonsense. Instead they repeat the same debunked rubbish, overe, and over! Gets old.

[beachnut]

What I really would be looking for, is more co-operation between the sides. Right now you are in and endless situation. The other side makes claims, and the other side debunks them. Then comes namecalling and ridiculing. After that the wall between the sides grows even more.

You and I want to respect all relatives. But there are still families who still have questions. They still feel they have not been treated well in the aftermath. What good does this endless pickering do to them? Nothing.

I'm not trying to make the world a better place or anything. But I would like to see people sit on the same table. A bit like You with the LC guys. But it requires a lot. It requires that everybody must make sacrifices. Admit that they are not always right, maybe change their beliefs on major topics. Or even agree to take a look at a specific topic from another point of view. Maybe the families still have some very open issues? Let's find if there are any and see if we can make any conclusions. That would make more sense.

How to make the sides closer? I have no idea. But this endless namecalling and defending of own positions does nothing to the people who actually have had a part in this tragedy.

Thank You.

Your lack of research on your own is your problem; you ask first grader questions for veiled reasons you have not revealed (not totally). Your lack of preparation and dumb question are annoying.

I do not care how well you write and express yourself; your lack of facts and shallow research make your efforts seem fraudulent at best.

What is your game?

You show a total lack of transparency; and have failed to lay out your cards. You ask questions to people who are fed up with the trying to make small things about 9/11 into major evidence for some CT.

You now post lessons for all? What is your problem? You have the real dumb questions; you take a trivial item and try to imply it is a CT factoid.

Am I jumping to conclusions; in your case it does not matter since you are way to smart to be critiqued by mortals.

Sides, you think you can pick sides and discuss? The CT world is a fraud; you fell for it; your intellectual bull has failed you in a game of facts. Either you are incredibly fact challenged or biased politically to the point you do not care about facts.

Are you:

Fact challenged?

or

Politically biased?

Simple questions even a CT guy can answer. You have missed the train; the facts were available on 9/11, enough facts for flight 93 to make decisions and stop the terrorist; you have had 5 years to find facts and failed. Flight 93 heroes took minutes to make correct decisions; you have five years and make wrong decisions. You have failed to comprehend the basic facts of the case and you are still lost this very moment. Finish a degree in something like engineering and try again. Or learn to think and use facts.

[chacal]

What I really would be looking for, is more co-operation between the sides. Right now you are in and endless situation. The other side makes claims, and the other side debunks them. Then comes namecalling and ridiculing. After that the wall between the sides grows even more.
<snip>


I don't see any sides in these debates, only private persons with differing opinions. On this forum for example most people like to have facts and evidence to base their beliefs on. This is not the case on many other forums and sites. There are no sides with facts and evidence only right and wrong. Should credible evidence for any criminal foul play regarding 9/11 emerge, I and most rational people would change their beliefs accordingly.


<snip>
I was thinking from their perspective. How insane that may be. If you recall what I actually said was two options. Osama either thought they could take the US like they did Soviet Union in the 80'es, or he never even thought to fight but abandoned his old buddies and went hiding. That is all I said. Stop assuming anything beyond that, please.

Your two options are the options of a westener. These people are religious fanatics and in their minds the mujahedeen are already dead. They hate life and love death. They are more resiliant and motivated than you and their numbers are growing and they are not going away soon.

If you would like to speculate why Osama didn't martyr himself in for example Torabora there could be several explanatoins such as he was more valuable to the cause alive. You might want to investigate the Jihadi movement and the mind set of them.

[Gravy]

Speaking of barbara olson, I don't know anything about the credit card thing but she spent her remaining years pressuring the clintons to come clean in attempt to expose their involvement in the vincent foster assassination in '93. I guess 9/11 took care a lot of things for the clintons.349, geggy.

[Gravy]

They are quite hard to destruct though.And I think you'll agree that the data recorders in all four crashes were subjected to quite extreme conditions. The recorders at the WTC had the added disadvantage of having two billion pounds of building come down on them, causing fires that lasted for months.

Here's the CVR from flight 77. Data were recovered from the FDR.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_87904597bf944f91f.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3417)

[Gravy]

Your two options are the options of a westener.Exactly. ref is not "thinking from their perspective" at all. He's thinking about what he values.

[Bell]

Hey Bell, look what I found at mazeguy.net
http://www.mazeguy.net/angry/duh.gif

EXCELLENT! :D

[T.A.M.]

I actually would disagree with Chacal here, and say that I think there are sides to be taken. The reason i say this, is because we are talking about groups of people, who in cyberspace at least, have chosen a group of people they tend to agree with, and from them they seek knowledge. Those people they tend to defend. Now for some, the "side" thing is not as obvious or even chosen, but I think it is still there.

The sides, I believe are,

1. The REAL TRUTH side. Our side. A side that believes in FACTS, EXPERT OPINIONS, REAL EVIDENCE, and that these things not only provide us with the answers, but are PARAMOUNT to the REAL TRUTH.

2. The 9/11 truth movement side. A side that seems to place a lot of weight on inconsistencies and coincidences. These things are the keys to their beliefs. Add in a paranoia for all that is government and big brother, and you have the heart of their "side".

I am usually one of the first on this forum to act as an arbitor of peace and civility, but that does not mean I do not see this as a battle. It is. It is a battle to provide all who come here with the REAL TRUTH. If that means I have to take sides and debate against those who provide rediculous, ill concieved, ill evidenced theories, than so be it.

I don't see things changing. When I first started this stuff, I thought the CTers could be converted, could be made to see the light. This rarely happens, and I know now that this is not the goal. As a result, my desire to "help" the CTers has severely diminished. My goal now is to reveal the bullcrap in their lies, for all those with REAL questions to see.

TAM

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

What I really would be looking for, is more co-operation between the sides. Right now you are in and endless situation. The other side makes claims, and the other side debunks them. ... But I would like to see people sit on the same table. A bit like You with the LC guys. But it requires a lot. It requires that everybody must make sacrifices. Admit that they are not always right, maybe change their beliefs on major topics. Or even agree to take a look at a specific topic from another point of view. Maybe the families still have some very open issues? Let's find if there are any and see if we can make any conclusions. That would make more sense.

How to make the sides closer? I have no idea. But this endless namecalling and defending of own positions does nothing to the people who actually have had a part in this tragedy.

Thank You.



Fallacy: Middle Ground

Also Known as: Golden Mean Fallacy, Fallacy of Moderation Description of Middle Ground


This fallacy is committed when it is assumed that the middle position between two extremes must be correct simply because it is the middle position. this sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Position A and B are two extreme positions.
C is a position that rests in the middle between A and B.
Therefore C is the correct position.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because it does not follow that a position is correct just because it lies in the middle of two extremes. This is shown by the following example. Suppose that a person is selling his computer. He wants to sell it for the current market value, which is $800 and someone offers him $1 for it. It would hardly follow that $400.50 is the proper price.
This fallacy draws its power from the fact that a moderate or middle position is often the correct one. For example, a moderate amount of exercise is better than too much exercise or too little exercise. However, this is not simply because it lies in the middle ground between two extremes. It is because too much exercise is harmful and too little exercise is all but useless. The basic idea behind many cases in which moderation is correct is that the extremes are typically "too much" and "not enough" and the middle position is "enough." In such cases the middle position is correct almost by definition.
It should be kept in mind that while uncritically assuming that the middle position must be correct because it is the middle position is poor reasoning it does not follow that accepting a middle position is always fallacious. As was just mentioned, many times a moderate position is correct. However, the claim that the moderate or middle position is correct must be supported by legitimate reasoning. Examples of Middle Ground


Some people claim that God is all powerful, all knowing, and all good. Other people claim that God does not exist at all. Now, it seems reasonable to accept a position somewhere in the middle. So, it is likely that God exists, but that he is only very powerful, very knowing, and very good. That seems right to me.
Congressman Jones has proposed cutting welfare payments by 50% while Congresswoman Shender has proposed increasing welfare payments by 10% to keep up with inflation and cost of living increases. I think that the best proposal is the one made by Congressman Trumple. He says that a 30% decrease in welfare payments is a good middle ground, so I think that is what we should support.
A month ago, a tree in Bill's yard was damaged in a storm. His neighbor, Joe, asked him to have the tree cut down so it would not fall on Joes new shed. Bill refused to do this. Two days ago another storm blew the tree onto Joe's new shed. Joe demanded that Joe pay the cost of repairs, which was $250. Bill said that he wasn't going to pay a cent. Obviously, the best solution is to reach a compromise between the two extremes, so Bill should pay Joe $125 dollarshttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html

[Quad4_72]

What I really would be looking for, is more co-operation between the sides. Right now you are in and endless situation. The other side makes claims, and the other side debunks them. Then comes namecalling and ridiculing. After that the wall between the sides grows even more.

You and I want to respect all relatives. But there are still families who still have questions. They still feel they have not been treated well in the aftermath. What good does this endless pickering do to them? Nothing.

I'm not trying to make the world a better place or anything. But I would like to see people sit on the same table. A bit like You with the LC guys. But it requires a lot. It requires that everybody must make sacrifices. Admit that they are not always right, maybe change their beliefs on major topics. Or even agree to take a look at a specific topic from another point of view. Maybe the families still have some very open issues? Let's find if there are any and see if we can make any conclusions. That would make more sense.

How to make the sides closer? I have no idea. But this endless namecalling and defending of own positions does nothing to the people who actually have had a part in this tragedy.

Thank You.

As great as that would be ref, there will not be any mutual agreement when it comes to the CTs and skeptics. CTs are just that, they believe in conspiracies. They rely on loose connections between political figures and bad guys to make up a conspiracy. They also rely heavily on coincidences as well.

Their tactic in convincing people that they are right usually comes down to deceit, lies, misconceptions, and taking everything out of context. They will do whatever it takes to convince someone of their argument, whether the facts are their or not. Whether they have to lie or not.

Did you happen to catch Loose Change or 9/11 Mysteries? The bias and deceitful manner in which they present information goes as a testimony to the validity of what they actually believe. They set up these CT movies like a documentary and present their claims as if they were fact, but yet there is no real evidence to back up any of it. This is done intentionally to bring people to their side, a fantasy world of paranoia where they believe that the government is out to get overyone.

Most importantly, you know why there will never be just one side? Because as of right now, there are not even two sides. Hell, there are not 100 sides.

There is a skeptic side, in which all of the skeptics have relied on facts, scientific data, physics, chemistry, and actual evidence to bring them to a unified conclusion of what took place on 9/11.

Then, you have CTs. There is no one CT side. There are literally thousands of CT sides to take. Each CT believes a different theory and each CT has their own opinion of what happened on 9/11. You will never find a unified belief when it comes to CTs. That is also another testimony to the validity of what they believe. If they had simply relied on the facts and the evidence in front of them, they would not all believe something different. Instead, they have relied on personal biases towards government, personal political agendas, far fetched connections between the government and terrorists, and coincidences.

This is not how science works. With science, you analyze, research, and draw conclusions based on all of the evidence. Asking questions is not evidence. Far fetched ties to terrorism is not evidence. Coincidences are not evidence. Quotes out of context is not evidence.

So ref, now I ask you, what makes your views of 9/11 and the CT you believe the one correct theory? There are literelly thousands of CTs out there, each one believing something different then the next. Why are you special? Do you have the magical powers of Google that none of the others have? Why do you know more than every single demolitions expert, sructrural engineer, chemist, and physicist who disagree with what the CTs say? What credentials do you have to question the NIST findings, a group of over 200 experts in their fields who have analyzed all of the evidence and wrote a 10,000 page paper in which you have undoubtedly never read?

[ref]

Most importantly, you know why there will never be just one side? Because as of right now, there are not even two sides. Hell, there are not 100 sides.

Then, you have CTs. There is no one CT side. There are literally thousands of CT sides to take. Each CT believes a different theory and each CT has their own opinion of what happened on 9/11. You will never find a unified belief when it comes to CTs. That is also another testimony to the validity of what they believe. If they had simply relied on the facts and the evidence in front of them, they would not all believe something different. Instead, they have relied on personal biases towards government, personal political agendas, far fetched connections between the government and terrorists, and coincidences.

So ref, now I ask you, what makes your views of 9/11 and the CT you believe the one correct theory? There are literelly thousands of CTs out there, each one believing something different then the next. Why are you special? Do you have the magical powers of Google that none of the others have? Why do you know more than every single demolitions expert, sructrural engineer, chemist, and physicist who disagree with what the CTs say? What credentials do you have to question the NIST findings, a group of over 200 experts in their fields who have analyzed all of the evidence and wrote a 10,000 page paper in which you have undoubtedly never read?

Ok where do I start. First. How do you know what I have read? You are assuming, again. Second. How do you know I believe in a CT? Have I claimed to know better that others? Never claimed to know better than any expert. So again all these words put in my mouth, for what?

I also know there are many sides, LIHOP, MIHOP, thousands of variations. But basically only two. US gov involved/US gov not involved. Of course it is more complicated, but at it's simplest that's the first dividing point.

What is lack of judgement from you, is to assume I believe in a CT, CD, claim NIST is wrong, never read anything, I claim to know the real truth, etc. That's your own mindgames.

[T.A.M.]

Ok where do I start. First. How do you know what I have read? You are assuming, again. Second. How do you know I believe in a CT? Have I claimed to know better that others? Never claimed to know better than any expert. So again all these words put in my mouth, for what?

I also know there are many sides, LIHOP, MIHOP, thousands of variations. But basically only two. US gov involved/US gov not involved. Of course it is more complicated, but at it's simplest that's the first dividing point.

What is lack of judgement from you, is to assume I believe in a CT, CD, claim NIST is wrong, never read anything, I claim to know the real truth, etc. That's your own mindgames.

You know ref, here you may be right. It is poor form for us to judge your stance without proof. I would have to read through all of your posts here, to get an accurate idea of where you stand, and even then it may not be enough, depending on their content.

It often helps when coming here to give a brief synopsis on where you stand on 9/11 in general, or on specific topics. It is true, that doing so will get you different attitudes in response, but heh, this is a skeptics forum. On the other hand, it might help avoid any misguided or misinformed assumptions on where you stand on the issues.

So many CTers come in here with agendas, etc...that when someone comes in here questioning aspects of the story as the public knows it, there can be the general assumption that that someone is likely a CTer.

TAM

[ref]

I actually would disagree with Chacal here, and say that I think there are sides to be taken. The reason i say this, is because we are talking about groups of people, who in cyberspace at least, have chosen a group of people they tend to agree with, and from them they seek knowledge. Those people they tend to defend. Now for some, the "side" thing is not as obvious or even chosen, but I think it is still there.

The sides, I believe are,

1. The REAL TRUTH side. Our side. A side that believes in FACTS, EXPERT OPINIONS, REAL EVIDENCE, and that these things not only provide us with the answers, but are PARAMOUNT to the REAL TRUTH.

2. The 9/11 truth movement side. A side that seems to place a lot of weight on inconsistencies and coincidences. These things are the keys to their beliefs. Add in a paranoia for all that is government and big brother, and you have the heart of their "side".

I am usually one of the first on this forum to act as an arbitor of peace and civility, but that does not mean I do not see this as a battle. It is. It is a battle to provide all who come here with the REAL TRUTH. If that means I have to take sides and debate against those who provide rediculous, ill concieved, ill evidenced theories, than so be it.

I don't see things changing. When I first started this stuff, I thought the CTers could be converted, could be made to see the light. This rarely happens, and I know now that this is not the goal. As a result, my desire to "help" the CTers has severely diminished. My goal now is to reveal the bullcrap in their lies, for all those with REAL questions to see.

TAM

You are growing to be my favorite poster because of your approach.

Because of course there are hundreds of variations of CT, LIHOP, MIHOP etc. But the basic divider is, believing in US gov and official evidence/not believing.

And most people approach 9/11 from one or the other viewpoint. Either the evidence based, report supported viewpoint. Or the questioning the official story, government involved in some way -viewpoint. The second one is then divided to smaller branches, but that is where you would start to draw your "organizational matrix".

[Horatius]

Ok where do I start. First. How do you know what I have read? You are assuming, again. Second. How do you know I believe in a CT? Have I claimed to know better that others? Never claimed to know better than any expert. So again all these words put in my mouth, for what?

I also know there are many sides, LIHOP, MIHOP, thousands of variations. But basically only two. US gov involved/US gov not involved. Of course it is more complicated, but at it's simplest that's the first dividing point.

What is lack of judgement from you, is to assume I believe in a CT, CD, claim NIST is wrong, never read anything, I claim to know the real truth, etc. That's your own mindgames.

Part of the problem is you haven't bothered to tell us what you actually do or do not believe. You've posted a few questions that look like you're a CTist, but you've also posted a few rebuttals to CTists.

Unfortunately for you, that's very similar to how some CTist have acted when they first arrived here. They want us to think they're honestly inquiring about 9/11, when in reality, they're just trying to set us up, so they can claim they "pwned" the JREFers, or some such thing. Because of this, some people start assuming everyone who looks like a Ctist is one, until proven otherwise.

If you want to be taken seriously, how about you try listing some of what you do believe about 9/11? That way, we at least have some starting ground. Also, post some clear questions about what you don't understand about 9/11. Questions that honestly try to clarify your understanding, and don't just look like veiled accusations or disguised versions of typical CT arguments.

As unfair as it may seem, you're walking into the middle of an ongoing discussion, and it's up to you to figure out what has gone before, and to distinguish yourself from that.

ETA: Or what TAM said.....Damn slow fingers!

[ref]

Your two options are the options of a westener. These people are religious fanatics and in their minds the mujahedeen are already dead. They hate life and love death. They are more resiliant and motivated than you and their numbers are growing and they are not going away soon.

If you would like to speculate why Osama didn't martyr himself in for example Torabora there could be several explanatoins such as he was more valuable to the cause alive. You might want to investigate the Jihadi movement and the mind set of them.

I am a westerner, you are a westerner. I don't need your obvious "terrorists hate life, they love death" stuff. What is the actual matter here is, what choises would be left for the people committing these acts after 9/11. And what they considered before and after.

Man, you are based in Finland and your hobby is debunking a Finnish 9/11 CT site. Since you are so suggestive, can you tell your own background on your Jihadi movement -knowledge and your research on the Muslim terrorist way of mind? First hand peace keeping activities or google?

[Horatius]

What is the actual matter here is, what choises would be left for the people committing these acts after 9/11. And what they considered before and after.



Did you miss where we addressed this question (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2215620#post2215620)? I think it's that they simply didn't expect the response they got, in part because they didn't expect to be as successful as they were, but also in part because they got away with many previous attacks without serious reprisals. Getting away with the 93 WTC bombing, and the bombing of the USS Cole gave them a flase sense of how the US would react.

Their bad.

[ref]

Did you miss where we addressed this question (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2215620#post2215620)? I think it's that they simply didn't expect the response they got, in part because they didn't expect to be as successful as they were, but also in part because they got away with many previous attacks without serious reprisals. Getting away with the 93 WTC bombing, and the bombing of the USS Cole gave them a flase sense of how the US would react.

Their bad.

I did notice that. But I was explaining to chacal what the real point was because he brought up his westerner stuff. I have acnowledged your answers as well.

[ref]

Your lack of research on your own is your problem; you ask first grader questions for veiled reasons you have not revealed (not totally). Your lack of preparation and dumb question are annoying.

I do not care how well you write and express yourself; your lack of facts and shallow research make your efforts seem fraudulent at best.

What is your game?

You show a total lack of transparency; and have failed to lay out your cards. You ask questions to people who are fed up with the trying to make small things about 9/11 into major evidence for some CT.

You now post lessons for all? What is your problem? You have the real dumb questions; you take a trivial item and try to imply it is a CT factoid.

Am I jumping to conclusions; in your case it does not matter since you are way to smart to be critiqued by mortals.

Sides, you think you can pick sides and discuss? The CT world is a fraud; you fell for it; your intellectual bull has failed you in a game of facts. Either you are incredibly fact challenged or biased politically to the point you do not care about facts.

Are you:

Fact challenged?

or

Politically biased?

Simple questions even a CT guy can answer. You have missed the train; the facts were available on 9/11, enough facts for flight 93 to make decisions and stop the terrorist; you have had 5 years to find facts and failed. Flight 93 heroes took minutes to make correct decisions; you have five years and make wrong decisions. You have failed to comprehend the basic facts of the case and you are still lost this very moment. Finish a degree in something like engineering and try again. Or learn to think and use facts.

I challenged you in the beginning with the small piece of "suspicious" evidence, you seem to have taken it to your heart.

Some simple things you can not have known. I have a degree. I can think. When have I used non-facts? You seem lost in some areas, desperate to blame me for something.

I don't live in there, so only way I can be politically biased is not to like your country's politics. And I don't like a lot of them but hell, neither do most of you guys.

Your lack of knowledge on how to judge people and eagerness to jump into conclusions is the most annoying thing here.

If I have a problem then let me have. It is with attitude like yours.

[Gravy]

I challenged you in the beginning with the small piece of "suspicious" evidence, you seem to have taken it to your heart.No, you asked six questions. You are the only one who thinks the subjects of your questions are "suspicious."

Many people come here with the misconception that questions are evidence. They are almost always disappointed to hear rational answers.

[ref]

No, you asked six questions. You are the only one who thinks the subjects of your questions are "suspicious."

Many people come here with the misconception that questions are evidence. They are almost always disappointed to hear rational answers.

No, I meant the very beginning when I came to this board. The bandana issue. I was not disappointted with his reply at all back then. But he has a problem with me now.

[Parsman]

Ref the bandana "issue" isn't an issue at all - wouldn't you agree that in this life and on this planet coincidences happen, sometimes very weird ones but coincidences none the less. The bandana survived unscathed - to the sceptics here a coincidence and that is all.

[chacal]

I am a westerner, you are a westerner. I don't need your obvious "terrorists hate life, they love death" stuff. What is the actual matter here is, what choises would be left for the people committing these acts after 9/11. And what they considered before and after.

Man, you are based in Finland and your hobby is debunking a Finnish 9/11 CT site. Since you are so suggestive, can you tell your own background on your Jihadi movement -knowledge and your research on the Muslim terrorist way of mind? First hand peace keeping activities or google?


Thanks for a reply

No I havent been a peacekeeper. My point was that the way that these religious fanatics would think and react in the the situation were not reflected in your two choises. I hope you see what I mean and I don't need any special knowledge about them to tell you that. I have read what they have said and watched their videos. You seem to wonder about their choises after the attacs. Their choise is fi-sabeelillah (the path of Allah) Iman (faith) and Jihad. Their choises are the same as before the attacs such as stopping the humilation of Muslims, getting rid of corrupt secular regimes in Muslim countries, the liberation of Palestine and so on. These among other things. And thats what they are doing.


You said:
Because of course there are hundreds of variations of CT, LIHOP, MIHOP etc. But the basic divider is, believing in US gov and official evidence/not believing.

Do you have somekind of obsession to divide everything in groups or "choises"? You don't need US govs official evidence to see that the "official story" is by far the most logical one. Are the Dutch engineers who say that the towers collapsed due to fire weakening the structure US gov? Is a pilot who says that it ain't so hard to fly a jet in to a wall US gov? Or is the guy who went to Oprah explaining how he checked Atta in to the flight US gov? Are the firemen who say that wtc7 was expected to collapse US gov?

[ref]

Thanks for a reply

No I havent been a peacekeeper. My point was that the way that these religious fanatics would think and react in the the situation were not reflected in your two choises. I hope you see what I mean and I don't need any special knowledge about them to tell you that. I have read what they have said and watched their videos. You seem to wonder about their choises after the attacs. Their choise is fi-sabeelillah (the path of Allah) Iman (faith) and Jihad. Their choises are the same as before the attacs such as stopping the humilation of Muslims, getting rid of corrupt secular regimes in Muslim countries, the liberation of Palestine and so on. These among other things. And thats what they are doing.

Do you have somekind of obsession to divide everything in groups or "choises"? You don't need US govs official evidence to see that the "official story" is by far the most logical one. Are the Dutch engineers who say that the towers collapsed due to fire weakening the structure US gov? Is a pilot who says that it ain't so hard to fly a jet in to a wall US gov? Or is the guy who went to Oprah explaining how he checked Atta in to the flight US gov? Are the firemen who say that wtc7 was expected to collapse US gov?

So your knowledge background is dependant on the same stuff that I can find on the internet. What I find interesting is, can you then say to understand their thoughts any better than any other of your so called westerners? There are extremists and I wasn't questioning that. But thanks for the civil response.

I was making a simplification by stating the pro/anti US gov statement. Maybe too big a step, but I think most common people start questioning these things after seeing LC or other documentaries. And thus most people are involved in the thought of possible US gov involvement, and try to decide whether that is possible or not. But that seems to be the first dividing point; which perspective do people choose to take when they start their own research.

But nothing is simple, things can only be simplified in theory. But that is in many cases helpful to other causes.

[MRC_Hans]

The question is the actuel pricing in 2001, but it was high whatever the case.What IS it with these CT people?? :nope:

Your plane has been hijacked, and it has just dawned on you that the hijackers are probably going to use it as a flying bomb. You know you are very likely to die soon. You have an opportunity to make a phone-call. Will you worry about the prize? Will you worry about whose credit card you use??

Get real, for crying out loud! It is OK to argue, but please TRY not to be utterly ridiculous.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

I was thinking from their perspective. How insane that may be. If you recall what I actually said was two options. Osama either thought they could take the US like they did Soviet Union in the 80'es, or he never even thought to fight but abandoned his old buddies and went hiding. That is all I said. Stop assuming anything beyond that, please.

And that one! So it doesn't appear all too rational for OBL & al to arrange this, so naturally it must be the US govt?? How insane would THAT be?

What is the most likely:

1) For a religious fanatic who believes that being killed in holy war will land him straight in heaven to plan to hit his pet hate where he expects it to hurt most?

2) For an elected government (president) to perform a wildly elaborate, high-risk operation, that, if disclosed, will secure the responsible eternal dishonour and probably a firing squad, and if it succeeds will give them some very doubtful political advantages?

Take your pick.

Hans

[ref]

And that one! So it doesn't appear all too rational for OBL & al to arrange this, so naturally it must be the US govt?? How insane would THAT be?

What is the most likely:

1) For a religious fanatic who believes that being killed in holy war will land him straight in heaven to plan to hit his pet hate where he expects it to hurt most?

2) For an elected government (president) to perform a wildly elaborate, high-risk operation, that, if disclosed, will secure the responsible eternal dishonour and probably a firing squad, and if it succeeds will give them some very doubtful political advantages?

Take your pick.

Hans

Hello Hans.

Show me the part, where I was speaking about the involvement of the US Govt. Then we may continue. But, since such part does not exist, we are not very well off are we?

[ref]

What IS it with these CT people?? :nope:

Your plane has been hijacked, and it has just dawned on you that the hijackers are probably going to use it as a flying bomb. You know you are very likely to die soon. You have an opportunity to make a phone-call. Will you worry about the prize? Will you worry about whose credit card you use??

Get real, for crying out loud! It is OK to argue, but please TRY not to be utterly ridiculous.

Hans

Hi Hans once more.

This time you misunderstood my misunderstanding of another post. You seem quite hasty.

[DavidJames]

ref:
I didn't see you respond to the comments from this post.
Part of the problem is you haven't bothered to tell us what you actually do or do not believe...

If you want to be taken seriously, how about you try listing some of what you do believe about 9/11?

[MRC_Hans]

Hello Hans.

Show me the part, where I was speaking about the involvement of the US Govt. Then we may continue. But, since such part does not exist, we are not very well off are we?Well, since the US govt must either be working hard to disclose the culprits, or be involved, there isn't really any alternative, is there? The govt points to OBL. You claim this is false. You even claim it is deliberately false. So who did it and what is the US govt's role?

This position is the most covardly of them all, I even think I prefer 28's. Those who say: "We think the offocial story is a fakery, but oh, no, we're not saying the govt is involved, no, no, we're just asking questions".

Whatever other answers you are looking for, one is certainly implied: If the official story is a fake, then the US government IS involved.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Hi Hans once more.

This time you misunderstood my misunderstanding of another post. You seem quite hasty.

Did you or did you not write this:

The question is the actuel pricing in 2001, but it was high whatever the case.

"Yes" or "no" will do.

I'm sorry, ref, I have been through a lot of this and you will have to put up with my lack of patience with all your diversions and allegations. What relevance is the price of an airphone call in this discussion, unless you are implying that it should keep doomed people from trying to place a final call?

Hans

[Miss Anthrope]

You see ref, I'm bored with questions like yours. Little kids ask questions. When my kids were little they asked lots of questions. But what's different about CT questions and little kids questions, is little kids learn. Kids grow up and their questions have more depth. The questions become fewer as they learn to answer their own questions.

CTists keep asking the same questions over and over again. CTist never learn. CTists don't try and answer their own questions. CTists are worse then little kids. Their minds don't grow. Unlike little kids, they don't mature.

I feel sorry for CTists since they are stuck in maturing bodies while their brains remain little kids brains. I've been following the 9/11 CTists since early this year and not one of them has come to this forum with answers. Not one of them has come with anything other then questions. (okay, one, Christophera, but his answers are science fiction).

Delurking to give you a thundering round of applause!

[Quad4_72]

My first new thread. Yeah. Last time I was accused of hijacking a thread when asking questions there, so now my own thread for them.

1. How many people would you think, it would at least involve if LIHOP was true? What would be the least amount of people needed to create the confusion and allowing everything to take place?

2. The four FDR:s from WTC site have not been found. How come there is not a sighting of any of those four after moving all the rubble? Would they be so destructed?

3. Suppose the FDR's are kept behind closed doors. What, if any, would be the motive for that?

4. It was known that OBL was in Afghanistan and with Taliban. Taliban was already under pressure from the US and others. Do you think they didn't take the counter attack into account, and if did, what was their plan, since Taliban is now out of power and OBL somewhere missing or dead?

5. What is your take on the Barbara Olson phone call from flight 77? There is this claim:

"She was using the phone in the passengers’ seats,” said Mr Olson. Though the American Airlines Boeing 757 is fitted with individual telephones at each seat position, they are not of the variety where you can simply pick up the handset and ask for an operator. On many aircraft you can talk from one seat to another in the aircraft free of charge, but if you wish to access the outside world you must first swipe your credit card through the telephone. By Ted Olson’s own admission, Barbara did not have a credit card with her.

On American Airlines there is a telephone "setup" charge of US$2.50 which can only be paid by credit card, then a US$2.50 (sometimes US$5.00) charge per minute of speech thereafter. The setup charge is the crucial element. Without paying it in advance by swiping your credit card you cannot access the external telephone network."

What is your take on that?

6. Why did Madeline Sweeney, flight attendant for 12 years, not recognize New York City?

"Woodward asks her to look out the window to see where they are. "I see water. I see buildings. We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low. -pause- Oh my God, we are way too low."

Thanks for answers. If already discussed before, my bad.

Alright ref I don't know if you knew this or not, but claiming that you are "just asking questions" does not make you any less of a CT.

[ref]

Well, since the US govt must either be working hard to disclose the culprits, or be involved, there isn't really any alternative, is there? The govt points to OBL. You claim this is false. You even claim it is deliberately false. So who did it and what is the US govt's role?

This position is the most covardly of them all, I even think I prefer 28's. Those who say: "We think the offocial story is a fakery, but oh, no, we're not saying the govt is involved, no, no, we're just asking questions".

Whatever other answers you are looking for, one is certainly implied: If the official story is a fake, then the US government IS involved.

Hans

Ahem. When did I claim what to be false? Can you be more specific, please. Especially, what did I claim deliberately false? Who's comments are you reading anyway.

[ref]

Did you or did you not write this:



"Yes" or "no" will do.

I'm sorry, ref, I have been through a lot of this and you will have to put up with my lack of patience with all your diversions and allegations. What relevance is the price of an airphone call in this discussion, unless you are implying that it should keep doomed people from trying to place a final call?

Hans

Yes I wrote that. If you would know better, it was a response to a poster, who asked for sources for the credit card -operated air phones in the planes. And I provided him/her with a source that those exist. My original posting also included a story where there was a price. That comment was made to say, that I could not confirm the price with any source. The price does and did not matter. Just that I could not source everything.

When I said the question is pricing, I meant the only open question in my sources is the pricing. Sorry for probable misspelling. Get it now?

[ref]

Delurking to give you a thundering round of applause!

You are allowed to have your opinions, whatever they may be. I can take criticism as well. If it only were all civil.

[ref]

Alright ref I don't know if you knew this or not, but claiming that you are "just asking questions" does not make you any less of a CT.

And repeating yourself does not make you anything. Even if repetitio est mater studiorum.

[ref]

ref:
I didn't see you respond to the comments from this post.

Am I not bothered, or is it a conscious decision? Categorizing people by their opinions. Make your own opinion instead, will you. Some are eager to call me a CT, I never said that and never will they show anything that implies that. The claim is, just asking questions (stupid many say) makes a CT. I am not just asking questions. Of my over a hundred post maybe a diminishing few contain those so called stupid questions. And even those are on purpose.

If your thinking is on that level, that you then start automatically calling me a CT then feel free to do it, I don't have to feel the same though. Categorize me somewhere if you are insecure otherwise.

But what happened to plain free discussion without obligations. I don't demand your stand on anything. Maybe I'll tell some more some time. But I'm not bothered with the few who cannot stand not to categorize me. I'll have other discussions with others.

[DavidJames]

Am I not bothered, or is it a conscious decision? Categorizing people by their opinions. Make your own opinion instead, will you. Some are eager to call me a CT, I never said that and never will they show anything that implies that. The claim is, just asking questions (stupid many say) makes a CT. I am not just asking questions. Of my over a hundred post maybe a diminishing few contain those so called stupid questions. And even those are on purpose.

If your thinking is on that level, that you then start automatically calling me a CT then feel free to do it, I don't have to feel the same though. Categorize me somewhere if you are insecure otherwise.

But what happened to plain free discussion without obligations. I don't demand your stand on anything. Maybe I'll tell some more some time. But I'm not bothered with the few who cannot stand not to categorize me. I'll have other discussions with others.Like it or not you are "categorizing" yourself with your posts. As has been stated already, you are walking in the foot prints of many CTist who proceeded you with similar "questions". They either disappeared or came out of their closet in full CT dress. I don't recall any who didn't fall into those two categories. I'm open to you being the first, but I'm not betting the final years of my kids college education on it. ;)

I'm just wondering why you are reluctant to be honest with those on this forum about your ideas. An honest answer could be "I'm just not sure". But even that is to much for you.

[Quad4_72]

Am I not bothered, or is it a conscious decision? Categorizing people by their opinions. Make your own opinion instead, will you. Some are eager to call me a CT, I never said that and never will they show anything that implies that. The claim is, just asking questions (stupid many say) makes a CT. I am not just asking questions. Of my over a hundred post maybe a diminishing few contain those so called stupid questions. And even those are on purpose.

If your thinking is on that level, that you then start automatically calling me a CT then feel free to do it, I don't have to feel the same though. Categorize me somewhere if you are insecure otherwise.

But what happened to plain free discussion without obligations. I don't demand your stand on anything. Maybe I'll tell some more some time. But I'm not bothered with the few who cannot stand not to categorize me. I'll have other discussions with others.

The people who mainly post on this forum are people who have researched 9/11 heavily and know that the official story is true, no question about it anymore. They do not need to ask silly questions. They do not need to ask any in fact. It is a fact that the official story is true. So for someone to come in here asking questions like:

Why did Madeline Sweeney, flight attendant for 12 years, not recognize New York City?

"Woodward asks her to look out the window to see where they are. "I see water. I see buildings. We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low. -pause- Oh my God, we are way too low."

you come off as a CT. Only a CT would ask such a silly question because they rely on this sort of information to back up their claims. Honestly, what does that question have to do with anything? What is the purpose of knowing why she did not recognize New York City? What kind of insight do you gain from knowing the answer to that?

[MRC_Hans]

Ahem. When did I claim what to be false? Can you be more specific, please. Especially, what did I claim deliberately false? Who's comments are you reading anyway.You didn't claim anything to be false, that's the cowardly thing. You "just ask questions". However, questions imply that there are answers. If I walk into another guy's office, and say "Hey, how did my briefcase get here?", I am implying something. I'm implying that I didn't put it there, and that my colleguea knows who did.

Likewise, when you ask about how OBL could have a motive for staging 911, you are implying that he didn't have one, which implies that somebody else did it.

There IS such a thing as innocent questions, but yours are not among them, and all I do is recognize the implications of your questions.

And about the price of airphones: Sure, you were just playing innocent again, but unless you were somehow implying that the high price was a counterargument to the official account, then the price is completely uninteresting.

Oh, and of course my (and other's) reactions are colored by the fact that you are about the 20th CTer to arrive here and start asking "innocent" questions. I guess I would feel a little sorry for you, if I was even remotely certain you are not one of them returning.

It would be SO refreshing if one of you would start by saying "I think XXX pulled off 911 for YYY reason, and I back my claim with ZZZ evidence." At least that would show some integrity. Instead we get endless "Why do you people think [insert tired old question]"

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

It is a fact that the official story is true. So for someone to come in here asking questions like:

Why did Madeline Sweeney, flight attendant for 12 years, not recognize New York City?

"Woodward asks her to look out the window to see where they are. "I see water. I see buildings. We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low. -pause- Oh my God, we are way too low."

you come off as a CT. Only a CT would ask such a silly question because they rely on this sort of information to back up their claims. Honestly, what does that question have to do with anything? What is the purpose of knowing why she did not recognize New York City? What kind of insight do you gain from knowing the answer to that?

Exactly! Such a question implies that someting is mysterious about the report. Otherwise the answer would be utterly uninteresting.

Ehrm, btw, I have a question, heheh: Where does that report come from? Where did that recording come from?:o

Hans

[Firestone]

Exactly! Such a question implies that someting is mysterious about the report. Otherwise the answer would be utterly uninteresting.

Ehrm, btw, I have a question, heheh: Where does that report come from? Where did that recording come from?:o

HansI don't think it was a recording. Michael Woodward, the AA flight service manager talking with Amy Sweeney took notes.

ETA: see chapter 1, note 32 of the 9/11 commission report:

The phone call between Sweeney and Woodward lasted about 12 minutes (8:32–8:44) and was not taped. See AAL email,Woodward to Schmidt,“Flight 11 Account of events,”Sept. 19, 2001;AAL notes, Michael Woodward handwritten notes, Sept. 11, 2001;

[ref]

I don't think it was a recording. Michael Woodward, the AA flight service manager talking with Amy Sweeney took notes.

ETA: see chapter 1, note 32 of the 9/11 commission report:

Yes exactly.

[ref]

The people who mainly post on this forum are people who have researched 9/11 heavily and know that the official story is true, no question about it anymore. They do not need to ask silly questions. They do not need to ask any in fact. It is a fact that the official story is true. So for someone to come in here asking questions like:

Why did Madeline Sweeney, flight attendant for 12 years, not recognize New York City?

"Woodward asks her to look out the window to see where they are. "I see water. I see buildings. We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low. -pause- Oh my God, we are way too low."

you come off as a CT. Only a CT would ask such a silly question because they rely on this sort of information to back up their claims. Honestly, what does that question have to do with anything? What is the purpose of knowing why she did not recognize New York City? What kind of insight do you gain from knowing the answer to that?

Now you finally add some context to your CT claims. It took a while. Asking that question makes me a CT, because no other person would ever ask anything like that. If that is your proof, then I'm not convinced.

But then you seem to know, that CT guys rely on this stuff to back up their claims. OK. So as a CT I should have made a claim somewhere down the line, that I would then back up with that question. Can you tell me, what my claim was then, that I'm so much backing up? Or, if I don't have a claim, that question does not back up anything. Still a CT? Then it would imply, that stupid question equals a CT. That is starting to get pretty far fetched.

You didn't ask that question, so I don't care if you don't know why I asked it. I admit that is a stupid question, but I had my reasons for that. I'm done with the silly questions anyway. Their purpose has already been fulfilled.

I think you had one stupid question on 31st of December. It went like this:
"So ref, now I ask you, what makes your views of 9/11 and the CT you believe the one correct theory?"

That is a stupid question. I hope you understand why. Does that stupid question make you a CT? Hmm..

[DavidJames]

...I had my reasons for that. I'm done with the silly questions anyway. Their purpose has already been fulfilled....Along with only asking questions, being coy like this is also a common CTist trait.

Are you ready to burst out of the closet yet?

[ref]

You didn't claim anything to be false, that's the cowardly thing. You "just ask questions". However, questions imply that there are answers. If I walk into another guy's office, and say "Hey, how did my briefcase get here?", I am implying something. I'm implying that I didn't put it there, and that my colleguea knows who did.

Likewise, when you ask about how OBL could have a motive for staging 911, you are implying that he didn't have one, which implies that somebody else did it.

There IS such a thing as innocent questions, but yours are not among them, and all I do is recognize the implications of your questions.

And about the price of airphones: Sure, you were just playing innocent again, but unless you were somehow implying that the high price was a counterargument to the official account, then the price is completely uninteresting.

Oh, and of course my (and other's) reactions are colored by the fact that you are about the 20th CTer to arrive here and start asking "innocent" questions. I guess I would feel a little sorry for you, if I was even remotely certain you are not one of them returning.

It would be SO refreshing if one of you would start by saying "I think XXX pulled off 911 for YYY reason, and I back my claim with ZZZ evidence." At least that would show some integrity. Instead we get endless "Why do you people think [insert tired old question]"

Hans

Hello Hans Holger Danske. Came to save the day?

Another one of those so fake quotations of me. I didn't ask OBL motives for staging 9/11 at any time. Why do you claim that?

The price is uninteresting, yes. Said it on the last post already, and explained why I even mentioned it. No need to repeat it because I hope you can read, then try to understand what you read, ok?

Here comes again the "so many have done this and that, you must be doing the same, you are one of them". Oh no, actually it is already clear to you that I am one of them. Holy Tights. Where is Batman. If I eat Chinese food am I Chinese? If I train Jiu-Jutsu am I Japanese? If I asked a couple of stupid questions for my own reasons am I a CT? If I work in Danske Bank am I Danish? The answer is, you might be, but it is also highly likely that you are not.

Howdy.

[ref]

Along with only asking questions, being coy like this is also a common CTist trait.

Are you ready to burst out of the closet yet?

I will burst somewhere, but closets have nothing to do with it.

David James is a decent goalie. Don't know about your decency though.

[chacal]

Speaking of asking questions. Ref, my friend you seem to have a negative attitude towards people on this forum. You wouldn't be someone we already know, would you?

[ref]

Speaking of asking questions. Ref, my friend you seem to have a negative attitude towards people on this forum. You wouldn't be someone we already know, would you?

I don't know anybody here. Or I don't know, if I know you from somewhere else, fellow countryman :) That is the only possibility I know anyone here.

I don't have a negative attitude towards people on this forum. Only towards those, who already attack me with their assuptions and false statements.

I like most of you, even those who criticize me in a civilized manner. But you can't like everybody can you, myself included. Just holding my ground against attacking evilposters :cool: Nothing against this board and nothing personal against hans or quad. I just respond in the way they respond to me, that's all.

Nyt sohvalle makaamaan. Ei koko iltaa koneella istuta. Illanjatkoja :)

[~enigma~]

If there were people on Flight 93, they're not heros...just like Jessica Lynch isn't a hero and just like Pat Tillman isn't a hero. THEY'RE VICTIMS and pawns used by the NWO to manipulate the emotions and sentiment of the American people.

Flight 93 was shot down, just like THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TOLD US THREE DIFFERENT TIMES!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0v0_HDwg84

What, you don't believe your leaders... when it becomes inconvenient for you?


So it's a goverment cover up and an inside job. The government lies to you at every turn except in this case they are being truthful? You are an [rule8]hole .

[~enigma~]

Did you happen to catch Loose Change or 9/11 Mysteries? The bias and deceitful manner in which they present information goes as a testimony to the validity of what they actually believe.
Quad,

You do realize that this line is candidate for understatement of the year don't you? Deceit is not even close to what trash they shovel.

[Quad4_72]

Quad,

You do realize that this line is candidate for understatement of the year don't you? Deceit is not even close to what trash they shovel.

This is true. I was trying to be nice though:)

[Quad4_72]

I think you had one stupid question on 31st of December. It went like this:
"So ref, now I ask you, what makes your views of 9/11 and the CT you believe the one correct theory?"

That is a stupid question. I hope you understand why. Does that stupid question make you a CT? Hmm..

Sorry but that is not a stupid question. It is a question that you chose to disregard because I am starting to think that you are in denial about being a CT or just have not came out of the CT closet yet.

Now lets look at the difference between a stupid question and a stupid question with an agenda behind it.

Stupid question: Are buffalo wings really made from buffalos?

Stupid question with an agenda behind it: "The four FDR:s from WTC site have not been found. How come there is not a sighting of any of those four after moving all the rubble? Would they be so destructed?" -ref

The people on this forum are not stupid ref. Everyone can see the agenda behind your posts and what you are trying to do here. We all know that you think the government had some kind of involvement in 9/11. Just come out with it already.

[~enigma~]

Are buffalo wings really made from buffalos?
Ruined some perfectly good buffalo steaks finding out :)

[ref]

Sorry but that is not a stupid question. It is a question that you chose to disregard because I am starting to think that you are in denial about being a CT or just have not came out of the CT closet yet.

Now lets look at the difference between a stupid question and a stupid question with an agenda behind it.

Stupid question: Are buffalo wings really made from buffalos?

Stupid question with an agenda behind it: "The four FDR:s from WTC site have not been found. How come there is not a sighting of any of those four after moving all the rubble? Would they be so destructed?" -ref

The people on this forum are not stupid ref. Everyone can see the agenda behind your posts and what you are trying to do here. We all know that you think the government had some kind of involvement in 9/11. Just come out with it already.

Buffalos have wings? Go Sabres.

Your government has had a lot of involvement in the aftermath. A lot of involvement that a lot of people dislike.

Before 9/11? It wouldn't be so surprising, if given some real evidence. As of now, not real evidence and no real proof that there is involvement before. So, in short. No hard proof on involvement before 9/11, some terrible mistakes, but nothing to prove that anything was truly intentional. If such evidence would sometime in the future appear, it would be necessary to re-evaluate everything. But as of now, I think there is nothing really proving any involvement.

Happy now? I think you don't know that much after all, do you?

[gumboot]

6. Why did Madeline Sweeney, flight attendant for 12 years, not recognize New York City?

"[/SIZE]Woodward asks her to look out the window to see where they are. "I see water. I see buildings. We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low. -pause- Oh my God, we are way too low."



Just to point out the stupidly glaringly brain-dead obvious...

In the above quote there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that Ms Sweeney did not recognise NYC.

-Gumboot

[ref]

Just to point out the stupidly glaringly brain-dead obvious...

In the above quote there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that Ms Sweeney did not recognise NYC.

-Gumboot

Well not literally. Often thought when asked where you are, and you know where you are, the answer is not "where I am I see buildings and water". It would be more like "I'm in [insert location]". But as of this case, this particular case is everything but a normal calm situation.

[Firestone]

ref, please also remember that we don't have a recording of the conversation, only the notes taken by Michael Woodward.

[MRC_Hans]

Another one of those so fake quotations of me. I didn't ask OBL motives for staging 9/11 at any time. Why do you claim that?

4. It was known that OBL was in Afghanistan and with Taliban. Taliban was already under pressure from the US and others. Do you think they didn't take the counter attack into account, and if did, what was their plan, since Taliban is now out of power and OBL somewhere missing or dead?

Spare me any wordplay of whether that was about OBL's motives or something strikingly like it. You were implying that the officially named perpetrators really didn't have a motive.


The price is uninteresting, yes. Said it on the last post already, and explained why I even mentioned it. No need to repeat it because I hope you can read, then try to understand what you read, ok?


5. What is your take on the Barbara Olson phone call from flight 77? There is this claim:

"She was using the phone in the passengers’ seats,” said Mr Olson. Though the American Airlines Boeing 757 is fitted with individual telephones at each seat position, they are not of the variety where you can simply pick up the handset and ask for an operator. On many aircraft you can talk from one seat to another in the aircraft free of charge, but if you wish to access the outside world you must first swipe your credit card through the telephone. By Ted Olson’s own admission, Barbara did not have a credit card with her.

On American Airlines there is a telephone "setup" charge of US$2.50 which can only be paid by credit card, then a US$2.50 (sometimes US$5.00) charge per minute of speech thereafter. The setup charge is the crucial element. Without paying it in advance by swiping your credit card you cannot access the external telephone network."

What is your take on that?


Did you or did you not put great emphasis in the price of the call?


Here comes again the "so many have done this and that, you must be doing the same, you are one of them". Oh no, actually it is already clear to you that I am one of them.


Qack like a duck...... ...... and you ain't stopped.

Hans

[ref]

ref, please also remember that we don't have a recording of the conversation, only the notes taken by Michael Woodward.

Yes, that is true.

[MRC_Hans]

Well not literally. Often thought when asked where you are, and you know where you are, the answer is not "where I am I see buildings and water". It would be more like "I'm in [insert location]". But as of this case, this particular case is everything but a normal calm situation.

Now, this could very well have gone, in a more normal situation:

"I see buildings, I see water, looks like New York"

But in the circumstance, being an experienced hostess, she sees something far more imortant:

"We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low. -pause- Oh my God, we are way too low"

So quite probably, she never got to the point of identifying the place, because the alarming situation takes precedence, and that is what she reports.

Think of this scenario:

A car is driving towards you, and you are (for whatever reason) describing it to someone on the phone:

"It's a blue pickup, rather dented, a Toyota, one passenger, New York plates, number ......"

This would be the normal situation, but something happens so instead you say:

"It's a blue pickup, rather dented, ... hey, it's turning towards the curb .. oh my god! It's coming straight at me!"

Is it reasonable to imply that you apparantly cannot recognize a Tyota or read a licence plate?

Hans

[ref]

Spare me any wordplay of whether that was about OBL's motives or something strikingly like it. You were implying that the officially named perpetrators really didn't have a motive.

I don't know what to do with your brain anymore, but I will still try.

I was thinking, whether they were able to foresee the becoming retaliation or not. And how well were they prepared, since it did not go very well for at least Taliban. What is this motive stuff you are talking about?



Did you or did you not put great emphasis in the price of the call?

Everything under the quotation marks, these " ", is not a quotation of me. It is a quotation of a claim, that I asked some reviews for. I put no emphasis on the price whatsoever. If there was emphasis, it was made by the original writer. I asked for opinions about his/her conclusions. Quit that pricecalling already, will you?


Qack like a duck...... ...... and you ain't stopped.´

Whatever that means. Usually three dots is enough. Anything beyond that is something else.

Hans. Give it a rest already, will you?

[ref]

Now, this could very well have gone, in a more normal situation:

"I see buildings, I see water, looks like New York"

But in the circumstance, being an experienced hostess, she sees something far more imortant:

"We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low. -pause- Oh my God, we are way too low"

So quite probably, she never got to the point of identifying the place, because the alarming situation takes precedence, and that is what she reports.

Think of this scenario:

A car is driving towards you, and you are (for whatever reason) describing it to someone on the phone:

"It's a blue pickup, rather dented, a Toyota, one passenger, New York plates, number ......"

This would be the normal situation, but something happens so instead you say:

"It's a blue pickup, rather dented, ... hey, it's turning towards the curb .. oh my god! It's coming straight at me!"

Is it reasonable to imply that you apparantly cannot recognize a Tyota or read a licence plate?

Hans

Hey, now youre making actual sense instead of cheap attacking for whatever reasons. You are very on point on this one. Could we continue this way, shall we?

[Pardalis]

OK ref, let's say she didn't recognise New York City. What does that prove?

[Quad4_72]

Buffalos have wings? Go Sabres.



Wait...were you serious with that question? Or was that a joke?....I was refering to buffalo wings that you would order at a restaurant. You were probably joking though.

[Quad4_72]

Ah. Posted too quick after reading it. DEFINITELY a joke.

[ref]

Ah. Posted too quick after reading it. DEFINITELY a joke.

Correct on that one :)

[Quad4_72]

:blush:Correct on that one :)