David Ray Griffin self destructs, digs even a deeper cell phone hole

[ref]

David Ray Griffin responds to criticism towards his cell phone opinions.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/11930

I pointed out that already in 1999, Washington Times journalist William Arkin reported witnessing a demonstration in which the voices of Generals Carl Steiner and Colin Powell were perfectly duplicated. I also reported an advertisement for a voice changer said to be good enough for people to fool their spouses. I am not sure, therefore, why Kornkven considers implausible the suggestion that Deena Burnett was fooled four times.

...

Had Kornkven consulted my D9D, he would have seen that I had reported an advertisement for a device called "FoneFaker." After the description, which says, "Call Recorder and Voice Changer Service with Caller ID Spoofing," the ad states: "Record any call you make, fake your Caller ID and change your voice, all with one service you can use from any phone."

...

But evidently lots of stupid things were said by those making the calls. For example, the person who called Mark Bingham’s mother reportedly said: “Mom, this is Mark Bingham.” Have any of us, even in the most stressful situations, identified ourselves to our own mothers by using our last name?

With regard to the person who was supposedly Tom Burnett: In his fourth call, Deena Burnett tells him that their kids are asking to talk to him, but “Tom” replies: “Tell them I’ll talk to them later This was after he had told her that he had realized that the hijackers were on a suicide mission, planning to “crash this plane into the ground,” so that he and others had decided they must try to gain control of the plane as soon as they are “over a rural area.” And the hijackers had already killed one person, “Tom” had reported.

So if this was the real Tom Burnett, he knew that there was a good chance that he would die in the next few minutes, one way or the other. And yet, rather than taking this probably last opportunity to speak to his children, he told his wife to say that he would “talk to them later.” The fact that it would have been stupid for a fake Tom to report that the hijackers had a gun is, therefore, not a good reason to believe that the caller must have been the real Tom.

From my perspective, moreover, the incompetence manifested by some of the callers was simply part of the incompetence manifested by the 9/11 operation as a whole.

...

However, after completing the manuscript for my next book, to be called “9/11 Contradictions,” I have come to agree with this objection under a particular formulation, namely: This administration appears to have been too incompetent to have orchestrated and covered up 9/11 well enough to have prevented the truth from being easily discovered if Congress and the press had done an even half-way decent job of raising questions. As “9/11 Contradictions” will show, every part of the official story is riddled with internal contradictions, any one of which could have led investigators to the truth.

Seen in this light, the hypothesis that the phone calls were faked is not undermined by the fact that, if this hypothesis is true, those who made the fake phone calls committed stupid errors. Such errors are exactly what one would expect.

Boldings mine.

I have highlighted his evidence, which is:

Advertisement for a voice changer. He forgets that the developer of the voice morphing technology George Papcun has stated (http://911guide.googlepages.com/voicemorphing), that this would not be possible under any circumstances. Plus the fakers would have to have intimate knowledge of each family and their habits.
Advertisement for a device called "FoneFaker". Okay, thus far he has presented two pieces of 'evidence', both are advertisements for some devices.
Once again the claim, that Mark Bingham would not call himself Mark Bingham. (He forgets that even Mark Bingham's mother confirms (http://www.911myths.com/html/mom__this_is_mark_bingham.html) that he sometimes did that.)
A real twist. He now claims, that eventhough Tom Burnett said some things that would have been stupid to fake, there still is no reason to believe they were not faked. This is hardcore believing is fiction, folks.
The incompetence and mistakes made in some phone calls is evidence, that they were faked.
He has a new book coming out, explaining these incompetences as part of the inside job.
And once again, stupid errors made by these phone call fakers are actually expected, therefore confirming they were faked.David Ray Griffin is in a hole so deep, I think everybody will abandon him soon. Look what happened to Fetzer. These claims are so wild, no one who took him seriously even this far, can take him seriously much longer.

[R.Mackey]

Another new book??

I once called my father and answered with my full name. He laughed at me for doing it, and it felt silly, but it happened. Some of us spend a lot of time on the telephone, professionally, and fall into a groove... This is very, very thin evidence indeed on which to accuse thousands of murder and treason, and to tarnish the memory of Mr. Bingham.

[qarnos]

I also reported an advertisement for a voice changer said to be good enough for people to fool their spouses. I am not sure, therefore, why Kornkven considers implausible the suggestion that Deena Burnett was fooled four times.

Gee! I once saw an advertisement for a 2 1/2 inch refracting telescope that could magnify x 500. I don't know why NASA waste money with junk like Hubble when they could just buy one of those...

Is he really that naive?

[LashL]

Another new book??

I once called my father and answered with my full name. He laughed at me for doing it, and it felt silly, but it happened. Some of us spend a lot of time on the telephone, professionally, and fall into a groove... This is very, very thin evidence indeed on which to accuse thousands of murder and treason, and to tarnish the memory of Mr. Bingham.

Indeed. Just today, I identified myself on the telephone to my daughter using my full name instead of "Mumz" (her pet name for me). It happens.

[Brainster]

The money quote:

With regard to the person who was supposedly Tom Burnett: In his fourth call, Deena Burnett tells him that their kids are asking to talk to him, but “Tom” replies: “Tell them I’ll talk to them later.”[15] This was after he had told her that he had realized that the hijackers were on a suicide mission, planning to “crash this plane into the ground,” so that he and others had decided they must try to gain control of the plane as soon as they are “over a rural area.” And the hijackers had already killed one person, “Tom” had reported. So if this was the real Tom Burnett, he knew that there was a good chance that he would die in the next few minutes, one way or the other. And yet, rather than taking this probably last opportunity to speak to his children, he told his wife to say that he would “talk to them later.”

Okay, Tom Burnett is a national hero, and DRG's slagging him for not saying goodbye to his kids before storming the cockpit? That is right up there with Dylan claiming Bernard Brown sent his son to die. Of course, the difference is that Dylan can claim youthful mistakes; Griffin doesn't have that excuse.

What a jerk!

BTW, anybody else notice the incongruence of a paper from Griffin with 16 footnotes to respond to a stupid post from a nobody at 9-11 Blogger, and yet no response to R Mackey's debunking of his NIST chapter?

[Magenta]

There's something utterly repugnant about DRG picking over the last words of people in this way. One would think that basic compassion would flag this as a "no go" area.

[Arus808]

omg he must have been looking on the back of mad magazine where they advertise those mail in order toys.

[Arus808]

There's something utterly repugnant about DRG picking over the last words of people in this way. One would think that basic compassion would flag this as a "no go" area.


to echo popular mechanics "truly disgusting"

[R.Mackey]

Okay, Tom Burnett is a national hero, and DRG's slagging him for not saying goodbye to his kids before storming the cockpit? That is right up there with Dylan claiming Bernard Brown sent his son to die. Of course, the difference is that Dylan can claim youthful mistakes; Griffin doesn't have that excuse.

One would imagine that Mr. Burnett didn't want to traumatize his children, knowing he soon would be dead. I don't blame him if that was so.


BTW, anybody else notice the incongruence of a paper from Griffin with 16 footnotes to respond to a stupid post from a nobody at 9-11 Blogger, and yet no response to R Mackey's debunking of his NIST chapter?

Still no response -- nor from his sources -- excepting only Eric Douglas, who was quite cordial and even interested in my findings. Big surprise.

ETA: Oops, I forgot about Chuck "Erector Set" Thurston. I guess we could consider that a response...

[qarnos]

There's something utterly repugnant about DRG picking over the last words of people in this way. One would think that basic compassion would flag this as a "no go" area.

I don't have a problem with people entering "no go" areas if they have a worthwhile criticism to make (eg: religion). But in this case it is just callous.

I'm beginning to wonder if he believes his own words or if he's just throwing things out there which he knows the truthers will swallow in the hopes of selling a few more books.

[westprog]

Gee! I once saw an advertisement for a 2 1/2 inch refracting telescope that could magnify x 500. I don't know why NASA waste money with junk like Hubble when they could just buy one of those...


There are those X-ray spectacles as well.

Is he really that naive?

To the conspiracists, being naive is accepting any evidence, no matter how well founded, that supports the "official" theory, and rejecting any evidence, no matter how spurious, that conflicts with it.

[kimota]

Had Kornkven consulted my D9D, he would have seen that I had reported an advertisement for a device called "FoneFaker." After the description, which says, "Call Recorder and Voice Changer Service with Caller ID Spoofing," the ad states: "Record any call you make, fake your Caller ID and change your voice, all with one service you can use from any phone."

Typical DRG comprehension. It's one thing to have a device which distorts one's voice as to make it unrecognizable, but it's a big leap of technological logic to say that device could accurately impersonate another person's voice. It's not like I can pick one of these up to sound like, oh, Richard Dawkins (complete with accent!) and fool his friends with phone calls. You'd have better luck hiring capable voice actors to impersonate someone.

[Firestone]

Typical DRG comprehension. It's one thing to have a device which distorts one's voice as to make it unrecognizable, but it's a big leap of technological logic to say that device could accurately impersonate another person's voice. It's not like I can pick one of these up to sound like, oh, Richard Dawkins (complete with accent!) and fool his friends with phone calls. You'd have better luck hiring capable voice actors to impersonate someone.It's also typical DRG "research".

Instead of quoting an ad for that product, why didn't he buy it to see what it actually does? :confused:

[chatiez]

So basically DRG watches transcript of last calls. Because voicemorphing technology does exist in some form, therefore these calls can be (most likely/almost certainly) fake, fiction. He compares it to his view how fiction works and criticize problems with script. It's fiction, it got problems, therefore it's bad fiction.

I have only basic training in crisiswork and psychology behind it but bottom line is that strange and danger does make people enter shock in some degree. Shock can influence to behavior almost in any way. So incompetence DRG is describing for me seems like terrible proof of authencity. What did he expect when he dugg himself into that area? Hysteria and movie one-liners?

[8den]

What a utter piece of scum.

[bje]

When it comes right down to it, the thinking of most prominent people in the Truth Movement is, to be kind, irrational.

Can anyone here name anyone in the movement who could be considered rational and intellectually honest? I can't.

[MarkyX]

Wow, big shock.

Not. Another black eye for the idiots.

[Hyperviolet]

The remark about Tom Burnett is truly disgraceful.

Who's to say the man couldn't bear the thought of having his last conversation with his kids? It's that kind of moment that would break you. No, you need positive thinking in times of great distress if you are planning to survive.
"I will speak to them later"
It's thinking like that that fuels the kind of bravery and determination he showed on United 93.

Regardless, his daughters Ann Clare, and twins Halley and Madison, were only 3 and 5, respectively. What exactly do you say to kids that age to make them understand the situation? DRG needs to seriously think about what he is saying.
When in fact, he just seems concerned about churning out as many books as possible.

:mad:

[Drudgewire]

When it comes right down to it, the thinking of most prominent people in the Truth Movement is, to be kind, irrational.
In a world of dim bulbs, DRG seems to be among those who voluntarily removed their filament long ago.

[Belz...]

Another new book??

I once called my father and answered with my full name. He laughed at me for doing it, and it felt silly, but it happened. Some of us spend a lot of time on the telephone, professionally, and fall into a groove... This is very, very thin evidence indeed on which to accuse thousands of murder and treason, and to tarnish the memory of Mr. Bingham.

Sure, sometimes I answer the phone at home like I would do at work by saying the name of the company I work for!

[Naughtyhippo]

Sure, sometimes I answer the phone at home like I would do at work by saying the name of the company I work for!

I'm glad it's not just me this happens to.

[Unsecured Coins]

Sure, sometimes I answer the phone at home like I would do at work by saying the name of the company I work for!


I do that too. My mom will call and I'll answer the phone "Army Of One, SGT Powers..."

[Cuddles]

I'm glad it's not just me this happens to.

Me too. By truther logic, I think that means I'm legally a voice morphing machine named Medical Records.

[A W Smith]

So I guess the DRG will claim they tortured that woman (cant remember her name) to reveal her safe combination via cell phone to her next of kin.:rolleyes:

[FramerDave]

Indeed. Just today, I identified myself on the telephone to my daughter using my full name instead of "Mumz" (her pet name for me). It happens.

What really makes one feel silly is one does the flip of that. I once ended a phone conversation at work with a client with "Ok, love you."

[JimBenArm]

What really makes one feel silly is one does the flip of that. I once ended a phone conversation at work with a client with "Ok, love you."
Bet that upped your business with them, huh?

[JamesB]

The money quote:



Okay, Tom Burnett is a national hero, and DRG's slagging him for not saying goodbye to his kids before storming the cockpit? That is right up there with Dylan claiming Bernard Brown sent his son to die. Of course, the difference is that Dylan can claim youthful mistakes; Griffin doesn't have that excuse.

What a jerk!

BTW, anybody else notice the incongruence of a paper from Griffin with 16 footnotes to respond to a stupid post from a nobody at 9-11 Blogger, and yet no response to R Mackey's debunking of his NIST chapter?

Nor has be responded to the AA work order showing the airphones were not deactivated until April 2002. It is no coincidence that in all of his media appearances he is never in a position where he would have to debate.

[dudalb]

What a utter piece of scum.

Apprrently Griffin has managed to forget whatever training in basic ethics he has in his years as a theologian.

[boloboffin]

Another 9/11 book from David Ray Griffin. I guess retirement funds from the Claremont School of Theology just aren't enough to get by.

This reminds me of a joke a fundraiser for my own alma mater used to tell his prey. Seems a mink farmer was giving tours of his fine establishment, and a lady asked him how many times he could skin a mink. The mink farmer thought it over, and then said, "Three times, but after that they get skittish."

You would think the 9/11 Truth Movement would start to get skittish around Griffin.

[CHF]

I'm beginning to wonder if he believes his own words or if he's just throwing things out there which he knows the truthers will swallow in the hopes of selling a few more books.

Hey, if it wasn't for twoofers buying DRG's books the idiot would probably starve.

[CptColumbo]

So the Nobel Peace Prize is anounced tomorrow. What do you think his chances are?

[ElMondoHummus]

What really makes one feel silly is one does the flip of that. I once ended a phone conversation at work with a client with "Ok, love you."

What? You didn't mean it?? (*Huff*) I'm never doing business with you again, then!

[CptColumbo]

What? You didn't mean it?? (*Huff*) I'm never doing business with you again, then!I hate when the person says something like "hope you enjoy your stay," and I say "Hey, you too."
Giving the reflex answer to "Have a nice day."
Then I feel like an idiot, and try to cover it. "Because... you may be staying there... someday."

[gumboot]

Dr Griffin is hand's down my favourite truther.

My favourite moment in Omissions and Distortions so far is when he expects us to take his word for it regarding Al Qaeda's aims for the attacks, despite the fact that Dr Griffin himself doesn't even believe Al Qaeda carried out the attacks!

-Gumboot

[JamesB]

Dr Griffin is hand's down my favourite truther.

My favourite moment in Omissions and Distortions so far is when he expects us to take his word for it regarding Al Qaeda's aims for the attacks, despite the fact that Dr Griffin himself doesn't even believe Al Qaeda carried out the attacks!

-Gumboot

My favorite is when he says that the witnesses who saw a "small military plane" at the Pentagon must be given greater weight than those who saw a civilian plane.... even though he never lists a single person who ever saw a military plane.

[gumboot]

I hate when the person says something like "hope you enjoy your stay," and I say "Hey, you too."
Giving the reflex answer to "Have a nice day."
Then I feel like an idiot, and try to cover it. "Because... you may be staying there... someday."


That reminds me of when your finance company or whoever rings you to ask you about something, and at the end of the call they go "is there anything else I can do for you today?"

My response to that is usually "Is there anything more I can do for you?"

-Gumboot

[T.A.M.]

A few more slip ups and he will go the way of Fetzer. The only reason he has lasted this long is he has not full endorsed "no-plane" theory (yet) and he can speak without blowing a gasket (unlike uncle Fetzer).

TAM:)

[gumboot]

A few more slip ups and he will go the way of Fetzer. The only reason he has lasted this long is he has not full endorsed "no-plane" theory (yet) and he can speak without blowing a gasket (unlike uncle Fetzer).

TAM:)


He endorses a "no-plane" theory for the Pentagon strike in Omissions and Distortions.

-Gumboot

[Monza]

Typical DRG comprehension. It's one thing to have a device which distorts one's voice as to make it unrecognizable, but it's a big leap of technological logic to say that device could accurately impersonate another person's voice. It's not like I can pick one of these up to sound like, oh, Richard Dawkins (complete with accent!) and fool his friends with phone calls. You'd have better luck hiring capable voice actors to impersonate someone.

Exactly! This was my first thought upon reading the non-sense about a voice changer being used. This is such a simple connection to make, one has to wonder just what DRG was thinking (if indeed he was).

[T.A.M.]

one of these days, If I can ever find a used copy, I am going to sit down and DEBUNK his "Debunking 9/11 Debunking". Just because it would be easy, and fun, and there is little new around here to tackle as of late.

TAM:)

[kimota]

one of these days, If I can ever find a used copy, I am going to sit down and DEBUNK his "Debunking 9/11 Debunking". Just because it would be easy, and fun, and there is little new around here to tackle as of late.

TAM:)

I borrowed a copy from the library and felt embarrassed while checking it out, like I was getting caught with pornography. I think it should have a label on the cover: WARNING! Reading this book may cause ocular muscle stress due to excessive eye-rolling.

[defaultdotxbe]

Typical DRG comprehension. It's one thing to have a device which distorts one's voice as to make it unrecognizable, but it's a big leap of technological logic to say that device could accurately impersonate another person's voice. It's not like I can pick one of these up to sound like, oh, Richard Dawkins (complete with accent!) and fool his friends with phone calls. You'd have better luck hiring capable voice actors to impersonate someone.
i was goign to say something along these lines, but ill just agree with you instead

BTW i did some research on fonefaker, heres info from a site where you can purchase the service:

FoneFaker allows you to change the displayed information on the Caller ID of the person you are calling. FoneFaker also provides you with the ability to record your calls to a downloadable .WAV format. As if Caller ID Spoofing isn't enough, FoneFaker features the ability to change your voice to Male, Female, or leave it unaltered.
http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/spoofcard-cellphonecallrecorder-voicechanger.html

so it changes your voice to either male or female....doesnt really seem like enough to convince someone im their husband or wife

[ref]

i was goign to say something along these lines, but ill just agree with you instead

BTW i did some research on fonefaker, heres info from a site where you can purchase the service:


http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/spoofcard-cellphonecallrecorder-voicechanger.html

so it changes your voice to either male or female....doesnt really seem like enough to convince someone im their husband or wife

I think the point Griffin is trying to make is, that the technologies exist. It doesn't matter to him how perverted his conclusions are.

So in other words, he has seen an advertisement for FoneFaker, so he knows the technology to change the caller ID exists. He has also seen an ad for voice morphing technology, so in his world it is completely plausible that it was used, just because the technology has been developed.

It doesn't matter to him, that in practise it would be impossible to use the developed technologies in a manner he claims. And he also ignores the fact, that no-one would know how the families would communicate with each other, without extensive surveillance and spying.

And also, it is no problem to him, that he sees advertisements for different technologies, which cannot do the trick by themselves, but when combined, he gets the result he wants. In his world, the voice morphing technology is completely compatible with the FoneFaker technology, and when combined, voila, the phone calls are faked and no-one notices.

That's so stupid it hurts.


ETA: And one can not forget, that faking the caller ID is not as simple as it sounds. The faker of "John Smith" would have to know, whether his wife would have ID'ed him in her phone as "John" or "Husband" or "Honeybunny" or perhaps "Beerbelly". There is no way the faker would know, how to ID the fake call without stealing the wife's phone. One more impossible twist for the inside job.

[Mancman]

I borrowed a copy from the library and felt embarrassed while checking it out, like I was getting caught with pornography. I think it should have a label on the cover: WARNING! Reading this book may cause ocular muscle stress due to excessive eye-rolling.

Ha. I bought the book, but don't keep it on the bookshelf in case someone sees it. It sits in a drawer beneath some jeans which I broke the zip off.

[Dave Rogers]

Ha. I bought the book, but don't keep it on the bookshelf in case someone sees it. It sits in a drawer beneath some jeans which I broke the zip off.

That's a pretty unusual reaction to reading Griffin!

Dave

[ref]

Ok I was tired when I added the paragraph about the ID faking. Of course it's enough to fake the number you are calling from. The recipient's phone then recognises the number and shows whatever name one has written attached to that number.

My bad :cool:

The rest of the post still stands!

[Galileo]

This is the most disgusting thread I've ever seen at the JREF forums, and the incessant name-calling and attacks against the distinguished Dr. David Ray Griffin not only violates forum rules, it is also bad etiquette.

I hereby call for the moderator to ban all those who made ad hominem attacks! Get tough.

Not only does it seem like I'm in a 3rd grade playground, I still haven't seen even one intelligent argument raised against Dr. Griffin. And even if Griffin is wrong about this topic, that means nothing. Galileo was incorrect about the comets and Newton wrong about alchemy.

You guys make a big deal that Griffin insulted a 9/11 victim, yet by doing that, you are insulting a Truth-seeker and implicitly condoning mass murder. Outrageous behavior! I call on you all to step up like a man and retract!

Most important of all, if Griffin is wrong, then Andrew Kornkven is right; the phone calls do not support the OCT and in fact, prove it wrong.

Hence, the phone calls say the "hijackers" had guns, and the callers give different seat numbers for the "hijackers". That means the "hijackers" were NOT Arabs.

The calls also prove there were fewer "hijackers" on the planes than the official story tells. If you assert, for example, that there were 5 Arab "hijackers" on FL11 or 4 Arab "hijackers" on FL93, you are nothing more than a stone cold racist, and a religious bigot to boot!

Here's what I think of the previous comments:

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/finger.html

:shocked:

[Slayhamlet]

This is the most disgusting thread I've ever seen at the JREF forums, and the incessant name-calling and attacks against the distinguished Dr. David Ray Griffin not only violates forum rules, it is also bad etiquette.

I hereby call for the moderator to ban all those who made ad hominem attacks! Get tough.

Not only does it seem like I'm in a 3rd grade playground, I still haven't seen even one intelligent argument raised against Dr. Griffin. And even if Griffin is wrong about this topic, that means nothing. Galileo was incorrect about the comets and Newton wrong about alchemy.

You guys make a big deal that Griffin insulted a 9/11 victim, yet by doing that, you are insulting a Truth-seeker and implicitly condoning mass murder. Outrageous behavior! I call on you all to step up like a man and retract!

Most important of all, if Griffin is wrong, then Andrew Kornkven is right; the phone calls do not support the OCT and in fact, prove it wrong.

Hence, the phone calls say the "hijackers" had guns, and the callers give different seat numbers for the "hijackers". That means the "hijackers" were NOT Arabs.

The calls also prove there were fewer "hijackers" on the planes than the official story tells. If you assert, for example, that there were 5 Arab "hijackers" on FL11 or 4 Arab "hijackers" on FL93, you are nothing more than a stone cold racist, and a religious bigot to boot!

Here's what I think of the previous comments:

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/finger.html

:shocked:

Get bent.

[T.A.M.]

This is the most disgusting thread I've ever seen at the JREF forums, and the incessant name-calling and attacks against the distinguished Dr. David Ray Griffin not only violates forum rules, it is also bad etiquette.

I hereby call for the moderator to ban all those who made ad hominem attacks! Get tough.

Not only does it seem like I'm in a 3rd grade playground, I still haven't seen even one intelligent argument raised against Dr. Griffin. And even if Griffin is wrong about this topic, that means nothing. Galileo was incorrect about the comets and Newton wrong about alchemy.

You guys make a big deal that Griffin insulted a 9/11 victim, yet by doing that, you are insulting a Truth-seeker and implicitly condoning mass murder. Outrageous behavior! I call on you all to step up like a man and retract!

Most important of all, if Griffin is wrong, then Andrew Kornkven is right; the phone calls do not support the OCT and in fact, prove it wrong.

Hence, the phone calls say the "hijackers" had guns, and the callers give different seat numbers for the "hijackers". That means the "hijackers" were NOT Arabs.

The calls also prove there were fewer "hijackers" on the planes than the official story tells. If you assert, for example, that there were 5 Arab "hijackers" on FL11 or 4 Arab "hijackers" on FL93, you are nothing more than a stone cold racist, and a religious bigot to boot!

Here's what I think of the previous comments:

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/finger.html

:shocked:

lol...your kidding right?

DRG is not a member here. If we had to ban everyone on this forum who said something bad about BUSH or CHENEY, also not members here, well the population at JREF would be cut by 75%.

The rest of your post is absolute crap. Now I am insulting your post, not you, so you can run to the mods with it if you like, but I AM ATTACKING THE ARGUMENT, NOT THE ARGUER.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

If you like the comments so far, here is another related to DRg, the high priest of 9/11.

He is a snake oil salesmen who makes money of lies that accuse with out evidence or merit, innocent americans of mass murder. He is articulate but ignorant. He is well educated, but ill informed on the facts of the topic he writes about.

TAM:)

[dudalb]

I had to check out Galileo's posting history here at JREF.
Wow.Just Wow.

[Slayhamlet]

I had to check out Galileo's posting history here at JREF.
Wow.Just Wow.

He's giving Max Photon a run for his money in the loony department, that's for sure.

[Hyperviolet]

This is the most disgusting thread I've ever seen at the JREF forums, and the incessant name-calling and attacks against the distinguished Dr. David Ray Griffin not only violates forum rules, it is also bad etiquette.

No.


I hereby call for the moderator to ban all those who made ad hominem attacks! Get tough.

No ad hominem attacks have been made. His points are wrong, and his conclusions disgraceful.


Not only does it seem like I'm in a 3rd grade playground, I still haven't seen even one intelligent argument raised against Dr. Griffin. And even if Griffin is wrong about this topic, that means nothing. Galileo was incorrect about the comets and Newton wrong about alchemy.

Yes, they were wrong on those topics. However, the repercussions were not disgusting. Griffin's, in this case, are. Regardless, to compare Isaac Newton with David Ray Griffin is an absurdity.


You guys make a big deal that Griffin insulted a 9/11 victim, yet by doing that, you are insulting a Truth-seeker and implicitly condoning mass murder. Outrageous behavior! I call on you all to step up like a man and retract!

I want a quote to back up this claim that we condone mass murder.
Then again, you won't find one. So let's just leave it. Per contra: Making a big deal about insulting a 9/11 victim?! How shameful!


Most important of all, if Griffin is wrong, then Andrew Kornkven is right; the phone calls do not support the OCT and in fact, prove it wrong.

The burden of proof is on Griffin, bucko. And he has done so such thing.

Hence, the phone calls say the "hijackers" had guns, and the callers give different seat numbers for the "hijackers". That means the "hijackers" were NOT Arabs.
The calls also prove there were fewer "hijackers" on the planes than the official story tells. If you assert, for example, that there were 5 Arab "hijackers" on FL11 or 4 Arab "hijackers" on FL93, you are nothing more than a stone cold racist, and a religious bigot to boot!

Now, now. Let's leave the slander out.

[CHF]

This is the most disgusting thread I've ever seen at the JREF forums, and the incessant name-calling and attacks against the distinguished Dr. David Ray Griffin not only violates forum rules, it is also bad etiquette.

:dl::dl::dl:

[Galileo]

No.



No ad hominem attacks have been made. His points are wrong, and his conclusions disgraceful.



Yes, they were wrong on those topics. However, the repercussions were not disgusting. Griffen's, in this case, are. Regardless, to compare Isaac Newton with David Ray Griffin is an absurdity.



I want a quote to back up this claim that we condone mass murder.
Then again, you won't find one. So let's just leave it. Per contra: Making a big deal about insulting a 9/11 victim?! How shameful!



The burden of proof is on Griffin, bucko. And he has done so such thing.



Now, now. Let's leave the slander out.

* Anyone who attacks Dr. Griffin is condoning mass murder. Dr. Griffin is trying to bring the facts that prove an axis of evil (Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld) were behind the 9/11 attacks. If you attack Dr. Griffin, then that is equivalent to saying you want mass murderers to go free.

* Both Isaac Newton and Dr. David Ray Griffin have uncovered new truths about the universe, Newton in the physical realm, and Griffin in the political realm.

In one sense you are correct, the comparison is absurd; Dr. Griffin has never advocated alchemy.

* The burdon of proof is on you to prove the phone calls are real, bucko.

[twinstead]

* The burdon of proof is on you to prove the phone calls are real, bucko.

The phone calls were received. The family members talked to their loved ones. The family members seem satisfied that they actually DID talk to their loved ones. This is OUR proof.

You think those calls were faked? You think a 'voice morph' can fool a mother into thinking she's talking to her own son? Prove it.

Your shifting of the burden of proof doesn't change the facts.

[dudalb]

* Anyone who attacks Dr. Griffin is condoning mass murder. Dr. Griffin is trying to bring the facts that prove an axis of evil (Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld) were behind the 9/11 attacks. If you attack Dr. Griffin, then that is equivalent to saying you want mass murderers to go free.

* Both Isaac Newton and Dr. David Ray Griffin have uncovered new truths about the universe, Newton in the physical realm, and Griffin in the political realm.

In one sense you are correct, the comparison is absurd; Dr. Griffin has never advocated alchemy.

* The burdon of proof is on you to prove the phone calls are real, bucko.

:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:covereyes:covereyes:covereyes:

You have just tied with Max Photon in the Loon department.

[Slayhamlet]

* Anyone who attacks Dr. Griffin is condoning mass murder. Dr. Griffin is trying to bring the facts that prove an axis of evil (Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld) were behind the 9/11 attacks. If you attack Dr. Griffin, then that is equivalent to saying you want mass murderers to go free.

* Both Isaac Newton and Dr. David Ray Griffin have uncovered new truths about the universe, Newton in the physical realm, and Griffin in the political realm.

In one sense you are correct, the comparison is absurd; Dr. Griffin has never advocated alchemy.

* The burdon of proof is on you to prove the phone calls are real, bucko.

Why haven't you tried to convince the family members of the victims who made those calls that the they were faked? Why has no one in the "truth" movement done this, for that matter? Instead you just impotently post tantrums on a skeptics forum where everyone can see through your weak arguments.

Wait, let me guess: the family members are in on it too.

[Redtail]

* Anyone who attacks Dr. Griffin is condoning mass murder. Dr. Griffin is trying to bring the facts that prove an axis of evil (Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld) were behind the 9/11 attacks. If you attack Dr. Griffin, then that is equivalent to saying you want mass murderers to go free.

Dr Griffin is failing to bring any facts. That's the problem see?

* Both Isaac Newton and Dr. David Ray Griffin have uncovered new truths about the universe, Newton in the physical realm, and Griffin in the political realm.
Really? What truths has Griffin uncovered?

In one sense you are correct, the comparison is absurd; Dr. Griffin has never advocated alchemy.

Yeah he just advocates that the US government was behind 9/11 without any fact to back it up.

* The burdon of proof is on you to prove the phone calls are real, bucko.

The family members believe that the calls were real. What's your proof again?

[Galileo]

The phone calls were received. The family members talked to their loved ones. The family members seem satisfied that they actually DID talk to their loved ones. This is OUR proof.

You think those calls were faked? You think a 'voice morph' can fool a mother into thinking she's talking to her own son? Prove it.

Your shifting of the burden of proof doesn't change the facts.

I don't think the calls were faked, and never said such a thing. Please get your facts straight. In this forum, we discuss facts.

You are shifting the burden of proof, but that does not change the facts.

[Redtail]

I don't think the calls were faked, and never said such a thing. Please get your facts straight. In this forum, we discuss facts.

You are shifting the burden of proof, but that does not change the facts.

So you believe that the calls have to be proven real but you don't think they were faked. Wow.

[Galileo]

Dr Griffin is failing to bring any facts. That's the problem see?


Really? What truths has Griffin uncovered?



Yeah he just advocates that the US government was behind 9/11 without any fact to back it up.



The family members believe that the calls were real. What's your proof again?

You don't seem to get it, do you Red Tail?

The phone calls are real and they don't support your stupid theory about Arabs taking over a plane with boxcutters so quickly the pilots can't even issue a distress signal.

The passengers, in their calls, said the hijackers had GUNS. That is how they took over the plane, they shot the pilots.

The passengers didn't say the hijackers were Arabs. Only a racist would assume they were. Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney gave the seat numbers of the hijackers, and they were seat numbers of white people for the most part.

The passengers also gave us the number of hijackers. But racist people, in their desire to label all Arabs as murderers, have changed the number of hijackers because they can't fathom the idea that innocent Arab passengers were also murdered on 9/11.

[Galileo]

So you believe that the calls have to be proven real but you don't think they were faked. Wow.

So you disbelieve that the calls don't have to be proven false, but you think they weren't faked.

Wow.

[Arus808]

You don't seem to get it, do you Red Tail?

The phone calls are real and they don't support your stupid theory about Arabs taking over a plane with boxcutters so quickly the pilots can't even issue a distress signal.

what? did you bother to read some of the transcripts from the phone calls?


The passengers, in their calls, said the hijackers had GUNS. That is how they took over the plane, they shot the pilots.


false. this proves you never read all the calls transcripts.
How wrong can you be in such a short post?


The passengers didn't say the hijackers were Arabs. Only a racist would assume they were.

Holy damn. When someone his hijacking a plane, their race is not something i would care about. So what if they didn't specifically state they were "ARABS"? were the passengers AT THAT time, worried about getting the race of their killers right?

Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney gave the seat numbers of the hijackers, and they were seat numbers of white people for the most part.

Oh and the couldn't be wrong? in a chaotic event happening where passengers were suddenly thrown into a terrorist situation, do you honlestly think that both would get the seats correct? or that the passengers themselves wouldn't MOVE to empty seats?

Damn, on empty planes like those on 9/11/2001, people MOVE from their assigned seat if there ARE OTHER empty seats. I do that QUITE often on flights that I take, where the a WHOLE row could be empty. I choose to move to that row, so that I can lay across it!

Or if they are apart of a party and are seperated, wouldn't it be nice to move to sit next to the ones you know?

The passengers also gave us the number of hijackers. But racist people, in their desire to label all Arabs as murderers, have changed the number of hijackers because they can't fathom the idea that innocent Arab passengers were also murdered on 9/11.


Holy damn, you're interjectcing racism where NONE existed. THEY WERE arabs, or did you MISS the part where the FBI identified them and gave out their nationalities?

[AMTMAN]

* Anyone who attacks Dr. Griffin is condoning mass murder. Dr. Griffin is trying to bring the facts that prove an axis of evil (Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld) were behind the 9/11 attacks. If you attack Dr. Griffin, then that is equivalent to saying you want mass murderers to go free.

* Both Isaac Newton and Dr. David Ray Griffin have uncovered new truths about the universe, Newton in the physical realm, and Griffin in the political realm.

In one sense you are correct, the comparison is absurd; Dr. Griffin has never advocated alchemy.

* The burdon of proof is on you to prove the phone calls are real, bucko.

Your logic escapes me. Are you telling us that Mr. Griffin is incapable of making mistakes? Or more importantly telling lie after lie.

[Redtail]

So you disbelieve that the calls don't have to be proven false, but you think they weren't faked.

Wow.

:dl:


No, I think they weren't faked because the family members agree that those calls were made by their loved ones.

[Galileo]

Holy damn, you're interjectcing racism where NONE existed. THEY WERE arabs, or did you MISS the part where the FBI identified them and gave out their nationalities?

Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney identified the hijackers. They were on the plane, not the FBI.

Your zeal to label the hijackers as Arabs, only reinforces my knowledge that you are a racist.

Racism has no place in this forum.

[Redtail]

You don't seem to get it, do you Red Tail?

The phone calls are real and they don't support your stupid theory about Arabs taking over a plane with boxcutters so quickly the pilots can't even issue a distress signal.

Yes it takes at least 3-4 minutes to slash a seated man's throat.

The passengers, in their calls, said the hijackers had GUNS. That is how they took over the plane, they shot the pilots.


Who said the pilots were shot?

The passengers didn't say the hijackers were Arabs. Only a racist would assume they were. Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney gave the seat numbers of the hijackers, and they were seat numbers of white people for the most part.

Except for the martyr videos. Yeah.

The passengers also gave us the number of hijackers. But racist people, in their desire to label all Arabs as murderers, have changed the number of hijackers because they can't fathom the idea that innocent Arab passengers were also murdered on 9/11.

The number of all of the hijackers or the number they could see?

[Firestone]

The story that Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney gave seat numbers of the hijackers not corresponding to the Al Qaeda members is based on one uncorroborated report of the Boston Globe.

Actually, the full transcript of their phone calls shows that they did give the correct seat numbers.

Details in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2369639&postcount=17).

[Slayhamlet]

Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney identified the hijackers. They were on the plane, not the FBI.

Your zeal to label the hijackers as Arabs, only reinforces my knowledge that you are a racist.

Nope. The nationalities of every single hijacker were identified. It so happens that those nationalities are all of Arab extraction. They also all spoke Arabic. This is verifiable.

Racism has no place in this forum.

Nor do stupid adolescents who have pretend lives. Grow up.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Most important of all, if Griffin is wrong, then Andrew Kornkven is right; the phone calls do not support the OCT and in fact, prove it wrong.



Uhh, no... that's a fallacy of false dilemma.

Stupid A: "The sky is red!"
Stupid B: "No, the sky is yellow!"

Pointing out that Stupid B is wrong does not prove Stupid A correct. Think, please.

[Arus808]

Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney identified the hijackers. They were on the plane, not the FBI.

omg. you sure do not know what you are talking about


Your zeal to label the hijackers as Arabs, only reinforces my knowledge that you are a racist.


Reported. Im tired of you labeling everyone as racists, when I am going by what the FBI released - of whom THEY identified as being ARABS and muslim extremists.

Now, you take back your accusation that Im a racist. Im far from it. Born of mixed nationalities (14 to be exact), IM The LAST freaking person on this planet to be considered a racist (and one of them is a middle eastern nationality).

Racism has no place in this forum.

Funny. you throw that accusation around, but it seems that you dont really understand what it means. Calling me a racist is like calling the Pope an atheist.

[Hyperviolet]

* Anyone who attacks Dr. Griffin is condoning mass murder. Dr. Griffin is trying to bring the facts that prove an axis of evil (Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld) were behind the 9/11 attacks. If you attack Dr. Griffin, then that is equivalent to saying you want mass murderers to go free.

* Both Isaac Newton and Dr. David Ray Griffin have uncovered new truths about the universe, Newton in the physical realm, and Griffin in the political realm.

In one sense you are correct, the comparison is absurd; Dr. Griffin has never advocated alchemy.

* The burdon of proof is on you to prove the phone calls are real, bucko.

Oh. My.

[jhunter1163]

I call on you all to step up like a man and retract!

Some of us aren't men.


Most important of all, if Griffin is wrong, then Andrew Kornkven is right; the phone calls do not support the OCT and in fact, prove it wrong.
Hence, the phone calls say the "hijackers" had guns, and the callers give different seat numbers for the "hijackers". That means the "hijackers" were NOT Arabs.


"Non sequitur" doesn't do this statement justice. We need something way bigger.

[Darat]

Had to remove quite a few posts to AAH, please address the arguments and claims not your opinion of each other.

[Galileo]

FYI

Just got an email from one of my fans:

"Just read your initial post-- and it kicks ass!"

[HyJinX]

Bye-Bye

[Oxigen]

What a utter piece of scum.

Two vowels!! Sorry this really grated on me. And I do know how you JREFFERS love to correct spelling.

[BenBurch]

Two vowels!! Sorry this really grated on me. And I do know how you JREFFERS love to correct spelling.

I usually prescribe pink Bismuth for loose vowels.

[Oxigen]

I usually prescribe pink Bismuth for loose vowels.
:)
Hope it works!

[DGM]

Is Galileo arguing that the calls are real and defending DRG? Did I miss something?

[Galileo]

Is Galileo arguing that the calls are real and defending DRG? Did I miss something?

Galileo is arguing that the calls are real, and defending DRG from unethical personal attacks.

Every squirrel finds a nut.

[Arus808]

Galileo is arguing that the calls are real, and defending DRG from unethical personal attacks.

please point out where we are "unethicallY" attacking him
He writes a book of lies; we are calling him unethical for publishing a book of lies, after being told that his claims are faulty and even provided the testimony of the CREATOR of the technology he claims to have been used on 9/11/2001, saying that the tech doesn't do what DRG claims it does.

that in essence means ,that DRG is a liar; a money grubbing kook who spreads lies and makes money off of his lies.

[CptColumbo]

BTW he did not win the Nobel Peace Prize this year. It went to Al Gore.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

. . . the incessant name-calling and attacks against the distinguished Dr. David Ray Griffin not only violates forum rules, . . .
No, they aren't; unless he is a registered member here.

I hereby call for the moderator to ban all those who made ad hominem attacks! Get tough.
Call him stupid because of his ideas is not an ad hominem fallacy. If, however, someone were claiming his ideas were wrong because he was an idiot then they would be committing an ad hominem fallacy.

Not only does it seem like I'm in a 3rd grade playground, I still haven't seen even one intelligent argument raised against Dr. Griffin.
Then you haven't read any threads beyond this one.

And even if Griffin is wrong about this topic, that means nothing.
Well, yes, it does.

Galileo was incorrect about the comets and Newton wrong about alchemy.
Red herring noted.

You guys make a big deal that Griffin insulted a 9/11 victim, yet by doing that, you are insulting a Truth-seeker and implicitly condoning mass murder.
No, we condemn mass murder. DRG and other "Truth-seekers" are the terrorist apologists and are, as a result, the ones condoning mass murder.

. . .Most important of all, if Griffin is wrong, then Andrew Kornkven is right; the phone calls do not support the OCT and in fact, prove it wrong.
False choice fallacy.

Hence, the phone calls say the "hijackers" had guns, and the callers give different seat numbers for the "hijackers". That means the "hijackers" were NOT Arabs.
Patently false.

The calls also prove there were fewer "hijackers" on the planes than the official story tells. If you assert, for example, that there were 5 Arab "hijackers" on FL11 or 4 Arab "hijackers" on FL93, you are nothing more than a stone cold racist, and a religious bigot to boot!
No, I believe that would be people like DRG who make statements about "Arabs in caves" that are the ones being racist.

[ktesibios]

The story that Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney gave seat numbers of the hijackers not corresponding to the Al Qaeda members is based on one uncorroborated report of the Boston Globe.

Actually, the full transcript of their phone calls shows that they did give the correct seat numbers.

Details in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2369639&postcount=17).

They also show that no mention was made of guns or shooting, except possibly by one of the reservations people asking Betty Ong for clarification (one transcript I found (http://www.mishalov.com/wtc_flight-11-transcript.html) has Nydia Gonzalez asking "Can you describe the person that you said someone is shot in business?" while another (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/9/11_Passenger_phone_calls) renders this as "Can you describe the person that you said...someone is what in business class?"; it's not hard to see how one transcriber might hear "shot" and another hear "what", given the fidelity of most phone calls).

Also that many references to people being stabbed were made and that Sweeney described the hijackers as "Middle Eastern" and said that one spoke good English and another broken English.

The phone calls from UA175 (http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=United_Airlines_Flight_175_-_Phone_calls) also described passengers and crew being stabbed and the hijackers having knives and Mace.

No mention of guns; passengers on UA93 described the hijackers as having knives and claiming to have a bomb. Phone calls from AA77 described the hijcakers as armed with box cutters, with no reports of stabbings or the use or threat of Mace or a bomb.

Anyone know where Galileo's claim that the hijackers had guns originates? There doesn't seem to be anything in the passenger and flight attendant phone calls to account for it.

[CptColumbo]

No, I believe that would be people like DRG who make statements about "Arabs in caves" that are the ones being racist.
It's not just that they call them "Arabs in caves," they also imply that Arabs are incapable of planning and executing the plot without the help of western whites.

[Galileo]

They also show that no mention was made of guns or shooting, except possibly by one of the reservations people asking Betty Ong for clarification (one transcript I found (http://www.mishalov.com/wtc_flight-11-transcript.html) has Nydia Gonzalez asking "Can you describe the person that you said someone is shot in business?" while another (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/9/11_Passenger_phone_calls) renders this as "Can you describe the person that you said...someone is what in business class?"; it's not hard to see how one transcriber might hear "shot" and another hear "what", given the fidelity of most phone calls).

Also that many references to people being stabbed were made and that Sweeney described the hijackers as "Middle Eastern" and said that one spoke good English and another broken English.

The phone calls from UA175 (http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=United_Airlines_Flight_175_-_Phone_calls) also described passengers and crew being stabbed and the hijackers having knives and Mace.

No mention of guns; passengers on UA93 described the hijackers as having knives and claiming to have a bomb. Phone calls from AA77 described the hijcakers as armed with box cutters, with no reports of stabbings or the use or threat of Mace or a bomb.

Anyone know where Galileo's claim that the hijackers had guns originates? There doesn't seem to be anything in the passenger and flight attendant phone calls to account for it.

There you go, insulting the victims of 9/11 and calling the phone calls mentioning guns as fake.

The hijackers had guns. This is why the lawsuit for security breeches against American Airlines has been sealed and delayed for 8 years.

People want to know how guns got onboard.

PS - FL77 had guns. Secureacom was in charge of security at Dulles airport, and also at WTC 7 where someone turned off the fire alarm at 6:47 AM on 9/11.

Hmmm??

[gumboot]

This is the most disgusting thread I've ever seen at the JREF forums, and the incessant name-calling and attacks against the distinguished Dr. David Ray Griffin not only violates forum rules, it is also bad etiquette.


If you think this is the most disgusting thread you have seen, you obviously don't read many threads. If you think Dr Griffin is distinguished you have some issues with reality. If you think it breaches forum rules you'll need to identify the JREF member that is Dr Griffin.





I hereby call for the moderator to ban all those who made ad hominem attacks! Get tough.


You'll need to bring that up in the Forum Management thread. Moderators don't just trawl threads looking for people's suggestions on how to improve the forums.



I still haven't seen even one intelligent argument raised against Dr. Griffin.

Ask and you shall receive (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83058). An entire thread dedicated to demonstrating that Dr Griffin is an absolute liar.




And even if Griffin is wrong about this topic, that means nothing. Galileo was incorrect about the comets and Newton wrong about alchemy.

The problem is Dr Griffin is wrong about everything, as my thread demonstrates.




You guys make a big deal that Griffin insulted a 9/11 victim, yet by doing that, you are insulting a Truth-seeker and implicitly condoning mass murder.


I think you've got it all backwards. Dr Griffin, with is blatant charlatan dishonesty, is disrespecting the memory of 3,000 dead by denying the responsibility of their killers. We are protecting their memory by ensuring the bottow-dwellers who feed off the grief of 9/11 are not left unchallenged.



Most important of all, if Griffin is wrong, then Andrew Kornkven is right; the phone calls do not support the OCT and in fact, prove it wrong.

Hence, the phone calls say the "hijackers" had guns, and the callers give different seat numbers for the "hijackers". That means the "hijackers" were NOT Arabs.

The calls also prove there were fewer "hijackers" on the planes than the official story tells. If you assert, for example, that there were 5 Arab "hijackers" on FL11 or 4 Arab "hijackers" on FL93, you are nothing more than a stone cold racist, and a religious bigot to boot!


Good lord, you are ignorant of 9/11 aren't you?

The Gun
A notation to an executive summary supplied by American Airlines to the FAA reported that an AA employee had been told by a passenger on AA11 that another passenger - in seat 9B (Daniel Lewin) had been shot by the hijackers.

Both Madeline Sweeny and Betty Ong reported that the passenger in 9B (who was sitting behind two of the hijackers and in front of another) had been stabbed. Neither reported a gun.

The note in the executive summary did not mention a stabbing. When the AA Employee who took the call was interviewed, they denied ever having been told about, or mentioning, use of a firearm.

Hijacker Seating
On Flight 11, both Sweeny and Ong correctly cited the seat numbers for the hijackers.

The seat numbers of the hijackers were not cited on the other three flights.

Number of Hijackers
The varying reports of the number of hijackers is of no surprise. There is no reason to assume all of the hijackers acted at once, and given the hijackers methods of forcing all of the passengers to the back of the aircraft, the opportunity to identify the number of hijackers would be slight.

In addition, given the vitally important role the trained pilot in each team held, it is likely that they remained seated until after the passengers were driven back and cockpit was seized. Thus the passengers would not have identified them.

-Gumboot

[T.A.M.]

Yes Galileo, welcome to ignore.

Hello Oxigen...

TAM:)

[Redtail]

There you go, insulting the victims of 9/11 and calling the phone calls mentioning guns as fake.

Wrong, at most ktesibios is suggesting something may have been misunderstood during the phone call.

The hijackers had guns. This is why the lawsuit for security breeches against American Airlines has been sealed and delayed for 8 years.

Proof the Hijackers had guns?

People want to know how guns got onboard.

I'd like to know that too, well if there was any proof guns were on board that is.

PS - FL77 had guns. Secureacom was in charge of security at Dulles airport, and also at WTC 7 where someone turned off the fire alarm at 6:47 AM on 9/11.

Hmmm??

So?

[ktesibios]

There you go, insulting the victims of 9/11 and calling the phone calls mentioning guns as fake.

The hijackers had guns. This is why the lawsuit for security breeches against American Airlines has been sealed and delayed for 8 years.

People want to know how guns got onboard.

PS - FL77 had guns. Secureacom was in charge of security at Dulles airport, and also at WTC 7 where someone turned off the fire alarm at 6:47 AM on 9/11.

Hmmm??

No, I'm not calling the "phone calls mentioning guns" fake. I'm stating that I can find no mention of guns in any of the publically available information about the phone calls- save one point at which Nydia Gonzalez, who was on the ground talking to Betty Ong, may have asked if the injured passenger had been shot. If you read the transcript of Ong's call, she specifically says that the passenger was stabbed, as were several of the flight attendants.

There is a rather obvious difference between not finding something (because it may not in fact exist) and claiming that it exists and is fake.

What I am now calling fake is Galileo's belief that the hijackers had guns, since he persists in making this claim without presenting anything besides his own assertion as evidence. I'm also inclined to believe that any claim that Galileo is capable of reading something and understanding what it says, as opposed to what he wants it to say, is totally fake.

My thanks to Gumboot for answering my question about the origin of the "guns" claim, and as for Galileo...

<plonk>

[Disbelief]

Galileo is arguing that the calls are real, and defending DRG from unethical personal attacks.

Every squirrel finds a nut.

So, if you think the calls are real and we think the calls are real, but DRG says that they are fake, would you not agree that he is lying? I say lying, because he has been made fully aware of there authenticity, yet he maintains they are fake.

[Galileo]

No, I'm not calling the "phone calls mentioning guns" fake. I'm stating that I can find no mention of guns in any of the publically available information about the phone calls- save one point at which Nydia Gonzalez, who was on the ground talking to Betty Ong, may have asked if the injured passenger had been shot. If you read the transcript of Ong's call, she specifically says that the passenger was stabbed, as were several of the flight attendants.

There is a rather obvious difference between not finding something (because it may not in fact exist) and claiming that it exists and is fake.

What I am now calling fake is Galileo's belief that the hijackers had guns, since he persists in making this claim without presenting anything besides his own assertion as evidence. I'm also inclined to believe that any claim that Galileo is capable of reading something and understanding what it says, as opposed to what he wants it to say, is totally fake.

My thanks to Gumboot for answering my question about the origin of the "guns" claim, and as for Galileo...

<plonk>

Tom Burnett said their were guns. Guns were also mentioned in an FAA report.

[Galileo]

So, if you think the calls are real and we think the calls are real, but DRG says that they are fake, would you not agree that he is lying? I say lying, because he has been made fully aware of there authenticity, yet he maintains they are fake.

I would say he made a single mistake. Nobody is perfect outside of the JREF forum and the Garden of Eden.

[DGM]

Tom Burnett said their were guns. Guns were also mentioned in an FAA report.
Could you link that please?

[Redtail]

I would say he made a single mistake. Nobody is perfect outside of the JREF forum and the Garden of Eden.

Or he's a liar.

[Disbelief]

I would say he made a single mistake. Nobody is perfect outside of the JREF forum and the Garden of Eden.

It is not a mistake when he has been repeatedly told about it yet he continues to push his agenda. It is a disgusting lie. Why don't you email him and tell him he is wrong?

[gumboot]

Tom Burnett said their were guns. Guns were also mentioned in an FAA report.


Tom Burnett said he thought one of the hijackers might have a gun. No other passengers on 9/11 mentioned a gun, despite numerous phone calls and collaboration on many other details. Five of the six non-hijacker passengers in first class on UA93 made phone calls. These people were in the best position to witness what happened. Burnett reported the possibility of a firearm. All four of the other passengers reported only knives, mace, and a bomb.

The only other mention relating to guns was the notation about a shooting on AA11 in an American Airlines report to the FAA (not an FAA report) which I have already covered. Ong quite clearly said a passenger was stabbed, not shot. Why someone changed it to "shot" in the executive report, I don't know.

-Gumboot

[Galileo]

It is not a mistake when he has been repeatedly told about it yet he continues to push his agenda. It is a disgusting lie. Why don't you email him and tell him he is wrong?

I already emailed him at let him know I didn't agree on that one point, but I still hold out the possibility that he may be right, since he has been annointed by popular acclaim to be the worlds foremost expert on 9/11.

He is not a liar. A poster on this forum says the first call from Deena Burnett came when the plane was at 30,000 on a cell phone.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/11930

[beachnut]

Tom Burnett said he thought one of the hijackers might have a gun. No other passengers on 9/11 mentioned a gun, despite numerous phone calls and collaboration on many other details. Five of the six non-hijacker passengers in first class on UA93 made phone calls. These people were in the best position to witness what happened. Burnett reported the possibility of a firearm. All four of the other passengers reported only knives, mace, and a bomb.

The only other mention relating to guns was the notation about a shooting on AA11 in an American Airlines report to the FAA (not an FAA report) which I have already covered. Ong quite clearly said a passenger was stabbed, not shot. Why someone changed it to "shot" in the executive report, I don't know.

-GumbootYou are demonstrating excellent reading comprehension, rational thinking and logical conclusions. Galileo posts lack these qualities, as does the entire 9/11 truth movement. Sad they can not learn by demonstration.

[gumboot]

I already emailed him at let him know I didn't agree on that one point, but I still hold out the possibility that he may be right, since he has been annointed by popular acclaim to be the worlds foremost expert on 9/11.

He is not a liar. A poster on this forum says the first call from Deena Burnett came when the plane was at 30,000 on a cell phone.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/11930


So far I have covered fifteen accusations from Dr Griffin of lying by distortion or omission in the 9/11 Commission Report. So far Dr Griffin has been proven a liar on all fifteen counts.

I'm part way through claim sixteen, and it doesn't look good for Dr Griffin so far.

-Gumboot

[Disbelief]

I already emailed him at let him know I didn't agree on that one point, but I still hold out the possibility that he may be right, since he has been annointed by popular acclaim to be the worlds foremost expert on 9/11.

He is not a liar. A poster on this forum says the first call from Deena Burnett came when the plane was at 30,000 on a cell phone.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/11930

Now I know you are pulling our legs. Did you look over R. Mackey's beatdown of DRG?

[DGM]

I already emailed him at let him know I didn't agree on that one point, but I still hold out the possibility that he may be right, since he has been annointed by popular acclaim to be the worlds foremost expert on 9/11.

He is not a liar. A poster on this forum says the first call from Deena Burnett came when the plane was at 30,000 on a cell phone.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/11930
Have you read his 9/11 commission section? You can add a couple of "boo-boo's" there too.

[Galileo]

Tom Burnett said he thought one of the hijackers might have a gun. No other passengers on 9/11 mentioned a gun, despite numerous phone calls and collaboration on many other details. Five of the six non-hijacker passengers in first class on UA93 made phone calls. These people were in the best position to witness what happened. Burnett reported the possibility of a firearm. All four of the other passengers reported only knives, mace, and a bomb.

The only other mention relating to guns was the notation about a shooting on AA11 in an American Airlines report to the FAA (not an FAA report) which I have already covered. Ong quite clearly said a passenger was stabbed, not shot. Why someone changed it to "shot" in the executive report, I don't know.

-Gumboot

Sorry, Tom Burnett said he saw the gun. Next.

[DGM]

Sorry, Tom Burnett said he saw the gun. Next.
Link please

[Galileo]

Have you read his NIST section? You can add a couple of "boo-boo's there too.

I read the NIST section. It is an excellent piece of scholarship.

Hey, smarty pants, since the WTC was designed to withstand a plane impact, but didn't, what engineering errors were discovered to:

a) check other steel framed sky-risers to make sure they do not have similar errors in design.

b) hold the people who did the faulty engineering accountable.

Debunkers never face the tough questions, but rather, hide behind their mousepads.

[gumboot]

Sorry, Tom Burnett said he saw the gun. Next.


No he didn't.

06.27 Pacific Time

Deena: Hello
Tom: Deena
Deena: Tom, are you O.K.?
Tom: No, I’m not. I’m on an airplane that has been hijacked.
Deena: hijacked?
Tom: Yes, They just knifed a guy.
Deena: A passenger?
Tom: Yes.
Deena: Where are you? Are you in the air?
Tom: Yes, yes, just listen. Our airplane has been hijacked. It’s United Flight 93 from Newark to San Francisco. We are in the air. The hijackers have already knifed a guy, one of them has a gun, they are telling us there is a bomb on board, please call the authorities.

It's worth noting that Deena Burnett's estimation of the time of the phone calls is wrong - 0927EDT is about when the hijacking occurred. The 9/11 Commission places this first phonecall at 0937EDT.

-Gumboot

[Disbelief]

I read the NIST section. It is an excellent piece of scholarship.

Hey, smarty pants, since the WTC was designed to withstand a plane impact, but didn't, what engineering errors were discovered to:

a) check other steel framed sky-risers to make sure they do not have similar errors in design.

b) hold the people who did the faulty engineering accountable.

Debunkers never face the tough questions, but rather, hide behind their mousepads.

Last I saw, the towers did withstand the plane impacts. Did you miss the part where one stood for 56 minutes and the other for 102 minutes?

[A-Train]

The Gun
A notation to an executive summary supplied by American Airlines to the FAA reported that an AA employee had been told by a passenger on AA11 that another passenger - in seat 9B (Daniel Lewin) had been shot by the hijackers.

Both Madeline Sweeny and Betty Ong reported that the passenger in 9B (who was sitting behind two of the hijackers and in front of another) had been stabbed. Neither reported a gun.

The note in the executive summary did not mention a stabbing. When the AA Employee who took the call was interviewed, they denied ever having been told about, or mentioning, use of a firearm.

You have absolutely no right to say whether either of these two callers did or did not mention a gun. You do not know what Betty Ong reported, because the evidence of most of her recorded call has been suppressed and withheld from us. (That fact should alarm all those genuinely interested in the truth.) It is very possible that Betty Ong did indeed report a shooting. If she did, you would not know; you therefore have no right to categorically state that she did not mention a gun or a shooting.

Here is the executive summary that was prepared on the day of 9/11:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/faa911memoside.jpg

The summary states that it is based on a phone call from the plane from a flight attendant, presumably Ong. It specifically refers to a shooting, using the word shot twice as well as the word bullet.

To believe that Ong did not mention a gun or a shooting, you have to believe that the AAL airline employee who spoke to the FAA, or the FAA employee who prepared the document, completely hallucinated the idea of a shooting out thin air.

Far more likely is that Ong did indeed report a shooting, but those who prepared the report were pressured into changing their story to fit the official story after the fact. And that they further assumed that she must have been mistaken about the shooter, who they assumed must have been an Arab (Suqami).


Hijacker Seating
On Flight 11, both Sweeny and Ong correctly cited the seat numbers for the hijackers.

The seat numbers of the hijackers were not cited on the other three flights.

Well, you are correct; but not in the sense I think you meant. According to a Boston Globe report, she reported these seats:

Ong said the four hijackers had come from first-class seats: 2A, 2B, 9A, and 9B. She said the wounded passenger was in seat 10B.
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/news/planes_reconstruction.htmThis clearly contradicts what appeared in the executive summary. Why would the "wounded passenger" be sitting in the seat of the alleged shooter, Suqami? I'll take Ong's word over what appeared in a government document.

So Gumboot, if you are going to say Ong cited the correct seat numbers of the hijackers, I'll put you down as implicating Daniel Lewin, Edmund Glaser and whoever the imposters were sitting in the seats of the al-Shehhri brothers.

http://www.1918redsox.com/aa11.htm

[Galileo]

Last I saw, the towers did withstand the plane impacts. Did you miss the part where one stood for 56 minutes and the other for 102 minutes?

so if another skyscraper falls down after a plane impact and fire, that's no big deal, if it stays up 56 minutes? Are you daft? That's not a design flaw, that it can't withstand a short duration fire?

[DGM]

I read the NIST section. It is an excellent piece of scholarship.

Hey, smarty pants, since the WTC was designed to withstand a plane impact, but didn't, what engineering errors were discovered to:

They fell from the impacts alone? You need to show me that one.

a) check other steel framed sky-risers to make sure they do not have similar errors in design.

What errors would those be.

b) hold the people who did the faulty engineering accountable.

Faulty engineering? Show us that while your at it. And who should be held accountable?

Debunkers never face the tough questions, but rather, hide behind their mousepads.

Face the tough questions? Like what, should our next "smoking gun" be on DVD or internet stream? How much to charge for the next book?

Sunshine; Show me one thing the "truth" movement has accomplished?

[Disbelief]

so if another skyscraper falls down after a plane impact and fire, that's no big deal, if it stays up 56 minutes? Are you daft? That's not a design flaw, that it can't withstand a short duration fire?

It's no big deal if they take the proper measures to ensure occupants can get to safety. Since you are so well versed in building codes, why don't you explain to me what changes have been made to the codes post-9/11.

[technoextreme]

so if another skyscraper falls down after a plane impact and fire, that's no big deal, if it stays up 56 minutes? Are you daft? That's not a design flaw, that it can't withstand a short duration fire?
Depending on how much material there is and with sufficient ventilation (Not really a problem in the WTC's case) a fire can reach temperatures capable of weakening the steal and burn for 76.7 minutes.

[Bell]

so if another skyscraper falls down after a plane impact and fire, that's no big deal, if it stays up 56 minutes? Are you daft? That's not a design flaw, that it can't withstand a short duration fire?

The towers did what they where designed to, and much more. They didn't collapse when the airplanes crashed into them.

The fire resulting from the burning jetfuel though, was NOT concidered in the design (alas).

And also, how is 56 and 102 minutes a short duration of fire?

[beachnut]

so if another skyscraper falls down after a plane impact and fire, that's no big deal, if it stays up 56 minutes? Are you daft? That's not a design flaw, that it can't withstand a short duration fire?
It would be interesting to see how long you would withstand a short duration fire of 56 or 102 minutes.

OMG< you forgot the fireproofing was only rated for short duration fires. Do you even understand fire/building codes and real life?

I can answer that for you; NO, just say no.

G man, your post is a stundie at the intellectual level.

[Galileo]

They fell from the impacts alone? You need to show me that one.



What errors would those be.



Faulty engineering? Show us that while your at it. And who should be held accountable?



Face the tough questions? Like what, should our next "smoking gun" be on DVD or internet stream? How much to charge for the next book?

Sunshine; Show me one thing the "truth" movement has accomplished?

If you are not aware, the WTC was designed to withstand a plane impact and ensuing fire. That is why all the fireman, policeman, and engineers rushed into the building, because they knew it would not fall from structural damage or fire.

So if it wasn't a design flaw, then it was controlled demolition.

[DGM]

If you are not aware, the WTC was designed to withstand a plane impact and ensuing fire. That is why all the fireman, policeman, and engineers rushed into the building, because they knew it would not fall from structural damage or fire.

So if it wasn't a design flaw, then it was controlled demolition.
Good night now. Pleasant dreams.

[Galileo]

The towers did what they where designed to, and much more.



Let me get this straight.

The WTC was designed to fall in less than 56 minutes if a plane hit it, so the engineers and Rudy Giuliani on site ordered the fireman to go into the buildings to their deaths.

[gumboot]

You have absolutely no right to say whether either of these two callers did or did not mention a gun. You do not know what Betty Ong reported, because the evidence of most of her recorded call has been suppressed and withheld from us.


Um, no it hasn't. Transcripts of her call are available, and the people that talked to her have been interviewed - repeatedly. They have even directly been asked about a gun. The people that took her call explicitly deny ever being told about a gun.



It is very possible that Betty Ong did indeed report a shooting. If she did, you would not know; you therefore have no right to categorically state that she did not mention a gun or a shooting.

I do, because the people she talked to have categorically denied it, and the transcripts of her call categorically deny it. The only people that don't deny it are delusional conspiracy theorists.



Here is the executive summary that was prepared on the day of 9/11:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/faa911memoside.jpg

The summary states that it is based on a phone call from the plane from a flight attendant, presumably Ong. It specifically refers to a shooting, using the word shot twice as well as the word bullet.

To believe that Ong did not mention a gun or a shooting, you have to believe that the AAL airline employee who spoke to the FAA, or the FAA employee who prepared the document, completely hallucinated the idea of a shooting out thin air.[/QUOTE]


Or that a form of "chinese whispers" occurred. Not uncommon. The fact is we know what Betty Ong said. She said the passenger in 9B was stabbed, not shot.




Far more likely is that Ong did indeed report a shooting, but those who prepared the report were pressured into changing their story to fit the official story after the fact. And that they further assumed that she must have been mistaken about the shooter, who they assumed must have been an Arab (Suqami).


Except the person who actually talked to her denies ever being told about a shooting. And the transcript of her phone call does not mention a shooting.




Well, you are correct; but not in the sense I think you meant. According to a Boston Globe report, she reported these seats:


And the Boston Globe, in its entire history, has never once got a single fact wrong.




This clearly contradicts what appeared in the executive summary. Why would the "wounded passenger" be sitting in the seat of the alleged shooter, Suqami? I'll take Ong's word over what appeared in a government document.

And how do we decide what is Ong's word? Do we believe a reporter, or do we believe the person who actually spoke to Ong and recorded what was said?




So Gumboot, if you are going to say Ong cited the correct seat numbers of the hijackers, I'll put you down as implicating Daniel Lewin, Edmund Glaser and whoever the imposters were sitting in the seats of the al-Shehhri brothers.

Or alternatively you could put it down to a reporter getting their facts wrong (gasp!).

-Gumboot

[technoextreme]

So if it wasn't a design flaw, then it was controlled demolition.You know there is a third choice that you probably can't comprehend. The building fell down because it experienced forces that exceeded design considerations. Remember the buildings were built in the 1960's . A lot has changed in the last forty years. Design considerations change. Improvements to safety happen.

[Bell]

If you are not aware, the WTC was designed to withstand a plane impact and ensuing fire. That is why all the fireman, policeman, and engineers rushed into the building, because they knew it would not fall from structural damage or fire.

So if it wasn't a design flaw, then it was controlled demolition.

Bolding mine...

Leslie Robertson:

With the 707 however, to the best of my knowledge, the fuel load was not considered in the design,

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1858491.stm

[AZCat]

If you are not aware, the WTC was designed to withstand a plane impact and ensuing fire.

No, it wasn't.

In fact, whether it was designed for aircraft impact in the first place is (at least IMO) a valid question.

[T.A.M.]

Here are some of my thoughts on this issue...

http://911yj.blogspot.com/

Shameless plug, but heh, I am just getting back into blogging, and a guy has got to drum up some interest, if not an audience.

TAM;)

[technoextreme]

And the Boston Globe, in its entire history, has never once got a single fact wrong.
Nope. Took me five minutes to figure this out.
Made up seal hunt. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57908-2005Apr15.html)
Crap. I just realized you were sarcastic. Sorry:(.
In fact, whether it was designed for aircraft impact in the first place is (at least IMO) a valid question.
Considering the fact that there is no documentation about this fact it's kind of a moot point. As I said 40 years means your going to come to a better conclusion than what someone did before.

[Galileo]

Um, no it hasn't. Transcripts of her call are available, and the people that talked to her have been interviewed - repeatedly. They have even directly been asked about a gun. The people that took her call explicitly deny ever being told about a gun.





I do, because the people she talked to have categorically denied it, and the transcripts of her call categorically deny it. The only people that don't deny it are delusional conspiracy theorists.



Here is the executive summary that was prepared on the day of 9/11:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/faa911memoside.jpg

The summary states that it is based on a phone call from the plane from a flight attendant, presumably Ong. It specifically refers to a shooting, using the word shot twice as well as the word bullet.

To believe that Ong did not mention a gun or a shooting, you have to believe that the AAL airline employee who spoke to the FAA, or the FAA employee who prepared the document, completely hallucinated the idea of a shooting out thin air.


Or that a form of "chinese whispers" occurred. Not uncommon. The fact is we know what Betty Ong said. She said the passenger in 9B was stabbed, not shot.






Except the person who actually talked to her denies ever being told about a shooting. And the transcript of her phone call does not mention a shooting.






And the Boston Globe, in its entire history, has never once got a single fact wrong.





And how do we decide what is Ong's word? Do we believe a reporter, or do we believe the person who actually spoke to Ong and recorded what was said?





Or alternatively you could put it down to a reporter getting their facts wrong (gasp!).

-Gumboot[/QUOTE]

Hey [Edited];

* The crew and pilots of FL93 knew of the other 3 hijackings. You would need a gun to take over that cockpit.

* There are more references to guns among the phone call evidence, than evidence of red headbands.

* Paradoxically, there is more evidence of red headbands at the FL93 crash site, than there is evidence of FL93.

[Galileo]

No, it wasn't.

In fact, whether it was designed for aircraft impact in the first place is (at least IMO) a valid question.

So that's why the engineers sent fireman into the WTC, because it was designed to fall down.

Are you accusing the fire department commanders of negligent homicide?

[Galileo]

It's no big deal if they take the proper measures to ensure occupants can get to safety. Since you are so well versed in building codes, why don't you explain to me what changes have been made to the codes post-9/11.

None, because the WTC was taken down by explosives.

[Bell]

Hey Gunboat;

* The crew and pilots of FL93 knew of the other 3 hijackings. You would need a gun to take over that cockpit.

* There are more references to guns among the phone call evidence, than evidence of red headbands.

* Paradoxically, there is more evidence of red headbands at the FL93 crash site, than there is evidence of FL93.

Very very wrong:

At 9:24, Ballinger's warning to United 93 was received in the cockpit. Within two minutes, at 9:26, the pilot, Jason Dahl, responded with a note of puzzlement: "Ed, confirm latest mssg plz-Jason."

The hijackers attacked at 9:28.


One of the callers from United 93 also reported that he thought the hijackers might possess a gun. But none of the other callers reported the presence of a firearm. One recipient of a call from the aircraft recounted specifically asking her caller whether the hijackers had guns. The passenger replied that he did not see one. No evidence of firearms or of their identifiable remains was found at the aircraft's crash site, and the cockpit voice recorder gives no indication of a gun being fired or mentioned at any time. We believe that if the hijackers had possessed a gun, they would have used it in the flight's last minutes as the passengers fought back.

Source: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm


Evidence of UA93 crashing at Shankville:

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200061-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200062-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200063-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200064-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200065-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200066-1.jpg

[technoextreme]

So that's why the engineers sent fireman into the WTC, because it was designed to fall down.

Are you accusing the fire department commanders of negligent homicide?
I thought the fireman were sent into WTC to save people. Not only that but firefighters deal with this all the time. I don't get why a giant skyscraper actually makes any difference.
None, because the WTC was taken down by explosives.
That's the most idiotic argument I've ever heard. Answer me why engineers knew that a fire can reach temperatures of 1000C and last for 76.7 minutes long before 9/11.

[Hyperviolet]

So that's why the engineers sent fireman into the WTC, because it was designed to fall down.

Are you accusing the fire department commanders of negligent homicide?

The engineers sent the firemen in?

[Bell]

None, because the WTC was taken down by explosives.

And you have evidence of this? Ofcourse you do!

[Redtail]

None, because the WTC was taken down by explosives.

Even though no mic in the area picked up anything that sounded like CD charges going off when a building is demolished by explosives? Nope, sorry, you're wrong.

[gumboot]

Hey Gunboat;


It's "Gumboot".




* The crew and pilots of FL93 knew of the other 3 hijackings.


No they didn't. They received a message at 0924 (sent 0923) which said "Beware cockpit intrustion - two a/c hit World Trade Centre"

At 0926 a response was sent from UA93, asking for clarification of the message - "Ed cofirm latest mssg plz -Jason". This indicates the pilots did not understand the significance of the first message.

At 0928 the aircraft was hijacked.

Five minutes after the hijacking, a new message was sent telling pilots to secure their cockpits due to a serious security threat. Another alert was sent a full 12 minutes after the hijacking.




* There are more references to guns among the phone call evidence, than evidence of red headbands.

False. Ten passengers and crew reported that the hijackers wore red bandanas. Only one reported a gun.




* Paradoxically, there is more evidence of red headbands at the FL93 crash site, than there is evidence of FL93.

Again, false. In fact the bandana that was recovered was not at the crash site, and it is, in itself, evidence of UA93. Well over 90% of the airframe was recovered, along with human remains and personal items of most of the passengers.

-Gumboot

[Galileo]

The engineers sent the firemen in?

Fire department engineers at the scene "sent" the firemen into the building because:

a) they knew the WTC was designed to withstand a plane impact and fire.

Later, when the WTC fell, the design flaw info was transmitted around the world to other engineers, who have identified other skyscrapers that are at risk of failure should a plane hit it, or a fire break out. The design flaws were not known at the time of 9/11 by onsite engineers, but rather, were discovered after carefull study of the steel that was carefully preserved at ground zero.

b) they knew it wasn't designed to withstand a plane impact and fire, and committed negligent homicide by telling the fireman the WTC was safe.

c) they didn't know the WTC was wired with explosives.

[gumboot]

Fire department engineers at the scene "sent" the firemen into the building


They did? Evidence?




a) they knew the WTC was designed to withstand a plane impact and fire.

b) they knew it wasn't designed to withstand a plane impact and fire, and committed negligent homicide by telling the fireman the WTC was safe.

c) they didn't know the WTC was wired with explosives.


I've got a question. Why do you think the FDNY chiefs in WTC1 ordered all FDNY personnel to evacuate the building at 0932?

-Gumboot

[technoextreme]

a) they knew the WTC was designed to withstand a plane impact and fire.

Later, when the WTC fell, the design flaw info was transmitted around the world to other engineers, who have identified other skyscrapers that are at risk of failure should a plane hit it, or a fire break out. The design flaws were not known at the time of 9/11 by onsite engineers, but rather, were discovered after carefull study of the steel that was carefully preserved at ground zero.

b) they knew it wasn't designed to withstand a plane impact and fire, and committed negligent homicide by telling the fireman the WTC was safe.
What design flaw? You keep on confusing design flaw with what was standard forty years ago. Im fairly certain that engineers knew of the problems involved with fire long before 9/11. They knew that a standard office fire could in fact weaken steel. Also, I have no freaking clue where the engineers come in to send firefighters into a burning building. It's their job to go into buildings that can fall down. It's their job to risk their lives for others.

[Bell]

Fire department engineers at the scene "sent" the firemen into the building because:

a) they knew the WTC was designed to withstand a plane impact and fire.

Later, when the WTC fell, the design flaw info was transmitted around the world to other engineers, who have identified other skyscrapers that are at risk of failure should a plane hit it, or a fire break out. The design flaws were not known at the time of 9/11 by onsite engineers, but rather, were discovered after carefull study of the steel that was carefully preserved at ground zero.

b) they knew it wasn't designed to withstand a plane impact and fire, and committed negligent homicide by telling the fireman the WTC was safe.

c) they didn't know the WTC was wired with explosives.


d) Since no skyscraper was ever hit by an airplane doing over 400MPH, burned and collapsed before, the fire departement didn't know that would happen and did what they trained to do... save people.

[Galileo]

No they didn't. They received a message at 0924 (sent 0923) which said "Beware cockpit intrustion - two a/c hit World Trade Centre"



[edited];

So let me get this straight. FL11 was hijacked at 8:15 and reported by the ATC. Betty Ong reported FL11 hijacked at 8:18. Amy Sweeney reported FL11 hijacked at 8:22. FL175 was hijacked around 8:43. FL 77 was hijacked around 8:50. FL11 flew into the WTC at 8:46. And FL175 flew into the WTC at 9:03 on national TV.

But the crew of FL93 didn't know anything about this until 9:24 or 9:26. Only an idiot would believe that.

[technoextreme]

Gungboot;

Why do you keep on spelling Gumboot incorrectly? It's oddly enough in the spell check.

[Galileo]

I've got a question. Why do you think the FDNY chiefs in WTC1 ordered all FDNY personnel to evacuate the building at 0932?

-Gumboot

The people who put the explosives into WTC 1 did want any more deaths than absolutely necessary, so they got word to the FDNY to call for an evacuation.

[gumboot]

Gungboot;

So let me get this straight. FL11 was hijacked at 8:15 and reported by the ATC. Betty Ong reported FL11 hijacked at 8:18. Amy Sweeney reported FL11 hijacked at 8:22. FL175 was hijacked around 8:43. FL 77 was hijacked around 8:50. FL11 flew into the WTC at 8:46. And FL175 flew into the WTC at 9:03 on national TV.

But the crew of FL93 didn't know anything about this until 9:24 or 9:26. Only an idiot would believe that.



What you think is irrelevant. All communication with UA93 was logged and recorded. Deal.

-Gumboot

[Bell]

Gungboot;

So let me get this straight. FL11 was hijacked at 8:15 and reported by the ATC. Betty Ong reported FL11 hijacked at 8:18. Amy Sweeney reported FL11 hijacked at 8:22. FL175 was hijacked around 8:43. FL 77 was hijacked around 8:50. FL11 flew into the WTC at 8:46. And FL175 flew into the WTC at 9:03 on national TV.

But the crew of FL93 didn't know anything about this until 9:24 or 9:26. Only an idiot would believe that.


Gollyeo, what do you expect? That the crew had live access to CNN? Are you daft? Are you aware that UA had to send this message to each of their planes individualy?

[gumboot]

The people who put the explosives into WTC 1 did want any more deaths than absolutely necessary, so they got word to the FDNY to call for an evacuation.


Congratulations. That's the stupidest thing I have ever read.

-Gumboot

[twinstead]

The people who put the explosives into WTC 1 did want any more deaths than absolutely necessary, so they got word to the FDNY to call for an evacuation.

These are the same people who had just murdered almost 3000 innocent people? And you speculate that they didn't want any unnecessary deaths?

If you're going to speculate uncontrollably without any evidence at all, at least have it make sense.

[technoextreme]

The people who put the explosives into WTC 1 did want any more deaths than absolutely necessary, so they got word to the FDNY to call for an evacuation.
And this would be who??? Now mind you the people who put the explosives would have to shut up whatever firefighter they told.

[A W Smith]

Fire department engineers at the scene "sent" the firemen into the building because:

a) they knew the WTC was designed to withstand a plane impact and fire.

Later, when the WTC fell, the design flaw info was transmitted around the world to other engineers, who have identified other skyscrapers that are at risk of failure should a plane hit it, or a fire break out. The design flaws were not known at the time of 9/11 by onsite engineers, but rather, were discovered after carefull study of the steel that was carefully preserved at ground zero.

b) they knew it wasn't designed to withstand a plane impact and fire, and committed negligent homicide by telling the fireman the WTC was safe.

c) they didn't know the WTC was wired with explosives.

stick to the OP.
Linda Gronlund, called her sister, Elsa Strong.
Elsa Strong says, "She said, 'Hi, Else, this is Lin. I just wanted to tell you how much I love you.' And she said, 'Please tell Mom and Dad how much I love them.' And then she got real calm and said, 'Now my will is in my safe and my safe is in my closet. and this is the combination.' And she just told me the combination of her safe. and then she just said, 'I don't know if I'm ever going to get a chance to tell you again in person how much I love you, but I'm really going to miss you.' And she said goodbye."

[Galileo]

What you think is irrelevant. All communication with UA93 was logged and recorded. Deal.

-Gumboot

[edited];

No deal. When a plane is hijacked, that info is sent through the entire ATC/FAA network immediately.

I identified 7 events that are transmitted to the entire network right away.

You show me the logs of what Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush, and Dick Cheney were saying and hearing between 9:45 A.M. and 9:55 A.M. on 9/11.

[technoextreme]

stick to the OP.
I think it's a scientific fact that this never happens in this subforum.:)

[twinstead]

stick to the OP.

Dude. You don't think the omnipotent NWO couldn't get a hold of a single safe combination, do you? :cool:

[NYCEMT86]

Fire department engineers at the scene "sent" the firemen into the building because:

Fire Department Engineers eh? Is there a new branch in the FDNY that I was unaware of? As far as I am aware, it was and still is their job to enter a building to save lives and knock down the fire.


a) they knew the WTC was designed to withstand a plane impact and fire.

Thats a false assumption, since something like this hasn't ever happened before in the history of NYC. They didn't know exactly what was going to happen, they didn't have a visual on all of the fire floors or the damage caused by the planes. Chief Pfeiffer has stated that People who were watching the News reports knew more than the Firefighters in the lobby and thats why the Department now has Counter Terrorist center with a huge Monitor so they have see what is happening. It wasn't until NYPD Aviation division reported that there is a possibility of collapse after they saw the building leaning and exterior columns bowing.


Later, when the WTC fell, the design flaw info was transmitted around the world to other engineers, who have identified other skyscrapers that are at risk of failure should a plane hit it, or a fire break out. The design flaws were not known at the time of 9/11 by onsite engineers, but rather, were discovered after carefull study of the steel that was carefully preserved at ground zero.

How many times have planes been used as weapons have been flown into buildings prior to 9/11? You are speaking on a hindsight study.


b) they knew it wasn't designed to withstand a plane impact and fire, and committed negligent homicide by telling the fireman the WTC was safe.

That is the biggest BS statement I have ever heard. Their Size Up was incomplete, like I said above they didn't have an idea of collapse until a warning was transmitted by the NYPD Aviation Unit.


c) they didn't know the WTC was wired with explosives.

Do you have evidence of that?

[Bell]

I think it's a scientific fact that this never happens in this subforum.:)

The art of moving goal posts... now at the Tate Modern.

[gumboot]

Gumbot;
When a plane is hijacked, that info is sent through the entire ATC/FAA network immediately.



It's Gumboot. If you continue to purposefully spell my username incorrectly I will take it as a personal attack and have it reported.

As for your comments about...

:dl:

A stundie indeed.

-Gumboot

[Galileo]

These are the same people who had just murdered almost 3000 innocent people? And you speculate that they didn't want any unnecessary deaths?

If you're going to speculate uncontrollably without any evidence at all, at least have it make sense.

They didn't murder 3000 people, it was collateral damage. Most military operations cost human lives, but good commanders try to keep the losses in check. I remember once when Napoleon pulled back on his right flank, sparing 320 lives after he had just lost 2800 lives in the main military operation.

[technoextreme]

They didn't murder 3000 people, it was collateral damage. Most military operations cost human lives, but good commanders try to keep the losses in check. I remember once when Napoleon pulled back on his right flank, sparing 320 lives after he had just lost 2800 lives in the main military operation.
No. In this case it would be murder.

[Bell]

They didn't murder 3000 people, it was collateral damage.

That's a very bold statemen you make. Care to back it up?

Most military operations cost human lives, but good commanders try to keep the losses in check. I remember once when Napoleon pulled back on his right flank, sparing 320 lives after he had just lost 2800 lives in the main military operation.

Did Napoleon offer up those 2800 men? Or was it for those 320 that survived a case of "save what there is to save?"

The British First Airborne went into Arnhem with about 10,000 men, and escaped with some 2,000. Where those 8,000 sacrificed?

[Hyperviolet]

The people who put the explosives into WTC 1 did want any more deaths than absolutely necessary, so they got word to the FDNY to call for an evacuation.

Wait.

The people who wired two 110-story skyscrapers to collapse on to the streets of New York, warned the FDNY to evacuate, because they were worried that too many people might die in the towers?

Well, that's insane.
Thanks for the information, Galileo!

[Bell]

Maybe Galileo *giggles* can address some of the posts made by the other members beside GUMBOOT?

[twinstead]

They didn't murder 3000 people, it was collateral damage. Most military operations cost human lives, but good commanders try to keep the losses in check. I remember once when Napoleon pulled back on his right flank, sparing 320 lives after he had just lost 2800 lives in the main military operation.

So now you are equating 911 with an early 19th century military battle?

You have a sure-fire way to never loose a debate; you just make things up as you go, don't you? You do realize that unencumbered by the need for actual evidence, you can pretty much make up anything you want about 911, right?

Yea, it's probably fun, and it probably makes you feel all warm and fuzzy ideologically, but seriously--do you honestly think your arguments have some kind of impact on reality?

[CptColumbo]

Yep a troll now searching for a sword to fall onto.
He/she already has fallen upon it.
When Galileo first started posting here he/she posted this:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2807589&postcount=322

Many in this forum are insulting my thinking ability, but I can assure you that I possess far more intelligence than anyone in this forum.

I speak for the brilliant Galileo Galilei because he is my ancestor. Much family lore has been passed down to me in an apostolic progression.

I also speak for the brilliant Napoleon Bonaparte, Jean Bernadette, Jesse James, and Jim Bakken as they are my ancestors as well.

Also, I am the third cousin twice removed of fabled JREF poster 'A-Train'.

Everyone who knows me in person considers me the most intelligent person they have ever met.

This proves I am working from a far greater gene pool than yourselves.

Furthermore, I am a close personal confidant of several of the smartest people in the world, including Michael Badnarik, Aaron Russo, Ed Thompson, Booker Stanley, Harold Greenwood (from the Federal Reserve Bank appointed by Carter, Ford & Reagan), Dr. Kevin Barrett, and Dr. James Fetzer.

To prove my great intelligence, I would like to inform you that I have solved the world's most notoriously difficult unsolved mathematics problem, a problem so difficult that even the world's most powerful supercomputers cannot solve it.

I have determined the Least Upper Bound for two-colored Frank Plumpton Ramsey numbers, of the form R(n, n).

Since I am a new poster, I cannot post links to these facts.

Now that you have taken my wisdom into account and your known obedience to authority, I can tell you this;

"Your treatment of Korey Rowe is disgraceful, and you make jokes in the face of fear!"

"9/11 was a False-Flag Terror Event!!"
Out of curiosity I did some did some research of my own. Napoleon, Galileo and Jesse James were suspected and in some cases known to have illegitimate (for lack of a better word) children. I wasn’t able to find any references of Jean Bernadette, unless you are referring to Saint Bernadette, and the only Jim Bakken I found is an NFL kicker.

Due to the possibility of unknown offspring of these famous people, I contacted one with a well referenced list of family members. Eric James is the spokesman for the James Family. I pointed him towards the above post and asked his opinion, and if he knew of any James family member related to these other famous individuals. Below is his unedited prompt reply.

Hi Mark,

Someone who speaks that their own intelligence is superior to all others only betrays their own lack of it. Everything they say following is automatically discounted by by nothing other than their own hubris.

If this individual is a descendant of Jesse James, why is his name not recognized by the James Preservation Trust which maintains the James family records? Why is he unknown personally to the living James family? Why does his name not appear in any family records, or in any of its recorded history, or in the histories of the families who are related to the James? What has this person been doing in the closet that he can only make his identity known to individuals of lesser intelligence than himself?

I don't wish to intrude myself in your forum, and visit upon myself an obligation to argue with this arrogant person, whom I also presume is delusional. However, you certainly can state my thoughts as your own. You also can certainly state the James Preservation Trust will review his genealogy with all its source citations and issue its opinion to the forum. We even will allow him to participate in The James Family DNA Study so he can substantiate his claim. Usually when people like him receive such an invitation, they evaporate in mutterances about their own convictions in their own belief.

Best regards,
ERIC JAMES

Visit STRAY LEAVES, A JAMES FAMILY IN AMERICA SINCE 1650 www.ericjames.org
Official web site for the family of Frank & Jesse James
Now reviewing Brad Pitt's new Jesse James movie
The offer is there if you wish to preserve your credibility in this forum. If this needs to be moved to another thread, so be it, I just thought that it would be inappropriate to have a thread of it’s own.

[twinstead]

The offer is there if you wish to preserve your credibility in this forum. If this needs to be moved to another thread, so be it, I just thought that it would be inappropriate to have a thread of it’s own.

My mother always told me, beware of those who claim to have it 'all figured out'; they seldom do.

[BenBurch]

No, it wasn't.

In fact, whether it was designed for aircraft impact in the first place is (at least IMO) a valid question.

We can say without controversy that no ability to numerically simulate such an event existed when WTC was designed.

[AZCat]

We can say without controversy that no ability to numerically simulate such an event existed when WTC was designed.

It is arguable that such ability still doesn't exist today. The NIST went to great lengths to analyze an event that had already happened, but I think predictions of the outcome of such an event are beyond our capability. Think of the multitude of variables alone, much less the nonlinearity of the response of the structure to various impacts.

[BenBurch]

It is arguable that such ability still doesn't exist today. The NIST went to great lengths to analyze an event that had already happened, but I think predictions of the outcome of such an event are beyond our capability. Think of the multitude of variables alone, much less the nonlinearity of the response of the structure to various impacts.

Agreed.

[LashL]

The hijackers had guns. This is why the lawsuit for security breeches against American Airlines has been sealed and delayed for 8 years.

People want to know how guns got onboard.

Excuse me? What lawsuit is this? And how was it brought in relation to the hijackings of 9/11, two years before 9/11 occurred?

[CptColumbo]

The hijackers had guns. This is why the lawsuit for security breeches against American Airlines has been sealed and delayed for 8 years.

People want to know how guns got onboard.

Excuse me? What lawsuit is this? And how was it brought in relation to the hijackings of 9/11, two years before 9/11 occurred?
Wouldn't also be the company that handled airport security that is liable, rather than the airline?

[Galileo]

That's a very bold statemen you make. Care to back it up?



not asserting a murder in not bold. You are bold by asserting murder. Care to back it up?

[Darat]

Despite several Mod interventions many posts in this thread have continued to breach the Membership Agreement. I have again moved some post to AAH. A final warning - any post that results in further punitive Mod action will result in (at least) an automatic 3 day suspension for the Member that posted it.

[Bell]

not asserting a murder in not bold. You are bold by asserting murder. Care to back it up?

Care to back up where I was asserting murder? I didn't think so.

You where asserting that the deaths of that day where colleteral damage and compared it to military operations.

[Bell]

Galileo, I would like an answer to this question as well. Thanks.

And also, how is 56 and 102 minutes a short duration of fire?

[CptColumbo]

Galileo, I would like an answer to this question as well. Thanks.It's just more use of subjective measurements that we have seen in many CT posts. Like "near free-fall" or David Ray Griffin is almost honest.

[Bell]

It's just more use of subjective measurements that we have seen in many CT posts. Like "near free-fall" or David Ray Griffin is almost honest.

Cpt, thanks. But I would like to hear Galileo's take on this.