Operation PEARL on 9/11?

[shatoga]

OPERATION PEARL

(paragraph#1)
<Editor's note: Some people have said that this account of the events of September 11th 2001 (a detailed extension of the Valentine-Plissken Hypothesis) is "too convoluted to understand". Actually it's quite simple. Here's a synopsis for those who have a slight comprehension problem or don't have time to read it all:<

(paragraph#2)
>1. Four commercial passenger jets (American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 and United Airlines Flights 93 and 175) take off and are shortly after diverted to a military airport.
2. Two previously-prepared planes (one a Boeing 767, painted up to look like a United Airlines jet and loaded with extra jet fuel) take off and are flown by remote control toward Manhattan.
3. The first crashes into the North Tower and (eighteen minutes later) the second crashes into the South Tower.
4. A fighter jet (under remote control), or a cruise missile, crashes into the Pentagon.
5. The people on three of the Boeings are transferred to the fourth (United Airlines Flight 93).
6. This plane takes off and is shot down by a U.S. Air Force jet over Pennsylvania, eliminating the innocent witnesses to the diversion of the passenger planes.
7. Under cover of darkness later that evening the other three Boeings are flown by remote control out over the Atlantic, are scuttled and end up in pieces at the bottom of the ocean.<

READ MORE HERE.........

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/operation_pearl.htm

Enough at that website to convince anyone who doesn't pray to Bush/IMHO

[Birthmark]

1. Absolutely ridiculous.

And no, I don't pray to Bush.

[RobertSeattle]

2. Someone is smoking some damn good Pot

[bluestateguy]

3. Even I have limits to conspiracy theories

[shatoga]

4. 3min to 1st post, 4min to 2nd post, 9min to 3rd debunker post!

Congratulations!

Well done!

Step one in the Debunkers' manual:
AdHomineum attack.
Use ridicule or insults instead of arguing logic or details.

-3 rapid response posts-
Not one single rebuttal or argument of logic.

All AdHomineum attacks:
Just ridicule of a possible theory that requires only ONE logical conclusion:

Operation Northwoods was authorized by Bush on 9/11.



Check those playbooks for step two in the debunkers' manual.

I have the same RNC inspired playbook, so my reply is ready and waiting.
(as you try to divert any discussion off topic?
or repeat step one/ AdHomineum attacks?)
Step 3? I have the same RNC inspired manual...continue.

Operation Northwoods was authorized by Bush on 9/11.

[LARED]

10. There is a small problem with your theory

As you said

Use ridicule or insults instead of arguing logic or details.

You declare that one should argue using logic or details, but your post is devoid of both.

I'm sure you will self-righteously wave your hands in the air and say "see no logic or details." Well just remember you started it.

[shatoga]

12. Not 1 word of that 1st post was my own words

Step one (debunkers' manual)
Posted by lARED;
>self-righteously <
As Homineum attacks against the character of the person...

I'm feeling this is like an elephant stampede.
Nobody cares to argue facts or logic.
Just repeated personal attacks.

Not one word of the first post was my own words except:
"enough at that website to convince anyone who doesn't pray to Bush."
I read at 2-3thousand words per minute (when in a hurry)
It takes about an hour to read that entire website.
not a few minutes.
At least an hour!

Any debunker post posted in less than one hour
has been posted in ignorance of the actual total content of that website and
is only to debunk ANY criticism of Bush/IMWIO

[Robb]

5. Wow.

Gosh. I don't know why this idea never crossed my mind. But where do the giant space helecopters fit in?

Enough disproven stuff at that website, etc. etc.

[shatoga]

7. Step 2 exactly as predicted

Step one/ Adhomineum attacks
Step two/ diversion
Step three/ pending

[Robb]

8. Wrongo

Adhomenemium, or whatever you're talking about, doesn't enter into it. Ad Hominem means attacking the presenter, which didn't happen (except for the pot smoking reference, which I'll chalk up to a figure of speech).

You'd rather I attack the information? Easy. I'll begin in my own area of expertise: UAL93. To begin with, I've been involved in correspondence with Ms. Mcelwain, and we've shown her photos of an A-10 from every possible angle. And she's ruled it out completely. No chance. Engines in the wrong place, tail wrong, etc.

That's just for starters. The whole piece is riddled with disproven nonsense cobbled together from websites that never did any fact-checking. Heck, if you'd like, I can spend an hour on the internet and "prove", with the aid of real websites, that the Holocaust never happened.

Caveat websurfer....

[shatoga]

11. U want to "prove" Holocaust never happened start Ur own thread

>Ad Hominem means attacking the presenter, which didn't happen (except for the pot smoking reference, which I'll chalk up to a figure of speech).<
The first three post were not discussions of the dontent of the origional post/ which was not my own words BTW/ but all 3 insulted me personally instead of arguing facts.

BTW
Where are your facts?

you've shown some woman photos?
Good for you.
And what position do you hold in the Bush administration that you were delegated to do that?

And that is step two:
(debunkers' manual)
Divert the topic from the origional discussion.

Step three awaits?

[Robb]

13. See, that's the problem

This is the "original discussion". That "some woman" is the person the author is quoting to "prove" there was an A-10 there.

We actually contacted her, thinking, "Hey, the 111th FW are right there in Willow Grove, maybe she did see one. Sure sounds like an A-10, theirs are even white-ish. Let's find out." But she saw something else.

It's a relatively minor point, but it illustrates a lack of actual investigation by "internet investigators". At some point, you have to stand up, leave the computer, and talk to real people.

That is, if you actually want the truth. Instead of fifteen seconds of internet fame.

[shatoga]

16. Good example of "Strawman" Diversion- congratulations! step3

Step one/ Adhomineum attacks
Step two/ diversion
Step three/ Strawman-
(if you cannot dispute the thesis- pick at the details)


Ah! U see a hardwood in the pine forest so it's not a pine forest?

Still arguing a detail instead of the broad theory is an excellent use of step three in the manual.
Congratulations in the use of "Straw man" argument.

paraphrased:
"That can't be a pine forest. I see a hardwood tree."

[Robb]

22. If the broad theory

If the broad theory depends on key details that are incorrect, then the theory is worthless. Call it a straw man argument if you'd like (and be using a second logical fallacy incorrectly), but that's the truth.

step 4, robb throws up his hands in frustration at what he quixotically hopes must merely be a language barrier...step 5, shatoga declares victory, a la "mission accomplished", missing the irony....

[shatoga]

26. Such "logic" would have freed Charlie Manson

One incorrect detail does NOT make all other details automatically incorrect.

One lie does make a witness suspect for perjury on every other word however.
Bush administration is suspect by having been caught is so many lies.

"what really happened theorists", however,
just get sidetracked by the false info planted by the Bush administration.

The truth is out there.
Just not likely to come from the current "Liar-in-Chief" our dear dubya.

[HawkerHurricane]

48. And disproving Bushco's official version

Does not prove your version.

[HawkerHurricane]

6. Having read the web site

It makes a large number of assertions while offering no proof of any of them.
Occam's Razor applies: the simplest explanation that covers all the known facts is probably true. Extrordinary claims require extrordinary evidence.
You are correct about the other posts ad-homonims, which does not excuse your counter ad-homonims.
Not enough at that website to convince anyone not already convinced, in my own opinion.

[shatoga]

9. Occam's Razor applies: the simplest explanation

Operation Northwoods covers all events and all anomalies of 9/11.


Nothing will ever convince a true believer that their cult is wrong.

Thanks for the courtesy of a non manual post.

The Bushies tinfoil hat coincidence theory:
>makes a large number of assertions while offering no proof of any of them.
<

Thanks for the reminder, that there is absolutely no proof itenerant Arabs ordered that 2hour stand down of US military on 9/11.

Only the commander-in-Chief can do that.
Thanks for the reminder that an air defense command designed to track and eliminate Russian radar-jamming nuclear missiles was (for two hours) unable to track metal jumbo jets.
Thanks ffor the reminder that an intelligence community which had no idea anything was going to happen was able to produce almost instantly photos bios, passports etc. of supposed "terrorists".
Occams Razor excludes the official explanation!
Too many unbacked leaps of logic necessary to believe that fairy tale!

[HawkerHurricane]

14. Here we go

<Thanks for the reminder, that there is absolutely no proof itenerant Arabs ordered that 2hour stand down of US military on 9/11.

Proof that anybody did order a 2 hour stand down of the US Military?

<Thanks for the reminder that an air defense command designed to track and eliminate Russian radar-jamming nuclear missiles was (for two hours) unable to track metal jumbo jets.

Proof they weren't tracked? Proof that there are such a thing as Russian radar jamming nuclear missiles?

<Too many unbacked leaps of logic necessary to believe that fairy tale!

Proving the 'official' explanation wrong does not prove your explanation right. Logic and Debate 101.

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

Personal belief: 9/11 happened through negligence and incompetence on the US part, plus a well executed plan by the terrorists, not malice by the US government.

How many people would it take to make the plan described work? What would it take to keep them all silent?

[Must_B_Free]

17. hawk - there was some kind of plan

Are you denying that?

There was a terror plan for 9-11.

We don't know who was behind it.

At some level there is an undeniable conspiracy here, what we don't know for certain is who committed it.

(Althought we do know who benefitted from it...)

Moreover. We do know that it was able to be fully executed due to an incredible set of coincidences that somehow enabled all 19 hijackers to successfully execute 3 simultaneous terror plans over the course several hours, unfettered by the standard defense procedures.

We know that somehow all warnings were ignored, (except where the officials feard for their own safety, they did protect themselves)

[HawkerHurricane]

20. Well, sure there was a plan

The terrorists had one, and it 'worked'. They accomplished most of thier goals:
Scared the hell out of the US
Prevoked a attack by the US against Islamic countries.

The part about said attack on Islam uniting all Muslims hasn't worked too well, though.

[Must_B_Free]

27. Too much coincidence

Don't you find it too coincidental that:

1. the family of first person identified as responsible for 911 (Osama) has been in business with the Bush family for decades? This family was also allowed to fly in US restricted aisrspace when noone else was?

2. the second person identified as responsible for 911 (Saddam) was working with the Bushes for decades

3. the bushes seem have established a pattern of turning against their former friends to instigate military action:
- Saddam Huessein
- Osama bin Laden
- Manuel Noriega

4. Halliburton is cashing in billions of dollars of no-bid contracts, and is still paying the vice president over a million dollars a year. Halliburton was doing business with Saddam Hussein while Cheney was calling them evil in his provate foreign policy think tank.

5. Bush found out about the attacks and still went to seek a plausible cover in an elementary school, while the terror plan was executed. Can you believe that the pentagon was left completely undefended after two jets crashed into the WTC towers?

6. The 9-11 attack produced a huge ratings spike and unlimited power and loyalty to the administration who used that loyalty to tell lies that got over 30,000 iraqis and americans killed in another subsequent quest for fossil fuels.

7. There has been no investigaton of 911, but instead stonewalling


How can any thinking person accept these things and shrug them off?

Does anyone really believe that the really Republicans had some other elaborate plans for Bush's presidency? What agenda would they have been persuing without 911?

[HawkerHurricane]

46. Point by Point

>1. the family of first person identified as responsible for 911 (Osama) has been in business with the Bush family for decades? This family was also allowed to fly in US restricted aisrspace when noone else was?

Wouldn't a properly executed plan have flown them out of the US BEFORE the attacks, thereby avoiding this problem? Rather than try to sneak them out after the fact? Easier to send them home 'on vacation' a month before than days after. If Bush (or his handlers) KNEW when the attack was...

<2. the second person identified as responsible for 911 (Saddam) was working with the Bushes for decades

Nobody believes Saddam was involved. It's a Bushco lie.

<3. the bushes seem have established a pattern of turning against their former friends to instigate military action:
- Saddam Huessein
- Osama bin Laden
- Manuel Noriega

I accept the fact that Bushco are idiots, who will betray people in a heartbeat to push thier agenda. It doesn't prove anything about 9/11 though.

<4. Halliburton is cashing in billions of dollars of no-bid contracts, and is still paying the vice president over a million dollars a year. Halliburton was doing business with Saddam Hussein while Cheney was calling them evil in his provate foreign policy think tank.

That Bushco/Cheney would cash in on any oppertunity, no matter how shady, I'll accept as a given. Doesn't prove anything. (It does provide motive, but motive is only one leg of the tripod).

<5. Bush found out about the attacks and still went to seek a plausible cover in an elementary school, while the terror plan was executed. Can you believe that the pentagon was left completely undefended after two jets crashed into the WTC towers?

Negligence. Incompetence. Sounds like Bushco. Malice unproven. The strike on the pentagon was unneeded, it does not push the cause forward. If the pentagon was not hit, does anything change? If not, why hit the pentagon?

<6. The 9-11 attack produced a huge ratings spike and unlimited power and loyalty to the administration who used that loyalty to tell lies that got over 30,000 iraqis and americans killed in another subsequent quest for fossil fuels.

Bushco will exploit any oppertunity is a given. That exploitation does not prove guilt.

<7. There has been no investigaton of 911, but instead stonewalling

Stonewalling can hide incompetence and negligence, or even the LIHOP theory, in addition to making it happen.

<How can any thinking person accept these things and shrug them off?

Easy. Filter the information, extract the knowledge. Allegations are not proof. Assertions are not evidence.

<Does anyone really believe that the really Republicans had some other elaborate plans for Bush's presidency? What agenda would they have been persuing without 911?

Which provides some evidence for letting it happen. Personally, I think they would have done damn near the same thing, except that without the 9/11 attacks they wouldn't have gotten the international support in Afghanistan, so they probably would have had to put off Iraq.

[shatoga]

67. Yes all reasonable except ONE point of clarification

>1. the family of first person identified as responsible for 911 (Osama) has been in business with the Bush family for decades? This family was also allowed to fly in US restricted aisrspace when noone else was?

Wouldn't a properly executed plan have flown them out of the US BEFORE the attacks, thereby avoiding this problem? Rather than try to sneak them out after the fact? Easier to send them home 'on vacation' a month before than days after. If Bush (or his handlers) KNEW when the attack was...

From the Movie "Wag-The-Dog"
The actor who portrays Karl Rove:
"A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow."

Why rush?
Announced September 1, 2001:
"In ten days the results of the count of all Florida ballots will be released."

In ten days, 9/11/01 "events" caused the scheduled release to be delayed, and when finally released; (over a month later)
Media downplayed the overwhelming margin for Gore for "patriotic reasons."

Just like in the movie/ a PR War diverted public attention.

[HawkerHurricane]

68. 10 days is more than enough time to move a family

I could get mine across the border in 24 hours. With the resources you've been describing, they could have gotten them in about the same, and not even make it looked rushed.

[leftofthedial]

79. I don't ascribe to the conspiracy theory, but

Proof that anybody did order a 2 hour stand down of the US Military?

With regard to air defense the stand down happened. The conventional explanation ignores this. Not having proof of a specific individual ordering it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

<Thanks for the reminder that an air defense command designed to track and eliminate Russian radar-jamming nuclear missiles was (for two hours) unable to track metal jumbo jets.
Proof they weren't tracked? Proof that there are such a thing as Russian radar jamming nuclear missiles?

irrelevant quibbling. Our air defenses routinely track civil airplanes, including with radar and military interceptors. (The Payne Stewart incident is one well-known example.) The air defense protocols in place on 9-11 demanded that intercepors scramble to intercept those filghts, but they didn't. The conventional explanation of 9-11 ignores the fact that our air defenses stood down. Whether the Russians have or had some arcane technology is irrelevant. The relevant sections of the protocol specifically address hijacking threats, not Russian attack.

Proving the 'official' explanation wrong does not prove your explanation right. Logic and Debate 101.
very true, but proving the conventional explanation wrong disproves your following statements:

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. (clever but not logical--our criminal justice system is based on the principle that motive is necessary to commit a crime)
Personal belief: 9/11 happened through negligence and incompetence on the US part, plus a well executed plan by the terrorists, not malice by the US government.

"Malice" is a loaded word, but I believe there was proactive participation in the planning and execution by some within the US political and security establishments and negligence and incompetence by others. I also think the Bush cabal wore ideological blinders.

How many people would it take to make the plan described work?
This plan? probably about 25 people. This plan (which I believe is ridiculously far-fetched BTW) would not require most of the participants to be "in the know." Relatively few well-placed participants could pull it off, assuming it could be pulled off at all.

What would it take to keep them all silent?
ideological zealotry, money, threats, pervasive ridicule of "conspiracy theories" and "conspiracy theorists"

[Must_B_Free]

15. That's what I was going to say

His sounds like a crazy drawn out plot, unless you are familiar with the intended details of Northwoods.

You can't really appreciate this theory wihtout Northwoods.

Too many people to fit on the downed jet though, no?

[shatoga]

18. Too many people to fit downed jet -NO-couple of empty seats

If you don't count those fake Arab Terrorists who are still alive.
There are a couple of empty seats.
When the F-16 shoots the jet down over western PAS.
Local news reported ground witnesses saw an F-16 not an A-10 BTW.

[HawkerHurricane]

47. F-16 a lot more believable than a A-10

A-10's are slow (for jets), not really suitable for shooting down another plane. They can do it, but...
F-16's, however, are fast and manueverable, and very very good at shooting down planes (that being what they were built for and all).

[HawkerHurricane]

19. Sounds like it would be crowded...

Simpler explanation:
All 4 jets taken over by remote control, made to crash into targets. PA crash occurs when remote control operator discovers passengers have rushed the cockpit, discovering the already dead pilots. Crashed them fast to avoid having them get back on thier cell phones and telling people the truth.

[Must_B_Free]

21. I have relatives in PA

Their friends live up the valley a few miles, right where flight 93 crashed. Noone there believes the official story. They saw what happened.

[HawkerHurricane]

24. And what did they see?

If you don't mind my asking.

[Must_B_Free]

28. Another plane, I believe

I'll ask for the details again.

I personally think at best flight 93 was another "Jessica Lynch" lie.

[shatoga]

25. My PA relatives read newspapers re: F-16 seen near flight 93

The whole point to that first post is the official story is nonsensical and it's
so much easier to do what cops do every day:
Construct a plausible explanation to fit the facts.

People have gone to death row on less evidence than there is against Bush.

[shatoga]

23. contention to that scenario

Passengers and crew might decide to crash any or all four jets rather than let them fly into crowed metropolitian areas.

As easy as breaking a few windows or opening a door to cause remote navigation to fail.

The LoneGunman Pilot was all about remote piloting a jet into the WTC.
Wag the Dog was all about a war to divert public opinion.

Still.
Thanks for the comment.

[HawkerHurricane]

29. the problem with the scenario

Is that I offered no proof or even evidence. Without that, I have nothing but a conjecture. Aristotle at his best: argue without actually proving anything.

[Abe Linkman]

30. "Simpler explanation" sounds reasonable; but I have a question.

How does your scenario account for the fact that there is no evidence FL 77 crashed into the Pentagon?

[Must_B_Free]

31. Is there really no evidence?

I looked into the pictures and I thought it reasonable that the plane force carried through two or three rings of the pentagon.

I haven't been able to support the "no plane" stuff from what I have seen so far, although it seems highly suspect that the crash occured in an "empty wing" of the building...

[Abe Linkman]

32. "They" also think you'll find their fairy tale to be reasonable

"I thought it reasonable that the plane force carried through two or three rings of the pentagon."

Just one little tiny problem: the "entrance" hole is too small.

One other minor problem: no evidence of a B757 found. (yes, I know about the famous piece of pristine scrap "discovered" on the Pentalawn, and I've seen the photo of a wheel that was alleged to belong to FL 77, and allegedly found inside the Pentagram, and yes, I know it's very possible that an aircraft did crash into the building: an F-16)

[Must_B_Free]

33. That;s because the plane was made of metal

I guess only passports (like Mohammad Atta's) survive through plane crashes...

[shatoga]

34. human DNA also survives when metal vanishes w/o a trace

All passengers on the jet that supposedly hit the Pentagon were later identified by DNA.

One F-16 size jet engine was found inside the vacant wing which
BTW/ had been vacated for reinforcement with blast doors.

Too many leaps of faith required to accept convoluted Bush version of events.


Project Mongoose/ Operation Northwoods explains it all.

No leaps of faith needed.
The Pentagon even let Northwoods Operational Plan be released.
so we have their word for the fact that they planned faked attacks to justify war.

Those who believe Bush therefore automatically disbelieve the Pentagon and vice-versa.

Thesis (mine)
Northwoods is a proven fact.
ALL the events of 9/11 can be explained by reading the Northwoods Operational Plan.
No other explanation fits all facts and explains all anomalies of 9/11.
Therefore on 9/11 Operation Northwoods was authorized and executed.

"looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc."

[RH]

126. Wrong

:eyes:

All the passengers on the jet that supposedly hit the Pentagon were not later identified by DNA.

One passenger was not positively identified.

30 per cent were identified from dental records alone.

[RH]

128. One F-16 size jet engine was found inside ....????

:eyes:

Which would be supposed to be proved by what?

[Old and In the Way]

86. This makes tin foil sense.

Shatoga's theory is way too complicated. Besides, there are tapes of all the flightpaths....no way could such a complicated theory ever be pulled off. How would the government possiby keep this scenario a secret.

I believe in LIHOP, but this sounds like someone trying to offer an alternative that is too flaky even for us vetren conspiracy nuts.

[jmcgowanjm]

35. Shatoga is winning this debate

Suspicious circumstances

1. Four of the named hijackers were
not in the United States.
2. The WTC towers collapsed without
adequate heat stress.
3. Smaller aircraft accompanied Flights
77 and 93.
4. Most of the alleged hijackers were
rather poor pilots.
5. Evidence of the alleged hijackers
developed too quickly.
6. Westward excursion of Flights UA93
and AA77 are inexplicable as terrorists
hurrying to targets."

[jmcgowanjm]

36. the Bush/Cheney scenario does not work

It is physically impossible for all of the plane
to have entered the crash site, and this is
backed by solid mathematical proof.

There is no evidence outside the building
of wreckage to account for the part of the
plane which cannot have entered the crash site

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren/summary.htm

[HawkerHurricane]

37. Again and again, I see in this thread

assertions without evidence, claiming to be 'proof'.

Your web link says it can prove 'mathmatically' that flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.
Fine.
Show me the math, so I might check the figures myself (or, more likely, pass on to someone who is better at math than myself).

[jmcgowanjm]

39. I knew when I posted someone would use "Math"

I took engineering courses in Tulane.

That said, I know force times velocity equals work.

That's the formula.

There is not enough work done on the Pentagon to justify a 757 moving at flight speed to impact.

[Robb]

40. Er,

I'd check that degree. Work equals force times distance, not velocity. Also called a joule, or a newton-meter.

As in "there's not enough work done on this article to justify a thread this long"....

[jmcgowanjm]

41. thanx Robb I didn't say I had a Degree in Engineering

I figured it was wrong, but easier to get a reply
from you guys than look it up.

Now that you have described the formula
are you telling me that you
think a 757 could be stopped at
the outer ring of the Pentagon
the wooden rafters haven't even
been burned and yet
the 757 has been cremated?

I

[shatoga]

58. F=mass x velocity (squared) according to my degree

I also didn't say I had a degree in Mechanical Engineering.
But I do!

& 30 years working fire science/fire protection.

I've been on the team investigating high rise fires.

WTC is unique in that the buildings behaved exactly like a controlled
demolition, instead of collapsing assymetrically as a result of localized impact and fire damage.
(eg: the structural damage from the 1993 terrorist bombing was more extensive than those upper floor fires.)
Heat goes up BTW.


Never happened before and cannot be duplicated in scientific method: experiments and historical records show assymetrical collapse from assymetrical failure.
I also am familiar with airplane crashes.

Numerous aircraft deliberately crashed into buildings near Phx AZ
as my experience in evaluating airplane building impacts.
Again Asymetrical damage from side impacts.

Each and every airplane crash yields massive debris fields except the 9/11 unique in all the world scenarios.

The Bush fairy tale:
It don't fly!
"this dog won't hunt."
Obviously a lie disregarding real science.
Yet a degreed partisan rightwinger can always be found to swear to anything his party tells him to.

Operation Northwoods is the only rational explanation for 9/11 which requires absolutely NO unfounded assumptions.
It requires only that we believe the Pentagon.
That they developed a plan to fake attacks on America to justify invasion of foriegn countries.
That is fact!
Proven by the Pentagon's own
Project Mongoose appendix A:
Operation Northwoods

(operational plan:
Airplane painted to resemble a civilian airliner...
Attacks on domestic targets...)

"Body of Secrets" by Bamford is a must read for all Americans!
or
At least watch "Wag The Dog"
(about PR wars to divert attention)
& "Three Days of The Condor"
(about a cia plan to fake Arab attacks on th eUS to justify invasion of OPEC nations)
Pilot episode of "The Lone Gunman"
(about remote piloting of a commercial ariliner into the WTC)

It's all fiction!
Bush/Fox lies-
dittoheads believe them.

America's Reichstag Fire- 9/11/01

[gandalf]

60. Question concerning formula

What is F? Normally Force, I think.
DO you mean
kinetic energy = 1/2 * m * v^2?

[Robb]

62. Seems odd

an ME would flub that ball.

But perhaps it's late. ;)

[acerbic]

63. ...or perhaps it's something else

an ME would flub that ball.
But perhaps it's late.

To understand better, read these and draw your own conclusions.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=8201&mesg_id=8631&page=
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=8201&mesg_id=8966&page=

Maybe the "degree in Mechanical Engineering & 30 years working fire science/fire protection" fits there somewhere with being in a biker gang and the army, repossessing cars etc. :-)

[shatoga]

65. My what a big obsession you have there grandma

Constructing a plausible explanation for systems failure is step one for finding and fixing the problem.
You have to figure out where to look, to find the problem.
Too complicated for you acerbic?


Now an answer to the personal attack
(AdHomineum attack step one in *RNC Debunker's Manual)
And reply to the off topic comments
(Step 2. divert the discussion off topic)
And information to refute simplistic nonsensical nitpicking
(Step 3. Strawman/ if you cannot dispute the thesis, nitpick the details)

My but you must have led a simple & sheltered life!
(And are following that manual religiously! Why?)


Army after HS
Work & schooling after Army.
Too complicated for you acerbic?

Simultaneous private life off work and professional life at work.
Too complicated for you acerbic?

Downturns in economy causing cancellation of projects/
"layoffs" gave time for side jobs (anything to survive)
People, with beards and long hair, no matter how expert,
are often first on the layoff list.
Too complicated for you acerbic?

Traveling "in search of a job" on a motorcycle while unemployed allowed extensive travel.
Too complicated for you acerbic?

Jobs in Construction Industry tend to be temporary.
Too complicated for you acerbic?

Every project gets finished sooner or later.
Many projects only require specialties for a part of the construction.

eg: Sometimes the problem can be solved quickly, sometimes it takes longer.
Too complicated for you acerbic?

Some jobs are very short- yet still they happened.
eg: Two days figuring out why the firecontrol system at one plant kept tripping (actuating/ to flood some areas and also call the Fire Department @ $500.00 per false alarm -sometimes several times in one day)
Two days there is still a "job" in that I figured out the problem and fixed it.
Others there much longer but did not solve the problem.
(maintainance installing wrong heat range fire sprinklers over ovens which baked paint onto metal "product"/
I trained maintainance personnel and gave them a chart to follow)

Another job at a Navy base only took two hours to figure out and solve the problem.
Technician installing a 1/2" check valve backwards, repeatedly, while "trimming" controls. Allowed pressure to bleed down and trip system)
Answer: Fire the technician, make sure all others know how a check valve works and point out the raised arrow cast-in, which shows which way fluid flows.
Order all trim checked and valves reversed to proper orientation.

Troubleshooters move around a lot.
Too complicated for you acerbic?

eg: High Rise fire in Philly.
My problem: why did the standpipe
(a 4' vertical fire main in the stairwells with a firehose station at each landing/floor level)
malfunction,
causing the deaths of Philly Firemen?

Answer: Pipefitter installing those firehose stations failed to install the "restricted orfices" (brass washers with progressively larger holes -as you ascend)
Thus lots of water at lower floors, and only a weak trickle upstairs where the firemen died.
Took me under an hour to figure that one.

(The pipefitter had those "neat brass washers" -his words- at home in his toolbox.
Thanks to me he was brought up on charges of criminal negligence.)
One "job" Started and finished in one day.
Too complicated for you acerbic?

eg: Why are all welders for "my" local not passing the ASME/AWS welding test for a major powerhouse project?
I hired in as a welder.
Saw the test lab 'instructor' standing on an argon hose for a few seconds.
Heard loud cursing from the welding booth where a welder has just lost his argon pressure. (failed the test due to oxygen reaching the superhot stainless)
Had a "talk" with the 'instructor' and construction Manager.
Took and passed the welding test for 2" and up stainless pipe, while the 'instructor' was kept outside the test lab.
One more job, finished in one day.
Too complicated for you acerbic?

Time off work, between jobs, weekends, vacations, spent riding a motorcycle, often in the company of 'buddies'.
eg: regardless of where in Canada USA or Mexico, ride motorcycle to work and after work means meeting local bikers;
and being seen by local rednecks/ sometimes assaulted by the rednecks without warning too!
Like being one of only two riding motorcyles to and from work during Sacramento's rainy season.
Too complicated for you acerbic?
Should I discuss time spent riding horses, rock climbing, diving, spelunking?
Can't do any ot that and still work for a living?

My pity to anyone with such a dull life that one job, one town forever until retirement, and no life off work.
acerbic


Constructing a plausible explanation for systems failure is step one for finding and fixing the problem.
You have to figure out where to look, to find the problem.
Too complicated for you acerbic?

You really could spend your time better actually researching the facts and evidence of 9/11;
instead of just being so strangely obsessed with me.

[shatoga]

80. Correction to the above- helping 'my buddy' to "acidly" pick nits

should have been:
"A 4" certical fire main!"
Hit the srong key and failed to notice.
confident that RW nit-pickers will point out the least mistake.

Corrected text:

eg: High Rise fire in Philly.
My problem: why did the standpipe
(a 4" vertical fire main in the stairwells with a firehose station at each landing/floor level)
malfunction,
causing the deaths of Philly Firemen?

Answer: Pipefitter installing those firehose stations failed to install the "restricted orfices" (brass washers with progressively larger holes -as you ascend)
Thus lots of water at lower floors, and only a weak trickle upstairs where the firemen died.
Took me under an hour to figure that one.

(The pipefitter had those "neat brass washers" -his words- at home in his toolbox...

[shatoga]

64. typed "F" instead of "E" & didn't notice in time

[shatoga]

66. F=MA force equals mass x acceleration

energy produced (enough to almost totally consume an airliner
yet leave passengers' DNA intact)

Energy = Mass x Velocity squared
plus or minus lies by the Bush Administration

[RH]

129. passengers' DNA intact

is a myth

One passenger was not positively identified.

30 per cent were identified from dental records alone.

[jmcgowanjm]

38. Cell phones do not work above 4k feet

Think about it. The signal has to drop the elevation,
find a tower, link to caller, have signal come back to
tower and uplink elevation to cell.

Doesn't happen.

[jmcgowanjm]

43. Appeal to all successful cell@altitude callers

Thus, it seems safe to say that no cell phone
of any type could have established any stable
connection to any cell site at that speed(500 mph), no matter
which height the planes flew at.

When posting to physics911 please give:
type of phone, network used;
* plane flown, airline, flight no., date and time of take off (nominal) and landing (actual);
* weather conditions prevailing when landing;
* exact times when you did what or when you succeeded to establish a connection, and since pulling out the gear is a nice reference point, make a note of this as well and ask the pilot while deplaning at what height he pulled the gear.
http://www.physics911.org/911/index.php/articles/6

[HawkerHurricane]

44. Dad is at Yellowstone National Park

Highest Point: 11,358 ft / 3,462 m (Eagle Peak)
Lowest Point: 5,282 ft / 1,610 m (Reese Creek)
Calls me using a cell phone weekly.

Has also called me from atop Mt. Whitney in California. The elevation at the summit is 14,491' (4417 meters)

If cell phones do not work above 4000 ft, I think many skiers would be complaining also.

[Robb]

45. Heck

I live at 8000, worked at 10K. Cell worked OK except for valleys.

In his defense (his what??), I suspect he means AGL. He's still wrong, but there it is.

[demodewd]

49. But

.... you weren't in a commercial jet flying at a speed of 500mph+

[reorg]

50. at what speed?

does your dad travel when calling from that mountain top? A friend told me the other day he was unable to establish a connection in medium level terrain, 600 meters or so high, when he was driving at 60 miles/h.

[HawkerHurricane]

51. Proving that my Dad has better cell phone service?

Of course, Dad's speed was zero, or nearly so (walking only) at the top of Mt. Whitney. In Yellowstone, he's called from a moving car, but the speed limit in the park is 35 MPH.

Now, the question becomes: If they weren't calling from planes, where were they calling from and why did they (or the people {allegedly}recieving the calls) lie about them?

Lots of phone calls. Why did all these people lie? Why did none of the people on the other end notice thier loved ones lying?

IF the phone calls were made at all, there should have been a record at the server which station(s) picked up the calls (and, if moving at 500mph, which stations they switched to).

There is a reason why radio antennas are on mountaintops and tall buildings: increased altitude increases range (by pushing out the horizon). Moving up, away from the ground, decreases ground clutter effect.

Of course, none of this explains the velocity problem, if there was one. Which is not proven, merely asserted.

[reorg]

52. nobody says they lied

I was under the impression that this thread is about the "Operation Pearl" scenario, putting forward a seemingly far-fetched but not entirely implausible theory.

I think it is legitimate to make such assumptions that are falsifiable. If someone could prove that it is possible to make cell phone calls from planes travelling at 500 mph, the Operation Pearl scenario has lost most of its appeal (to me). I have yet to meet someone who claims to have achieved that, though.

However, the part about phone call receivers being unable to positively identify the caller's voice doesn't seem far-fetched at all (to me). This happens regularly to me: someone is calling and I don't recognize his or her voice immediately because of bad transmission. This is certainly much worse with long-distance calls. If you just talk for a very short time, and about a highly emotional subject, it may be close to impossible to be sure as to who you were actually talking to.

In addition, the scenario is based on the assumption that voice modulation techniques were used. I have no idea about this stuff, but I guess it is also a falsifiable claim. Someone in this forum has said such things are possible given you have a speech sample of a certain person. Do you know anything about it?

[HawkerHurricane]

53. Only what I've read here.

including the links.

I remain severly unconvinced.

IF Bush was in on it, why the poor response on 'der tag'? Why the fumbling around the country, looking like a scared rabbit? Why such a brilliant technical operation, and such a poor political one?

It's always easier to poke holes in a theory than to prove it.

[Abe Linkman]

55. It's called plausible deniability

Serious people don't claim bush was "in on it" in the sense that you are implying. btw- think bush and cheney weren't aware of the PNAC document which stated the need for another "Pearl Harbor" to galvanize the country? I'm not mentioning PNAC as proof that "bush was in on it." That isn't the way things are done. Let's put it this way; if they were shocked by what happened; their shock stemmed from the details of the events; not that they happened.

[HawkerHurricane]

57. LIHOP is easier then MIHOP

Letting It Happen On Purpose is much easier sell than Making It Happen On Purpose, and taking advantage after the fact even easier still.

Interesting thoughts (not really related to your post, but are related to the thread...)

In the month before 9/11, John Ashcroft started flying private plane vice commercial...much harder to hijack a private plane.
Senior military officers also supposed to have started flying private vice commercial, but that makes less sense: military officers fly free on Military Airlift Command aircraft, why bother flying commercial at all?

Also...
Two aircraft seen flying into the WTC, identified as the appropriate types for two of the hijacked aircraft. IF you are going to fly the appropriate aircraft into 2 buildings, why not 3 (or 4)? Why would you use a smaller aircraft or missile (which may get spotted going in or even photographed!) when you could just fly the third plane of the appropriate type into the Pentagon in the first place? Why risk the operation by using a different 'weapon' than what was reported? If you are going to have a conspiracy, do it right, not with half measures suddenly thrown in.

[shatoga]

59. SNAFU - extensive WTC damage scared Pentagon plotters

Posted by HawkerHurricane:
>Why would you use a smaller aircraft or missile (which may get spotted going in or even photographed!) when you could just fly the third plane of the appropriate type into the Pentagon in the first place? Why risk the operation by using a different 'weapon' than what was reported? If you are going to have a conspiracy, do it right, not with half measures suddenly thrown in.<

A trained investigator takes the available evidence and constructs a plausible scenario.
Here you are/ a plausible scenario (why they didn't use the airliner drone)

Pentagon on 9/11:
A nearly vacant wing shut down for construction.
Blast doors recently installed.
A drill underway to practice aircrashes into buildings.
Personnell recently transferred in to be sacrifical martyrs.


'Global Hawk type remote piloted' airliner approaching.
General "rightwing" picks up a phone:
"There's way too much damage to the WTC."
"Sir; nobody has ever done this on such a large scale."
"Well, dammit! somebody could get hurt."
"Do you want us to scrub the mission sir?"
"No! We need this war! Use less ordinance!"
"Sir; We could do a touch and go with the drone airliner and have a smaller drone impact."
"Not enough time to install ordinance.
It won't do enough damage.
Hmmm...How about have the drone fire a missile before impact."
"Yes sir! Good thinking sir! the missile will open a hole for the bogus 'airliner' to dissapear into."
"Get with it!"

"How about eyewitnesses sir?"
"We'll have some of our media lapdogs provide 'eyewitnesses' to the origional scenario.
Don't worry, people will believe what we tell them to believe."
"Sir; We could put enough planes up to confuse any real eyewitnesses."
"You just earned a promotion! Get with it!"

[HawkerHurricane]

61. Easier solution to same problem

Have airliner MISS, land in dirt in front of building, or hit parking lot (General rightwing: NOT MY LEXUS!) or any number of other possiblities. Why risk blowing the operation? Some idiot with a camera could still get it out before he could be silenced. Better to crash the plane than blow the op. Which might be what happened to the 4th airliner if you think about it...(Abort the strike on congress, there's nobody there and too many people watching now...just plow it into the ground where it is, somebody write me a scenario why. Make it sound good, like the passangers revolted or something...)

[jmcgowanjm]

54. Of course, none of this explains the velocity problem

Why did none of the people on the other end notice their loved ones lying?

Who was on the other end of the line?
I don't think it was loved ones.

Yes, one mistake and the formula becomes null.

That's why there are so many theorums
and so few laws (cosmic that is).

The Second Law of Thermodynamics has been violated
with this pic:



Your gonna tell me now that you think there is
a 757 ( being cremated) inside this building.

[LARED]

56. The Second Law of Thermodynamics has been violated??

I wonder what Clausius will think.

Care to enlighten how the Second Law of Thermodynamics has been violated.

[jmcgowanjm]

70. it is impossible to convert the whole heat input to work

To account for the heat necessary to perform the work
(cremation of 757) this part of thePentagon
should look more like a Weirton steel mill
than a charcoal making facility.

I would love to see an infrared.

[LARED]

71. Thanks for clearing that issue up.

:crazy::crazy::crazy:

Weirton Steel Mill


Just out of curiosity, you you have any clue what you're talking about, or do you just assume because someone that sounded like they knew what they were talking about said the 2nd law had been violated, and you now feel empowered to make the same silly declaration?

[jmcgowanjm]

72. if school had been this interesting

What is important about the oscillation process is that it cues the observer as to what he should be looking for. Every operating unit will be at some stage of oscillation at any point in time; to seek out its state and the factors that make it move is to understand how the power system is currently working.

[jmcgowanjm]

73. oh, and here's the link to above

http://www.counterbalance.net/physics/chaos-body.html

Thermodynamics, Chaos, and Complexity

Classical thermodynamics is characterized
by two
laws: first, the conservation of energy and
secondly, the non-decrease of entropy in closed
systems isolated from their environment.
Examples include gas in a balloon, liquid
cooling in a container, wood burning in a
stove (or a 757 burning
in a closed environment).

[LARED]

76. Interesting link

What that has to do with the "violation" of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics at the Pentagon is of course still a mystery.

Are you related to DulceDucorum by any chance?

[jmcgowanjm]

77. violation: you cannot break even

 there is always an increase in disorder
(except for the area around the Pentagon
and WTC's which seem to be governed by
Laws that defy Thermodynamics-called by some
the Rumsfeld Hypothesis) 

Question
What is a simple defintion of the laws of thermodynamics?

Asked by: James Beal
Answer
Thermodynamics is the study of the inter-relation
between heat, work and internal energy of a system.
The British scientist and author C.P. Snow had an
excellent way of remembering the three laws:

1. You cannot win (that is, you cannot get something
for nothing, because matter and energy are conserved).
2. You cannot break even (you cannot return to the
same energy state, because there is always an
increase in disorder; entropy always increases).
3. You cannot get out of the game (because absolute
zero is unattainable).

[LARED]

78. Well, now

that we covered day 1, hour 2 of Thermo 101, we are still left with that unanswered question;

In what way was there a "violation" of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics at the Pentagon?
:think::crazy::think::crazy::think::crazy::think::crazy::think::crazy:

[shatoga]

81. aircraft metal was vaporized yet wood and DNA remained

May not violate any laws, but certainly shows the official story is a fairy tale.

But LARED,
Please continue to:

:think ::crazy ::think ::crazy ::think ::crazy ::think ::crazy ::think ::crazy :
:think::crazy::think::crazy::think::crazy::think::crazy::think::crazy:

It has become expected of you.

[LARED]

82. Sorry I'm so predictable.

"aircraft metal was vaporized yet wood and DNA remained" May not violate any laws, but certainly shows the official story is a fairy tale.

Really. How does it do that?

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

84. Seeing as you have completed step

one and two of your post,

Step one/
Adhomineum attacks (since you cannot dispute the thesis, attack the person instead)

Lets see, I'm delusional, possibly dense, and a stooge.

You completed step one in fine form. Well done.

Step two/
diversion (keep taking the thread off topic into irrelevancies)

My question is not in the least irrelevant. If someone makes an unqualified statement about how the 2nd law of Thermodynamics had been voided, or states that vaporized alum and human DNA cannot co-exist, asking how they managed to draw those conclusion is a very legitimate question.

IMO not responding to legitimate questions but instead posting a bunch of foolishness about my "tactics," qualifies as a diversion.

You have completed step two in fine form as well.

As for step three, me asking for details about one's premise does not qualify as a Strawman.

So now that that is cleared up perhaps you could spare a moment and answer my question (How does it do that?) to your statement;

aircraft metal was vaporized yet wood and DNA remained" May not violate any laws, but certainly shows the official story is a fairy tale.

AS a mechanical engineer you should be able to clear up my question with ease.

[shatoga]

85. Am I about to join that honor role?

A reasoned response to personal attacks by rw debunkers
and (on topic) comments deleted?
AM I about to join that honor role?

Right>?
Or right wing?

Have I posted something "TOO TRUE FOR DU?
Repeatedly!

Should I apologize for not believing the Bush version of all events?
When hell freezes over!


Yet Adherents of the Bush version of all events stay and keep violating the rules with impunity?

Learn!

[shatoga]

87. DU mods are going out of their way to let this thread continue

My thanks balanced by my scepticism.

I'm really pleasantly surprised that DU mods try to keep freedom of speech alive.

Must rethink some prejudices.

I still disagree with some decisions
but respect the need to make those decisions.
If only....

Web of Deceit explains my bias:

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/001023.html

>The Republican National Committee, with the technological expertise of The Bivings Group, has launched a new Internet program<
>the Bivings Group, a PR company contracted to Monsanto, has invented fake citizens to post messages on internet listservers.<

[LARED]

88. Now that you

posted your farewell message because you got a post deleted and then discovered you were just being paranoid; can you spare a moment or two and answer my question?

[shatoga]

89. humans' dna survives yet metals vanish- "question" is frivolous

Your question is beyond any limits of credibility:

Thermodynamics laws:

Materials don't suddenly vaporize at one third the laboratory/real world temperatures just because Bush minions decree it was so.

Your question is beyond any limits of credibility:
If metal and ceramic jet engines designed to burn jet fuel for thousands of hours vanished without a trace?
How did human DNA survive to verify the passenger list?

If metals, paint and plastics, vanished without a trace?
How did humans' DNA survive to verify the passenger list.

Bush administration lies as so obvious!
Any rational person should consider Bush minions as pathological liars,
based on their own incredible statements.

Why your question should be given more credibility than the obvious lies your question ignores.
Is not my decision.
You should ask yourself why you believe obvious lies and argue against any attempts to present a credible explanation.

I cannot fight alone against that "web of deceit" which wishes to silence me, here and elsewhere.
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/001023.html

May others who also care more about truth than personal advantage
continue.

[LARED]

91. Yes, it's sooooo obvious

"humans' dna survives yet metals vanish- "question" .....
Your question is beyond any limits of credibility:

That wasn't my question. That was your statement. I asked how you knew it was true? Well?

Materials don't suddenly vaporize at one third the laboratory/real world temperatures just because Bush minions decree it was so.

As far as I can tell the only folks advocating that, are a few posters on this board.

If metal and ceramic jet engines designed to burn jet fuel for thousands of hours vanished without a trace?

Does anyone believe that happened? And is any credible source making the claim that happened. No.

If metals, paint and plastics, vanished without a trace? How did humans' DNA survive to verify the passenger list.


Did that happen? Please provide some rational for that statement. I know there is a logical fallacy there, but it's not worth the effort to look it up.

You should ask yourself why you believe obvious lies and argue against any attempts to present a credible explanation.

Are you familiar with the concept of irony?

[Abe Linkman]

92. Too many Official Conspiracy Theories to keep up with here

"As far as I can tell the only folks advocating that, are a few posters on this board."

Well then, what is it that YOU and the other choir members ARE advocating here? One week it's "the plane (you know, "the plane") disintegrated inside the Pentagon. The next week it's "the plane was vaporized", and the following week it's "the plane" remained somewhat intact (citing the magical piece of planted evidence out on the lawn).

What's the Official Story this week? Honestly, some of the defenders and keepers of the faith here sound like Dick Cheney prevaricating on "Meet The Press Whores".

[LARED]

95. What I am advocating

is that Flt 77 was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon. The evidence is overwhelming that this is a fact. No amount of sophistry will change that.

The conspiracy crowd are the ones running around saying objective reality is false. To somehow 'prove' this, they cite endless silly speculations based on pseudo science that even under the most casual examination is utterly specious.

[HarryLime]

97. It's okay, Lared. We like you.

Lared, no one here minds that you keep saying that the "evidence is overwhelming" that the Official Story of 911 is true without ever offering any. We like you even though you cannot either back up your claims or make an argument.

It's ok, Lared. You're still our friend even though you're a wimp.

[LARED]

98. Yes, personal attacks

are very convincing. I won't hit the alert button, so if your post gets yanked don't blame me.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shatoga]

94. considering Rush Limbaugh as the only "credible source" ?

Posted by LARED
Does anyone believe that happened? And is any credible source making the claim that happened. No.

If metals, paint and plastics, vanished without a trace? How did humans' DNA survive to verify the passenger list.


Did that happen? Please provide some rational for that statement. I know there is a logical fallacy there, but it's not worth the effort to look it up.

You should ask yourself why you believe obvious lies and argue against any attempts to present a credible explanation.

Are you familiar with the concept of irony?<



Irony:
"The best way to handle the opposition is to control it ourselves." VI Lennin

[LARED]

96. Of course

you just create a useless diversion rather than respond.

Was that step 3 or 2 in your formula?

[RH]

140. How did humans' DNA survive to verify the passenger list?

False premise!

One passenger was not positively identified.

30 per cent were identified from dental records, not from DNA.

[RH]

130. humans' dna survives

is not correct

One passenger was not positively identified.

30 per cent were identified from dental records alone.

[RH]

142. you cannot break even

So it would be wrong then to expect aircraft parts to survive recognisably intact?

[LARED]

75. Well that certainly

cleared things up. :shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug:

[jmcgowanjm]

74. you're right Lared about Weirton

Hell, in this economy, it's probably been
put out of commission.

This is the idea I meant to convey.

[MercutioATC]

106. Depends on proximity to a cell tower.

We've actually contacted pilots by personal cell phone when their radios failed.

[reorg]

107. sounds interesting

could you please elaborate on that?

What is the rate of success with such calls?

Does it depend on the height and/or velocity of the plane?

Did you get through even if the plane was flying over highly populated areas with a close network of transmission towers?

IOW are you claiming that the tests reported on at the cited website are bogus?

I'm really curious.

[MercutioATC]

108. I've personally never had to use that method, but I'm planning

to talk with some people at work to see if I can get some specifics.

From what I know about cell technology, the following seems to make sense:

1) Height (in the form of vertical range from the tower would onviously have something to do with reception. If you're at 35,000 feet, you're roughly 7 miles away from the tower even if you're directly on top of it.

2) I can't where speed would make a difference (those radio waves are MUCH faster than an airplane) other than that it could cause problems when the phone switched from tower to tower as the plane flew along.

3) There are different trchnologies at work here...anamlg or digital phones? CDMA, TDMA, or GSM transmission technologies? There are a LOT of variables that weren't allowed for in the cellphone "Test" that was linked to here.

I'm not saying that the "test" was bogus. It's conclusions were akin to me driving a Honda Civic and a Chevy Cavalier and, from that limited testing, concluding that no car in the world operates at over 100mph or has room to carry large boxes. Interesting experiment, but hardly a repesentative sampling of available technologies.

I'll keep the thread updated on what I find out about calls that actually worked at altitude.

[Abe Linkman]

109. Is there any way to confirm that? Radios failed? Really?

I've never heard of that happening, but I'm not saying it hasn't or doesn't. How could WE confirm that you (or other ATCs) have used cell phones to contact pilots?

[MercutioATC]

113. I'l try to get more info. I've never used that method myself.

And yes, radios DO fail if that was your question.

I'd also be interested in knowing exactly what technology the Airphones use. I mean, we know THEY work at altitude.

On edit:

http://www.claremont.org/writings/precepts/20010921ponzi.html

A link that (like others) states that passengers weren't using cell phones, but the GTE Airphones that were on the plane. That would remove one area of doubt....

[Abe Linkman]

115. You have evidence that all those radios "failed" on 9-11? If so,

do you also have evidence or reason to believe they were helped to fail?

And, do you have any personal knowledge of an ATC calling a pilot on a cell phone or vice versa?

Has an ATC tower released either a tape of the calls or evidence of radio failures or cell phone records of calls?

In other words, come on. If you aren't in the Choir, don't act like it.

[MercutioATC]

119. I didn't SAY that the radios failed on 9/11...

They didn't, as a matter of fact. We have tapes proving it.

I know that we have had contact with private pilots by cell phone on extremely rare occasions because the plane's radios had failed. I'll try to get more info when I get back to work.

To the best of my knowledge, the FAA hasn't released any tapes of this type. Actually, it's pretty much a non-issue for most people so there'd be no reason for the FAA to consider releasing tapes. Specifically:

1) No tapes of calls have been released as far as I know.

2) We don't have "evidence" of radio failures, but they do happen occasionally. Up until a few years ago, we had semi-regular troubles with our transmitters/recievers at my facility which would result in short periods of lost radio contact. I don't know that we keep records on aircraft radio failures, but anybody can tell you it DOES happen occasionally.

3) The FAA wouldn't have the cell phone records of pilots, so we couldn't possibly release them.

You're really hung up on this "Choir" stuff, aren't you?

[Abe Linkman]

122. We just have to take your word for it all, right?

The FAA keeps no records of anything that would support what you are claiming, correct?

When radios on large airliners fail, you said ATC communicates with the pilots via cell phone. Do you know of any evidence that would support this claim? (cell phone records of the FAA? logs? anything? have you ever heard of any written articles in newspapers or professional publications about what you are claimin?) You seem to have a "thing" for making outrageous claims. That's why I said what I did about the Choir.

[MercutioATC]

125. Ok, be specific and I'll try to respond...

I stated that pilots and controllers have communicated by phone (land line for us, cell phone for pilot) in the past on rare occasions. I also stated that I'd try to get more specific info when I go back to work (it's my weekend right now). To answer the questions you seem to raise:

1) Since WE'RE not using cell phones, no record would be on any "cell phone records of the FAA".

2) As far as logs or newspaper articles, it's nothing we consider to be a big deal. We only log certain things, usually for either legal purposes (crashes) or because the users ask us to (like time spent in holding). Honestly, we talk to over 3 million flights a year...we can't possibly log every little minor occurrance.

I'd be interested in an example of my ""thing" for making outrageous claims". I'm just relating how we do what we do and how the equipment works.

[Abe Linkman]

127. all right. fair enough.

You seem like a reasonable person, and I don't think your motives are sinister. Just sounds like you believe what you have been told by the major media (and possibly your bosses).

I'm sure you realize that most people here are here because they don't believe the Official Story and they want to try to understand what really happened, whose behind it, and all the rest.

This stuff about radios going out and so forth is a little much, though.
Also, I'm surprised that you would think that people here wouldn't believe that participants in something as terrible as 9-11 coudn't keep their mouths shut.

As a supporter of the Official Story, YOU ought to know better than that. After all, other than the one alleged tape where Osama bin Patsy says something about where one of the planes hit the WTC; we haven't heard ONE word out of any of what would have to be a large number of "terrorists" involved in plotting, planning, and carrying out the 9-11 actions. None of THEM have talked, have they? They've kept their silence.

And, isn't there supposedly a big reward offered for info on capturing binLaden? And still, no one is talking? (at least none we know about)

[RH]

138. Are there no rules

to prevent an ATC controller from using a cell phone to call to or from an aircraft?

Semms odd given that under many regimes passengers are severely punished for attempting to do the same.

[MercutioATC]

147. We don't use cell phones - we use a regular phone to call a pilot's cell

Actually, cell phones don't work in much of our building - too much eletronic interference.

"to ...an aircraft" - nobody's ever been punished for this as far as I know. Calling an aircraft from the ground causes no problems.

"from an aircraft" - A cell phone (not a GTE Airphone) can possibly cause problems with the plane's communications or navigational systems. Calling from an aircraft can result in punishment.

Actually, the whole point may be moot. Initial reports may have talked about cell phones, but later reports seem to talk about the GTE Airphones that are installed on the plane (which we know can contact the ground). The whole "cell phone" thing may have just been sloppy reporting.

[RH]

155. may have just been sloppy reporting

So there is no worry then about cell phones interfering with electronics at the ATC end?

Calling to an aircraft per se would cause no problem but calling to a cell phone with the expectation of receiving an answer presumably would.

There is no doubt in my mind that radio channels interfere with each other even when the official line is that they don't; living under a flight path from Heathrow I've heard aircraft tranmissions picked up by an ordinary domestic radio suppposed to be receiving nothing but an ordinary BBC radio broadcast frequency!


Re sloppy reporting, I concur.

:toast:

The continual avalanche of imaginative speculation two years after the event tells a tale of its own, of the extent of the failure to diligently chase down the issues. Investigative journalism if it ever existed did so before the advent of the fax machine. 'Investigation' nowadays tends to extend no further than to phone for a quick quote.

What an appalling farce resulted from but one article in the Washington Post, hence "plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people..." hence the endlessly misquoted or misinterpreted versions of what was nothing more than hearsay to begin with!

[MercutioATC]

163. Update:

No luck finding anybody who has actually contacted a pilot by cell phone, but we have a controller with whom I spoke today that used to dispatch for a major commercial carrier. When they needed to contact the pilots they occasionally used standard pagers that all of the pilots wore.

[Abe Linkman]

164. Lots of people use pagers. So what?

If we take you at your literal word, it sounds like you're talking about paging a pilot who might have been holed up in a bar.

The issue was the use of cell phone calls, airphone calls, and the lies told about Barbara aka Mrs. Olson supposedly calling her husband to "make sure the world knew some important things."

We had claims about calling pilots on cell phones (or them calling ATC towers, or both). That was supposed to be evidence that Mrs. Ted actually could have made those calls from FL 77.

Now, we're down to paging pilots (presumably in the airport somewhere, but you weren't clear about that, so you might have meant paging them up there in the Big Bird.). It doesn't really matter.

We know that the pilots didn't call or page anyone, and most people who have read much about this crucial element of the conspiracy, have long ago concluded that it was a fairy tale.

Others are welcome to believe what they wish. I just wish those who know better, would stop trying to do a number on the rest of us. I can't believe anyone would still be pedaling BS because they're being paid to come on DU and do just that. But, I could be wrong.

[MercutioATC]

167. You're an aggressive little conspiracist, aren't you?

I SAID it wasn't usually done. It'll probably take me some time to locate somebody who's actually called a pilot's call phone in flight at altitude. Sheesh...I don't know what YOU do for a living, but imagine something that virtuallt never happens and then imagine me demanding immediate proof. Not so easy, is it?

You can take my "literal word" on this:

I was talking about paging a pilot in a plane at altitude (not in a bar somewhere) and having that page received. I realize that pagers aren't cell phones, and I said as much in my post.

Lighten up. You're wound WAY too tight.

[Abe Linkman]

169. You're an aggressive little PR spinner, aren't you?

You've get to offer proof of anything relevant, or even a persuasive argument for any aspect of the Official Story Conspiracy.

Why didn't any ATCs page the pilots on 9-11. Oh, wait, I know your answer to that one, too: "how do you know they didn't?". I don't know that they didn't, but I do know they haven't claimed that they did, and I'd like to know why not?

[MercutioATC]

171. Nothing relevant? Nothing persuasive?

Problems with this specific scenario (which is the only one I'm responding to):

1) Too many bodies on the ground from the UAL93 crash.

2) Radar returns of the real flights showing them being diverted to military airports.

3) Radar returns of those flights being flown over the ocean and ditched later that night.

4) Communicatons with UAL93 that show it was hijacked, or at least tht there was a large commotion in the cockpit.

5) Shanksville resident Susan Mcelwain has been shown pictures of an A-10 and said that it was NOT the aircraft she saw.

6) Shooting an aircraft down leaves residue on the pieces of that aircraft. No such residue was found.

7) The scenario is unnecessarily convoluted. Why crash drones into the WTC towers? Why not just covertly modify the actual flights so they can be controlled remotely? Why shoot down UAL93 over land where pieces could be recovered and then deny that you shot it down?

For that matter, why not simplify the entire thing? If you're looking for an excuse for military action in the Middle East, just blow up the WTC towers and blame it on terrorists. Why use aircraft at all?

8) Most importantly, in my opinion, this scenario requires the complicity and subsequent silence of dozens if not scores of people...people who would have agreed to knowingly murder American civilians. I find it very unlikely that this administration would take that chance.

I think most people, even if they somehow disagreed, would find these issues relevant.

[Abe Linkman]

174. The Choir might have an opening

Or, are you already a member?

[MercutioATC]

179. Why not respond to the issues I raise rather that trying to demean me?

Do you have a logical rebuttal to the issues I raise or are you determined to keep up the childish "one of the Choir" rhetoric?

[Abe Linkman]

110. Raises another curious issue: why didn't any pilots use their cell phones

I'm not aware of any claims that any of the 9-11 pilots used their cell phones. Do most of them carry cell phones with them? Have they ever called you from the plane?

Just gets curiouser and curiouser.

[RH]

131. why didn't any pilots use their cell phones?

Perhaps because pilots happen to believe in what they routinely insist upon: The use of cell phones seriously endangers air safety.

[Abe Linkman]

141. too bad no one ever told Barbara whateverhernamewasthen

Or, do you mean to imply that she routinely insisted upon seriously endangered air safety?

[RH]

144. routinely?

I have seen no evidence of any such routine insistence, nor any evidence clearly to the effect that a cell phone (as opposed to an 'air phone') was the instrument in question.

In the mean time then, what is the point of this sort of persistent generation of argument from fantasy?

A more entertaining implication would be that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon accidentally as a direct result of radio interference from the use of a cell phone. You may then at least have the makings of a script for a Hollywood movie spin off.

[Abe Linkman]

146. Routinely: the words and styling of the inimitable DU M.B.E. RH

"Perhaps because pilots happen to believe in what they routinely insist upon: The use of cell phones seriously endangers air safety."

You remember writing that, don't you? How long have you been an M.B.E.?

[MercutioATC]

148. He's right about the Airphone thing, though.

Later articles differed from initial reports in that they claimed passengers used the Airphones installed on planes and not cell phones.

[reorg]

151. not quite true

some calls, e. g. the conversation Beamer had with a phone operator, were reported as airphone calls from early on.

Most articles on the Olson calls including Olson's own account in a Larry King Live interview in December 01 mention cell phones.

[reorg]

154. since I had nothing better to do ...

some quotes and links I found:

from http://answers.google.com/answers/main?cmd=threadview&id=173057

...
“The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) knows from witness accounts
of cell phone conversations with passengers on the hijacked airliners
that the terrorists eluded security measures and used cardboard-box
cutters and razors to take control of the four aircrafts…
United Airlines Flight 93 was airborne by 8:44 a.m., according to
radar logs. At 9:37 a.m., the plane turned south and headed back the
way it came…
Passengers on cell phones learned of the crashes at the World Trade
Center and formulated a plan to respond to the hijackers.”

Source: ‘The Network of Terrorism – The Hijackings’
US Info – International Information Programs
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/terrornet/print/sbhijack.htm


The following are some references of cell phone conversations being
made by passengers on the hijacked airplanes on 9/11.

‘FBI lets Flight 93 families hear tape’
The Washington Times
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020326-89153745.htm

A report from The Associated Press
http://www.achsah.com/fl93.html

Post-Gazette.com
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010920scenenat2p2.asp

SCMP.com
http://special.scmp.com/aua/ZZZKOVCVJRC.html

WWNF Sept11
http://www.wwnfsept11.com/Heroes_Flight93b.htm

CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/03/ar911.phone.calls/

MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.com/news/627214.asp?cp1=1

American Memorials
http://www.americanmemorials.com/memorial/tribute.asp?idMemorial=1320&idContributor=7709

...

Subject: Re: Do Cell Phones work from jets above 30 000 feet?
From: karlon-ga on 25 Mar 2003 15:21 PST
...

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

[jmcgowanjm]

42. The chances of wingtips, tailfin being cremated are zero

So there should be evidence of a large
piece of wing,
or several pieces, large enough
to be clearly identifiable, outside the crash site,
or possibly sitting on top of the rubble. Most likely,
it (they) would have finished up somewhere inside
the courtyard or on a roof. The chance of it finishing
up on top of the rubble would be small, the chance
of being buried under the rubble, negligible, and the
chance of being under the rubble and smashed into
pieces too small to identify, effectively zero.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren/03.htm

[RH]

139. several pieces, large enough

to be clearly identifiable, outside the crash site were discovered.

The 1988 Sandia crash test experiment had already confirmed the likelihood of complete disintegration but recognisable remnants were seen, such as a scorched green oxygen tank marked "Cabin air. Airline use."
http://www.thejournalnews.com/newsroom/091201/12wtcpentagon.html

And why then would the chance of being buried under the rubble be negligible? The damage penetrated into the building to a distance of nearly twice the length of the aircraft, and the experience of extensive destruction of an aircraft by fire was not a novelty. Compare for instance the Boeing 747 at Madras, 5th March 1999.

[shatoga]

69. has acerbic proven Mark Twain right?

"A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get it's boots on. -Mark Twain

See post #65
for "truth as rebuttal" to (IMHO) RNC 'talking points'

[RH]

136. has acerbic proven Mark Twain right?

He didn't have to.

The premise was already proved beyond doubt by Thierry Meyssan.

the plane descended almost vertically, without damaging the streetlamps on the highway?

When are you going to have a go about that sort of disinformation?

[MercutioATC]

90. Sorry, but this is a true "tinfoil hat" scenario.

There are just too many potential failure points in your theory. I believe in a benign LIHBA scenario (this administration was just too stupid to listen and Let It Happen By Accident).

Believe what you wish, but as an aviation professional, I can tell you that the chances of things happening in the way you describe them are remote.

[HarryLime]

93. Oh?

"There are just too many potential failure points in your theory."

Name a few then.

[MercutioATC]

99. Damn near ALL of it, actually..

The biggest problem being a new invention we call RADAR. You can't move planes around like that without generating radar returns.

The part about the passengers from the other 3 planes being transferred to UAL93 would have left too many bodies on the ground.

The scenario as described would involve a very large number of conspirators. Keeping them all quiet afterwards would be unlikely.

The entire scenario is simply preposterous. Anybody with a basic knowledge of aviation knows that.

[Abe Linkman]

100. Would you kindly explain the reasoning behind your odd position?

too many bodies on the ground.scenario as described would involve a very large number of conspirators Keeping them all quiet afterwards would be unlikely. entire scenario is simply preposterous. Anybody with a basic knowledge of aviation knows that.

Many people whose scenarios I've read, seem to have studied the subject much more in depth than you have (one reason I say that is they don't make sweeping statements as you have done here)...and so I'm curious about all those "bodies on the ground" (are you aware of any news articles which spoke of bodies on the ground?).

Regarding the number of conspirators; are you referring to the alleged Arab conspirators of Caveman Osama? btw - I believe I remember you said that you are an Air Traffic Controller, but it doesn't really matter --- don't you realize there are many, many conspiracies carried out every day of the week by literally thousands of people...from your local cops, to the DEA, FBI, Armed Forces, on and on and on. Thousands. Day in and day out. Only rarely does someone talk, and when they do, they pay a very high price (you know the name Kelly?).

I'll accept your word if you say that you have a basic knowledge of aviation; but that has nothing to do with the plausibility of a 9-11 conspiracy, does it? Whether that conspiracy is the Official Version conspiracy allegedly masterminded by a man with a pair of bad kidneys, in a cave somewhere in reallyreallybadistan, or something even more plausible like an updated "Operations Northwood".

Please, if the best you can do is "bump and run," save your time, and your basic knowledge of aviation, and just head on back to Choir practice.

[MercutioATC]

102. I didn't "bump and run" on this in DU1...I'm not doing it here.

When planes crash with people on board, bodies (or, usually, parts of bodies) are found at the crash site. You don't think that having 4 times as many parts as there should be would raise some questions? (In reference to the statement that the passengers and crew from the other 3 flights were loaded onto UAL93 and then shot down by a fighter).

I'm referring to the U.S. government conspirators...the ones making mock-ups of all of these planes, "diverting" the real flights to military airports, loading passengers and crew from one aircraft to another, etc. This scenario seems pretty labor-intensive to me. I didn't say that NO conspiracies are ever successful, I just stated that THIS one relies on a LOT of people keeping their mouths shut.

I DO believe that the administration knew more than they've told us. I don't, however, believe that the planes were crashed by our government. I DO believe that it was a terrorist act that was successful because our government chose to ignore certain intelligence, for whatever reason.

This theory asks us to:

1) Believe that ATCs disregarded primary radar data on their scopes and investigators either missed or ignored these same targets.

2) Believe that nobody realized there were too many bodies at the PA crash site.

3) Believe that a great many military personnel knowingly participated in the murder of hundreds of American citizens and never said a word to anybody about it.

I just find it highly unplausible that ALL of these things happened EXACTLY as planned (hence my statement about there being too many possible failure points).

I'd also like to stress that while most of the writer's comments about how the targets could be made to "swap" is possible, it' not easy to do. Regardless, you'd still see 2 targets both before and after the merge. It's unrealistic to think that this would be overlooked in an investigation.

Hey, believe what you want, but the scenario is actually much more difficult than the writer presents. People who know aviation are better able to see this, because they have first-hand knowledge of how the systems in question work. Hell, I COULD be wrong about this, but everything I know about ATC shows this to be a real stretch.

[Abe Linkman]

104. It required a lot more than just "ignoring some intelligence"

for the 9-11 attacks to happen. ACTIONS had to have been taken...even if those actions were nothing more than ordering people to NOT carry out standard policies.

You have less faith and belief in what Governments are willing to do, than me. Governments allow attacks (Pearl Harbor), lie about attacks (Gulf of Tonkin), engage in attacks (Liberty ship off Israel), set up other people to take the fall for attacks (Reichstag fire, JFK murder), etc. Haven't you ever read about any of these, and the many more that have been written about?

You work for the Gov't, so you have a stake in defending it. Like the Choir members here, you've come to believe that you can sort of have it both ways by saying 9-11 is the result of incompetence or negligence. If that's your position, you should give a lot more detail than merely making the claim without explaining it.

[MercutioATC]

105. I'm not tlaking about possibility, I'm thaking about probability.

Of COURSE the scenario is possible (assuming absolutely perfect execution and a lot of luck). It's just extremely improbable.

I don't believe our government would lie to us if they saw the slightest benefit in doing so. I believe there are most likely 9/11 facts that have been withheld from us and others that have been manipulated to paint a more favorable picture of how the government handled the situation.

Yes, I work for the government. My viewpoint has less to do with having in interest in protecting the government than having been exposed to some of the situations and procedures discussed by the writer and knowing how they work. I've SEEN what happens when something goes wrong and I believe (as far as lack of adherence to procedures) that it had everything to do with lack of preparedness, not some far-reaching, shadowy conspiracy. I don't feel that this is "trying to have it both ways", I feel it's the most probable explanation.

Contrary to your claim, I feel that I DID provide detail explaining my views. I talked specifically about body counts, the problems with large conspiracies, and the difficulty in manipulating the flaws in the equipment we use. I'm simply relating the point of view of somebody with experience in operating the systems in question. Most people have no idea how our equipment or procedures work. Some do a lot of research but never talk to controllers, pilots or technicians to verify the plausibility of their conclusions (as is the case here, I believe).

I'm just teling you that the writer is seriously downplaying the difficulty level involved. He's also making assumptions with which I'm unwilling to agree. As I said, believe what you will, but this scenario is a real stretch.

[Abe Linkman]

111. Rescuers weren't told how many bodies to expect

Why would a "large" number of bodies surprise the rescue folks? After all, it WAS a large airliner, so they (and we) would have normally expected a full or fairly full planeload.

[MercutioATC]

112. Do you think they just throw the parts in the trash??? They catalog them.

Even if on-the-scene workers didn't know how many people were on the plane, investigators would. THAT would definitely raise a flag (to put it mildly).

[Abe Linkman]

114. No reason why it necessarily raise a flag.

First of all, they didn't know that FL 93 (like the others involved) had an oddly low number of passengers that day (which WOULD raise a flag in the minds of those who know what our Gov't is capable of); and secondly, the "investigators" may have been told what to say to any nosy reporters.

[MercutioATC]

118. Ummm..but they DO keep records of what they found there...

and we DO now know how many people were on UAL93. So even if it was weeks later, don't you think somebody would say "Hmmm...the body parts of 200 people were found...how many were on the passenger list again?"

I mean, come on. These people can count...

[Abe Linkman]

123. Question your premise.

Actually, "somebody" may well have said that...and then immediately figured out they'd better shut up and never repeat it.

[MercutioATC]

124. Again, possible, but I question that EVERYBODY could be quieted.

That's what I meant by "possible failure points" in an earlier post. With SO many people involved, it's be difficult to keep things quiet.

Why WAS the whole passenger-switching thing part of the scenario anyway? The theory works better without it.

[RH]

145. somebody" may well have said that...

may well have?

Would those then be the sort of folk you mix with, Abe?

Wouldn't want to live there.

It seems to tell us something about Abe Linkman, something about the society he lives in, but nothing as a matter of fact about the incident in question.

So why then bother?

Is that sort of talk seriously supposed to convince us or what?

[RH]

137. an oddly low number of passengers that day?

Where are your statistics to prove this assertion?

If you can show that the four planes in question were the only ones of many thousands on that day with a light load you then have a valid argument but is the same demonstrably so? From what I can gather lightly loaded planes were not so unusual during the summer of 2001.

[RH]

143. a real stretch.

That's a very generous assessment!

Is there not a bit more to all this, a seriously disturbing moral aspect?

I discern fantasies presented as fact.

I discern a persistent ignorance presented as insight and with no sign of shame when shown to be wrong.

I discern supposed facts presented as if to be relied upon that are just plain wrong.

I discern a willful determination to avoid or to misrpresent arguments or issues alongside hypocritical accusations to the effect that others do exactly the same.

[Abe Linkman]

156. Maybe a stretch, RH; but O.Version defenders do it unceasingly.

Those who want us to believe that a fairy tale is actually a true story, go through a whole raft of rhetorical and fallacious devices; and it works with a lot of people.

[RH]

158. want us to believe?

So where then would your reason or evidence be with due respect to what anybody wants anybody to believe?

:eyes:

Or would I perhaps be allowed to form my own judgement as to what I want anybody to believe, or with regard for instance to the extent that Abe Linkman continually resorts to rhetorical and fallacious devices as opposed to anything more convincing in terms of evidence?

[Abe Linkman]

159. I'll think about granting your request .

You will first have to demonstrate a better grasp of deep history, the historical truth of conspiracies carried out by the U.S. Gov't against its own people - starting with the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans, the 200+ year conspiracy to aid and abet in the enslavement of millions of Africans, the 300 year conspiracy to demonize African Anericans as criminals, degenerates, and less-than-human "animals" who deserved the unspeakable horror imposed on them by their own Government.

Gov't conspiracies have a very long history in this country. Yours, too. But, as I said, I'll consider granting your request to form your own judgment about reality; but only have you have demonstrated a grasp of the deeply dark history of Government conspiracies.

After all, we supposedly have a custom of tolerating all points of view, and you certainly aren't the only person who is unable or unwilling to think the unthinkable.

[RH]

160. That's nice.

And because then of what should anybody be thought to owe anything at all to your sorrily contemptuous pomposity? Just who the hell for instance do you think you are, Linkman, to presume so much?

On principle I deny no conspiracy. I have merely invited you, and on many occassions, to prove your assertions. Your constant resort to ad hominems and irrelevancies only serves then to highlight your inablity to expressly do so. All we get instead are the same old signs of an unfettered imagination prejudicially attached to a very big mouth prone mostly to repeat itself ad infinitum.

[Abe Linkman]

165. Just the facts, ma'am.

You really ought to try reading more about all this. It might help you get beyond your paranoia and desire to be pompous. It's obvious that you are committed to trying to sell something that stinks to high heaven. If you would bother to study the subject, you might change your tune.

[RH]

172. No

:eyes:

I am not committed in any way to selling anything at all.

You are deluded.

Ever heard of 'projection'?

The paranoia is all yours.

I did long since spend a lot of time reading.

How else would you think that my compilation of eye witness reports and 'Spot the Lamp Poles' came about?

[Abe Linkman]

175. Hearsay, and worse

" How else would you think that my compilation of eye witness reports and 'Spot the Lamp Poles' came about?"

Those reports have long been shown to be unreliable, contradictory, and subject to wide interpretations. Didn't anyone tell you that you were being toyed with by people with a hidden agenda? Eyewitness testimony is about as reliable as your claim of being merely a truthseeker.

[RH]

177. Didn't anyone tell you....?

Yes they did.


But I preferred to think and to look for myself, happening to appreciate that eyewitness accounts are a good more valid than the wild imaginings of others who were never anywhere near to the scene.

Upon examination the "didn't anyone tell you" turned out to be a lot of deceptively ignorant crap, just like Thierry Meyssan's "plane descended almost vertically, without damaging the streetlamps on the highway."

Who was toying with who on that account?

Amazingly some still cling to the fiction.

I was also told for instance that my claim that the alleged witness Winslow "lives across the street" is pure fabrication.
It was not afabrication. It happened to have been the fact of the matter.

And was I thus supposed to be impressed by these types, by their habitually invented libels, disseminated as a false gospel to suit their own bigotted agendas?


I could go on and on but why, I ask myself, should I bother?

[MercutioATC]

181. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable?

...like the woman who saw a white aircraft near the crash of UAL93? THAT kind of eyewitness?

[Abe Linkman]

183. Eyewitness testimony is the worst

Totally unreliable. Go to just about any legal site on the web, ask any lawyer, read even a little bit. Eyewitness testimony is unbelievable.

I'm surprised you don't know that. RH doesn't seem to know it either. We can let the others speak for themselves (lared, bolo, acerbic, anablep).

[MercutioATC]

184. Actually, this is something (maybe the ONE thing) we agree on...

.

[RH]

188. Eyewitness testimony is worse than what?

Worse for instance than the forensic evidence, e.g. the positively identified passengers on board the planes?

Ask any lawyer. Or did you ever sit on a jury? How many criminal cases are decided from eye witness testimony alone because there is nothing else to judge from? Fortunately, on September 11th 2001, that was not the case. In view an abundance of other evidence the point of the argument is difficult to appreciate to begin with.

Nevertheless the simple fact remains, more than two years after the event, that there is still not as much as one
single eye witness or on the scene investigator at the Pentagon event therefore known to have harboured the slightest doubt about what hit the building.

If that assertion is not true, as a simple matter of
fact, then let us please have the name of an eye witness or an on the
scene investigator willing to say so.

[Abe Linkman]

191. Worse than no eyewitness testimony

Ask any lawyer. You are way out of your league on this one. Ask your fellow Choir members. If you, RH don't have immediate access to a lawyer in your section, ask someone who does.

You really should stick to things you know something about.

[RH]

196. That's as pathetic as it is ridiculous.

:puke:

You should take some time out, Linkman; get yourself a psychiatric assessment.

With due respect to your deperate ad hominem, I happen to have immediate access to several lawyers. I have also sat as a foreman of a jury. I have also had occassion to act for myself in Courts of Law.

[Abe Linkman]

199. Eyewitness testimony is so unreliable that even RH doesn't deny it

Of course, no knowledgeable person would deny it.

You say that you acted for yourself in "Courts of Law." In other words, you had a fool for a client.

[HarryLime]

101. the uniformed opinion

"The biggest problem being a new invention we call RADAR."

That's clever.

"You can't move planes around like that without generating radar returns."

Oh, yes you can. Why don't you read more about what is proposed before offering another opinion?

[MercutioATC]

103. See my reply above, HarryLime.

I HAVE read the explanation. I also work with these systems daily and know that it's not as simple as the writer presents. Relaay it IS all about the radar. Hell, we can see bunches of mylar birthday balloons. It's hard to think we'd miss a commercial airliner.

[shatoga]

116. FOX weather shows rainclouds/ who puts transponders on them

If NORth american Air Defence command (NORAD)
was unable to track jumbo jets on 9/11...
"because their' transponders were turned off".

If Weather radar shows migrating geese and rain clouds....
who puts transponders on those geese and the rain clouds?

The lies are so obvious!

How can any rational person believe the Bush lies?

Post one was mostly not my words.
Just an attempt by someone who doesn't even know I exist;
to construct a plausible explanation for the events of 9/11.
Because Lord knows (and so should all of us)
The Bush version of 9/11's events is not supported by any of the evidence.

thesis*1:
that Project Mongoose- appendix A
Northwoods- Operational Plan;
explains all events, fits all evidence, and explains all anomalies of 9/11.

Refute that thesis *1 instead of just another personal attack.

and/or present evidence to support the Bush lies,
instead of just trashing anyone who seeks a credible explanation.

[shatoga]

117. DIS-information Specialists

source:
http://emfx13.proboards17.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&num=1063658070

8 traits of the disinformationialist:
(excerpts only)
>Eight Traits of The Disinformationalist

1. Avoidance
2. Selectivity
3. Coincidental
4. Teamwork
5. Anti-conspiratorial
6. Artificial Emotions
7. Inconsistent
8. Newly Discovered: Time Constant
< (one!)

>4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams.< (two!)

>5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and,...Ask yourself why,
if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists,
do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies?
One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic,
or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.
Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions
in going out of their way to focus as they do.
< (three!/ entirely within rules!)

[RH]

134. Yawn Yawn Yawn.

One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic?

:eyes:

Seems rather to me that it would all depend upon the extent of your own paranoia or prejudice.

Why would one not, alternatively, for instance, hope merely to be understood to hope to rescue others from their folly? Would that be such a sin?

:think:

[MercutioATC]

120. I'm not addressing NORAD's supposed limitations.

I'm telling you what I know about how the system works. Of course we can "see" airplanes whether their transponders are on or not (unless they're designed not to). What hapens when an airplane turns off its transponder is that the symbol used to show the actual aircraft on our scopes changes to a different symbol and the data tag (a little attatched "paragraph" of info on the plane that moves with the radar target) stops moving with the target. This is because the computer uses the discrete beacon code being transmitted by the plane to identify the flight. The computer then attatches the data tag and will make the tag follow the plane. If the transponder stops broadcasting that code, the computer has no idea where that flight is any more (but the raw radar return will still show on the scope).

As far as the rest of your post, I thought I WAS discussing the scenario and showing why certain parts of it were implausible. I don't recall making any personal attacks against you or other posters. Why are you so resistant to learning more about how the system actually works?

[shatoga]

121. thank you for an honest on topic response

Rare and precious are honest responses amid the flurry of personal attacks and attempted diversions from the topic.



No criticism of your post.

I only wish all replies had been as intelligent and honest.
thanks!

Post #1 was just a possible scenario to an event which the official version totally fails to explain.

Yes,
I agree radar transponder tags make ATC jobs easier.

Turning off a transponder caused Military jets to scramble during the Clinton years.
Why not on 9/11?

[RH]

135. Turning off a transponder caused Military jets to scramble

on every such occassion?

If that is the premise, is it then seriously possible to substantiate the assertion?

[MercutioATC]

150. Transponders fail on a regular basis.

Simply having a transponder fail does NOT constitute anything unusual, nor do we contact the military regarding every failed transponder.

The combination of events on 9/11 constituted much more than that, though, which is why the military was contacted.

I don't want everybody to think that simply losing a transponder is an odd thing and requires contacting the military.

[RH]

133. It's hard to think we'd miss a commercial airliner...

Nevertheless, was it not the case that what was later assumed to have been Flight 77 was not positively recognised as such when the moot blip was at first discovered on ATC radar?

To what extent then is an aircraft routinely recognisable to ATC from radar alone, without a transponder?

[MercutioATC]

149. Well, it requires an explanation...

"To what extent then is an aircraft routinely recognisable to ATC from radar alone, without a transponder?"

None. However, if it's caught either when or shortly after it happens, we can just watch the target that used to have a tag on it. We would, however, get no speed or altitude information.

Regardless, an investigation would allow a review of the tapes. Knowing which plane turned its transponder would allow constant surveillance of that one plane and there'd be no problem maintaining its identity.

[Abe Linkman]

152. Why are commercial pilots even allowed to turn off transponders?

I'm sure there must be a good reason for this, but at first glance, it doesn't seem like they should be able to do that.

[MercutioATC]

153. 1) to change to the beacon code, 2) to turn them off when they land

3) to turn off one and use the other (commercial aircraft carry 2) if one malfunctions.

[Abe Linkman]

157. So it's only for a brief moment.

Correct? How long do ATCs wait before doing something when the transponder isn't turned back on?

[shatoga]

161. How long do ATCs wait before doing something

Normally they don't wait.
But when the PResident has ordered a military stand down.

Long enough for Operation Northwoods to succeed or so all available evidence proves.

[MercutioATC]

162. Actually, untrue.

We're usually talking to the plane when the transponder fails and we let them know about it. If they have a backup, they try it. Even if they never get it working, we just keep an eye on their primary radar traget and sort of manually track it to their destination.

If we're NOT talking to them, yes, it raises some concerns. You have to understand that actions we would take pre-9/11 are not the same as today. Pre-9/11 we would have tried to contact the plane via their company first. If that was unsuccessful, we would have continued to track the plane to its destination. Today, obviously, we'd notify the military.

[Abe Linkman]

166. Procedures weren't folllowed. On purpose. That's MIHOP, my friend.

"Pre-9/11 we would have tried to contact the plane via their company first."

Why wasn't that done? Wait, wait, I know: "how do you know that wasn't done?" Did I guess right?

[MercutioATC]

168. Believe what you will. The reason 9/11 happened is:

complacency.

We had never had an attack like this and we weren't prepared for it. If you work in the real world, you'll appreciate that there may be some obscure procedures that nobody's ever used for various circumstances. How well do you expect these to be executed in the event that the real situation arises?

We weren't prepared for this. The culture treated minor problems as harmless. Sure, we know better now, but before 9/11, we operated under an entirely different mindset.

I'm even willing to consider a LIHOP situation, but this particular theory has a few too many holes in it for my liking. I'm not arguing that there wasn't ANY conspiracy. I'm stating that if you know anything about how air traffic works, this scenario makes no sense. I've tried to present a view that most people don't get...that of a person who works with this system daily.

You have every right to believe what you will regardless of how it flies in the face of logic. The only reason I post to these threads is that I believe there are people who aren't fully aware of how the system works and I feel that showing them the procedures and workings of the equipment would help them make an informed decision.

I still say this is one of the more bizarre and inmpausible scenarios I've seen.

[Abe Linkman]

170. Things don't just happen because of an attitude.

They happen because something causes them to happen. In the case of 9-11, conspiracists actively did things that resulted in people like you apparently feeling the need to retreat to a state of denial and diversion, because the truth is too uncomfortable, even for an ATC person who doesn't know very much at all about the events of 9-11.

[MercutioATC]

173. Conspiracists, yes. American conspiracists, no.

I'm not denying a conspiracy. The terrorists must assuredly conspired to do this. I even believe that our government conspired to keep some of the facts from us, for whatever reasons.

I still maintain that there are far too many problems with this scenario to make it plausible. Plausibility is, however, an individual thing. People believe in all sorts of odd things that aren't plausible to most.

I can say from experience in working with the radar and computer systems in question that the author grossly understates the difficulty in "swapping" targets. I can say that there was a commotion in the cockpit of UAL93 some time before it crashed (which wouldn't have happened if it was shot down as the author claims).

I believe that this administration is dishonest. I don't, however, believe that they're this stupid. WHY would they go through so much work when they could simply plant explosives in the WTC towers and blame it on terrorists?

The simplest explanation IS usually true. Terrorists hijacking the aircraft in question IS the simplest explanation (and the one that makes the most sense). Our governement simply has no motive for making things this complicated.

[Abe Linkman]

176. Thank you for your opinion, and have a nice day.

n/t

[MercutioATC]

182. Nice dismissal...how about a response instead?

You have no rebuttal to the issues I raise?

[MercutioATC]

202. That's what I thought...

You're great when people buy into your particular view, but you want nothing to do with critical review.

Look, I wish you the best in your little movement. No hard feelings. Carry on.

[shatoga]

178. actually TRUE as payne Stewart's flight proved beyond any doubt

Your post show total lack of awarness of standard operational procedures in place in 1999.

>We're usually talking to the plane when the transponder fails and we let them know about it.<
When Payne Stewart's plane failed to respond, or say: IF THE PLANE HAS BEEN HIJACKED!

>If we're NOT talking to them, yes, it raises some concerns.<
Absolutely!
Pre-9/11 the military was notified and planes were eyeballed by military pilots, as the Payne Stewart event proves beyond any doubt!



>You have to understand that actions we would take pre-9/11 are not the same as today. Pre-9/11 we would have tried to contact the plane via their company first. If that was unsuccessful, we would have continued to track the plane to its destination. Today, obviously, we'd notify the military.<

On
Tuesday, October 26, 1999
the military was notified within 17 minutes
and 5 National Guard jets followed Payne Stewart's flight until it crashed.

(just disproved the entire paragraph above)

Any statement to the contrary is arguing against established facts and not to be believed:
(your above for example)

A lie must be supported by at least some truth to be credible.

I hope you are merely badly misinformed or severly deluded.

Otherwise?

Payne Stewart's October 26, 1999 flight proves the military was routinely notified by Air Traffic Controllers,
and responded with interceptors when a flight lost contact with the tower.

The conclusions are obvious.

I've posted honest truths.

You have posted incorrect assertions.
I wish you well;
I hope you are merely badly misinformed or severly deluded.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/golf/pga/news/1999/10/25/stewart_plane_ap/

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/plane102599.html

The historical PROVEN facts are overwhelmingly on my side!

Absent a military stand-down on 9/11/01;
The Military should have performed as usual:
Fighters scrambled to check out hijacked airliners.

Operation Northwoods on 9/11 was impossible without the military stand-down.
Which- BTW/ only the Commander-in-Chief could have ordered.

[MercutioATC]

180. That's not what I said. Had you read my reply, you'd have seen that I was

replying to an assertion that we "don't wait" to contact the military when a transponder fails. I very clearly explained that we did, in fact, wait to make sure that we weren't dealing with a mechanical failure before calling the military.

Payne Stewart's plane was an entirely different case. The pilot had climbed past his assigned altitude and didn't answer ATC calls. His transponder worked the entire time. After repeated unsuccessful attempts to contact the pilot, military aircraft in the area were assigned to investigate. This is MUCH different than a lost transponder, which was the ONLY issue to which I was replying. We are also talking about a 17-minute delay in contacting the military. Even if I WAS responding to an entirely different situation (such as Payne Stewart's crash), you're calling 17 minutes "not waiting"?

I'd also be interested in your definition of a "military stand-down". Exactly what would a "stand-down" consist of?

[shatoga]

185. thank U for a reasoned respectful post/facts disagree on the premis

Payne Stewart and 17 minutes:
>After repeated unsuccessful attempts to contact the pilot, military aircraft in the area were assigned to investigate. <

Now to the meat of our disagreement:
>I'd also be interested in your definition of a "military stand-down". Exactly what would a "stand-down" consist of?<

by anyone's definition "military stand down" consisted of almost two hours of four "hijacked" airliners being flown over several states;
Crashed into buildings;
With absolutely NO Military aircraft in the air trying to find out what was happening or attempting to prevent the 'crashes' into buildings in universally known "no-fly-zones"

Stand-down?
NORAD has been tasked to intercept russian missiles since the 1960's.
Missiles take minutes to reach targets.
Those "hijacked airliners" took over an hour;
"WITH NO ATTEMPTS BY THE US MILITARY TO PREVENT THEM FROM REACHING THEIR TARGETS!


Paying attention yet?

[MercutioATC]

186. I've just heard different definitions...I was curious.

Many seem to think that a "stand down order" is one that tells the military to discontinue all operations. This was not the case on 9/11. True, the decision came woefully late, but military aircraft were sent to (at least) the UAL93 crash site and arrived a short time after the crash.

[Llyr21]

187. Frankly I agree about this particular theory...

That it is not necessary that planes got switcharooed and passengers got shuffled to one aircraft. The idea that everyone was gassed or depressurized to death/unconsciousness and the planes were remotely directed makes much more sense. Nevermind Global hawk or any of that, the technology would be off the shelf in many other ways. And would only require one mechanic to install.

Actually I understand that it only took 5 minutes from the first unanswered call to Payne Stewart's aircraft before NORAD was notified. You talked about no particular problem if a transponder went dead Mr ATC... but what if they DON'T respond to your inquiry??? How long before you declared an emergency?

Here is the real problem.... The official story is that it took over 25 minutes after the transponder went off till ATC notified NORAD. And that information comes from NORAD. Further it is my understanding that everyone in ATC that was involved are prohibited from talking about it. So we REALLY don't know what happened vis a vis an emergency declared by ATC.

Further, The official story is that the FIRST thing that NORAD thought of doing was to scramble ARMED ready alert aircraft (of which we supposedly only had 14 nationwide). Rather than diverting already airborne ANG aircraft for a look see, WHICH IS STANDARD PROCEDURE in such a case (including the case of Payne Stewart's Aircraft).

It All stinks to high heaven when combined with other problems as outlined here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=2909

[demodewd]

192. The Third Pod

But what about the apparent third pod on the plane that crashed the South Tower? Putting that into the mix puts me back into the Operation Pearl scenario with maybe one deviation. That being the Pentagon crash. Maybe the passengers were gassed on the original Flight 77 and then brought down and switched to a plane of similar size with AA markings. That would explain the width requirement to take down the poles and provide the necessary forensic evidence accounting for the alleged passenger casualty list. Also its possible that the "take downs" were remotely controlled with all passengers being gassed before landing. That would eliminate much of the human variable.

[MercutioATC]

195. There was a pilot on DU1 who said it was a shadow of a pod that

belongs there...an antenna pod or something. The angle of the photo and the light made it appear bigger than it was.

[Abe Linkman]

200. Do you have a twin?

n/t

[RH]

190. what would a "stand-down" consist of?

That is a question that I have also had occasion to ask.

Would it not rather be the case that a military plane would usually stay on the ground until such time as ordered to fly for whatever reason? Or were we supposed to imagine that air force fighter jets would routinely take off on their own initiative with the ad hoc intention of shooting down civilian airliners?

The "stand down" notion would appear to be false as a matter of fact in any case. Were we to seriously suppose that there were no military planes anywhere in the skies over the USA? That is clearly not correct. The issue of delay may be open to question but according to the official version the C130 invited to chase the B757 towards the Pentagon had already taken of on a routine flight and fighters from elsewhere were at that time already en route.

[RH]

189. How does one single incident prove a routine?

:shrug:

[shatoga]

193. "show the badge"- "I was never here- this didn't happen

americans desiring desperately to be "in the loop" will lie to cover up whatever they are told.

vicarious thrills from being insiders lets them justify lying to cover up the rightwing attacking america,
and them keeping quiet.

Desparate need to be insiders.
See it at various forums among fanatical pro-administration
posters.
{not THIS forum of course!}

Making someone a party to a crime/ is the best way to enlist their support to cover up that crime.

[Abe Linkman]

194. Conspirators mad sure Bunnypants had guilty knowledge

"Making someone a party to a crime/ is the best way to enlist their support to cover up that crime."

It has been alleged that closed circuit TV was used to show Bunnypants the first WTC attack, and that explains why he claimed he saw it on TV, before the rest of us did. The motivation to do so (if we believe Bunnypants when he says he saw it on TV) was precisely what you said: to give him a guilty knowledge.

btw - I want you to know that many of us here appreciate you for your energy and intelligence in helping us to understand what might have happened on 9-11.

[RH]

198. No he did not

claim he saw it on TV, before the rest of us did.

Views of the first tower on fire were already on TV around the World before he began his stint with the kids.

Nor is it at all unusual for somebody to say they saw an accident when more precisely all they actually saw was the immediate aftermath. I have at times done so myself.

And what, one may wonder, has suddenly become of the much vaunted maxim about the unreliability of eye witness testimony? What is most certainly worse than eye witness testimony is somebody's presumption to be able to ascertain a truth from their own interpretation of it, with no opportunity for cross examination to clarify the matter.

[Abe Linkman]

201. This is hilarious.

Tell us more.

[plaguepuppy]

204. Let me see if I've got this right

Not at all unusual to say "I saw the plane hit the tower and I remember thinking, boy, that guy is a lousy pilot" when more precisely you saw a smoking hole in a building? Happens all the time, dunnit tho?

"What is most certainly worse than eye witness testimony is somebody's presumption to be able to ascertain a truth from their own interpretation of it, with no opportunity for cross examination to clarify the matter."

That's one of the worst written sentences I've seen all year. Are you really trying to say that nobody is entitled to draw any conclusions based on eye-witness reports? That would put a lot of historians out of work, and pretty much eliminate the concept of a deposition.

But rave on, it's a free country for a while yet.

[RH]

206. "Let me see if I've got this right"

Sloppy speech and sloppy reporting are not at all so unusual.

The original G.W.B. quote was more for instance

... And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

If with due respect to the circumstantial facts you interpret that to mean "had hit the Tower" his version is not then so remarkable. Did you see the first live reports on TV? They began by saying that a small plane had accidentally hit the tower. Some speculation then ensued and it was only after the second plane hit that it was clear that something more serious was afoot.

Ergo what I was really trying to say was that it will get you nowhere to continue to rave on as if with some kind of solid proof when in reality you have nothing of the kind. The main effect will rather be to lose the attention of others with more sense and influence.

[Abe Linkman]

207. Whatever you say, ok. But, it sure is funny trying to make sense of it.

n/t

[RH]

197. How does one single incident prove a routine?

:shrug:

How about a pertinent answer?

To prove a routine you should surely have to cite a significant range of separate but similar incidents.

One incident is but a peculiarity, not a routine.

[shatoga]

203. personally/ I don't believe the PEARL scenario is correct

But look at the firestorm created by presenting it.

BTW/ My thanks to DU for presenting this forum;
where theories in search of the truth can be presented, discussed;
(and debunked).

TRUE, Operation Pearl:
Is far more credible than the obvious lies from the Bush administration.


It's just an attempt to explain events in a rational manner.

That's what investigators do:
construct plausible scenarios which explain events.

As my post #185 shows.
I don't either believe bushies nor understand those who do.

The bush-lie went around the world on 9/11 before the truth even got it's boots on.

Now, it seems even trying to find out the truth makes on a target of unremitting attacks.

I trust those with stronger stomachs will keep trying,
The Truth is out there!

Just not coming from the White House.


Remember to put all my comments in context:
I used to be a rightwing Republican and know firsthand how they misrepresent themselves as a matter of habit.

The (R) instructor who trained a dozen of us in 1992 "to make it look like there are more of us than there really are."
Used to quote Lenin:
"...the best way to handle the opposition is to control it ourselves."


My thanks to DU for presenting this forum;
where theories in search of the truth can be presented, discussed;
(and debunked).

[shatoga]

205. However- if only one person has read and learned as a result

http://www.serendipity.li/index.html

there is more truth at the above webite than in the entire AUSA Government/IMWIO

(In My Well Informed Opinion)

http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.html

the rest of the truth

Only 80-90 percent correct/ vs Bush minions zero percent IMWIO

visit/ read/ post your own topics at various forums.
play along to get along or get banned/who cares/
Truth above all!

YES!

Here you go with "What actually happened on 9/11:
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.html#what_actually_happened

(ain't my website!)
Not pushing any agenda but the truth!
Not promoting any websites but asking all to read an post at DU.


Criticism based on biased opinions is not my problem!

Paranoid/you should read my PM's!

[Name removed]

208. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jose Diablo]

209. The DNA from flight 93

What would happen if body parts from passengers on AA11 or UA175 are DNA matched.

Wouldn't that raise a flag? I mean if this scenario was true and passengers from AA11 and UA175 were indeed on flight 93 and the DNA was matched, wouldn't someone wonder how those body parts got to the middle of a field in PA?

For this scenario to be true then the medical examiners would also have to be in on it, or at least the lab doing the matching.

This would raise the number of conspirators to a high level.

I don't believe the official version, but somehow the "Pearl" scenario seems, too complicated. If I were planning something like this, I wouldn't make it anymore complicated than necessary.

The more people involved, the higher risk someone will "find the lord" and spill the beans.

No offense, but think this explanation is bunk and I am one of the first to wear a :tinfoilhat:

[MasterKey]

210. Shatoga, This is indeed about as close to what happened on 911 as can be

I have to admit when I first read Carol Valentines, Flight of the Bumble planes, I blew it off as it seemed too much for me to comprehend.

A few months later I picked at it again and read the whole thing through. It was then I realized some things; The government story is for most of us too much to comprehend. As a matter of fact we can't comprehend it, and it is why our numbers grow daily. A true grass roots movement if I ever saw one.

I also admit I wasn't able to believe Carol Velentines idea, until I had something else established as a fact in my mind; It was the fact that the 767 that crashed into the second tower, had extra equipment on it, a large long tubular pod on the underbelly of the aircraft, off centered and about the width of the wing where it meets the body.

This picture is part of a video Evan Fairbanks took on 911;



When I found this wasn't a shadow, but was and can be found in all of the footage shot that day, from CNN, to ABC or Fox, I finally concluded the obvious; That this aircraft wasn't the same plane, 767, that took off from the airport that morning filled with passengers;

This plane hitting the tower, couldn't have taken off from any public airport with such a monstrosity bolted to it's bottom; It would have been obvious and quickly noticed by ground crews;

It was then that I realized that Flight 175 had to have been switched.

But what was that extra peice of equipment on the bottom of the 767? And what was it's purpose? I found it was a missile pod/canopy, and that this commercial 767 airplane shoots out a missile into the Tower right before impact;

http://www.letsroll911.org

Watch the 3 video's on the index page, in the story;

Fast
Medium
Slow

You will see nothing the first time; Then the second time at medium speed you'll see something, yet its still too fast; The slow speed shows all;

And in case anyone is wondering why the 3 video's are different in small ways at the begginning, it is because the first one was taken off their web server/Camera Planet.com right after 911.
And the other 2 were taken off of their DVD that they sell at Borders and Barnes and Noble. Thats right! Same footage, but from two sources;

And the DVD's they sell at Barnes and Noble actually show the missile, as well as it impacting the building at the same time, about 7-8 feet to the right of the cockpit;



Cheers~
MasterKey :)

[Name removed]

211. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.