Have We Been Mislead About 9/11? Revisited

by JamesThomas 144 Replies latest members politics

• 

  Abaddon

  Jourles

  Anecdotal experiences which I myself have never experienced along with many others, including commercial pilots that say calls cannot be made. Some people say they can, others say they cannot.

  Which is why it is ALL anecdotal ;-)

  The Carnegie study didn't specify if calls were made in mid-flight.

  That's the missing details I'm hoping I can stir up.

  And as I tried to demonstrate earlier, handoffs would be the next major hurdle.

  I got that much although I am a bit out-of-discipline on this topic. However, with a cell per 10 sq miles (as I have read somewhere) then that's c. 6 miles between masts or c. 3 mile radius per cells. Seems very dense but I'll go with it. That would a plane passing directly overhead a cell at 200 mph would have 54 seconds to handshake (as opposed to 21 seconds at 500mph). I infer that they got handoffs at 200 mph, and as 20 seconds seems an eternity in electronic terms maybe 500mph is possible, (although maybe not with certain types of phone) Maybe they DIDN'T get handoffs, they're not clear on it, but as the delta in velocity between the two examples above is 0.0000044802% of the speed of light (and it doesn't even make any difference because (drum roll) it's the speed of light) I can't see why handoff would be impossible just because you're moving faster.

  Of course, there is one very simple solution; the report is in error and ALL calls were made by airfones OTHER than ones made at altitudes we'd (grudgingly) agree calls COULD be made from.

  This has been my theory from the beginning. It would also indicate that not only the official report was in error, but the relatives on the ground who testified to the fact that what they saw on their caller id was false too. If the calls were made strictly from the Airphones, then for what reason would these relatives have to lie? Honestly, I don't think they intentionally lied about it. But I can only come to the conclusion that they were in a state of panic which caused them to mentally link a phone call from the plane as equivalent to a cell phone call

  Was there any relative report that stated this verbatim? Or was it their assumption that "Bert has a cellphone he called me from a plane why would he use expensive airfone when he has cellphone?" I now want to fly and try...
• 

  acsot

  (just a test to see if I can post to this thread or not, I couldn't yesterday, which is why Jourles had to do it for me)
• 

  JamesThomas

  I posted this on another 9/11 thread. However it is just as pertinent to this one:

  There is a new 1 1/2 hour documentary entitled 9/11 Press For Truth. Which has just been released and available in a fairly high definition on Google here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083&q=press+for+truth&hl=en

  I recommend all who can, watch it to the end. It comes at this whole thing from a different angle. I feel it is very well done. Following is how the Home website describes it:

  Following the attacks of September 11th, a small group of grieving families waged a tenacious battle against those who sought to bury the truth about the event?including, to their amazement, President Bush. In ?9/11 PRESS FOR TRUTH?, six of them, including three of the famous ?Jersey Girls?, tell for the first time the powerful story of how they took on the greatest powers in Washington?and won!?compelling an investigation, only to subsequently watch the 9/11 Commission fail in answering most of their questions.

  Note: it is pretty high def. and so may require some time to download a sufficient amount (on "pause") so that it operates smoothly.

  j
• 

  Abaddon

  JamesThomas

  Rather than expecting us to watch 1 1/2 hours of what (based on the Duck Paradigm) is probably Conspiracist Bull, why don't you actually tell us what new information is in it?

  As you may have noticed, there are perfectly adequate reasons for the collapse of 1, 2, 7 WTC due to impact on 1 & 2 WTC by passenger planes.

  The steel didn't have to melt, the beams sagged as you'd expect them to at the temperatures they reached, put a sideways load on the perimeter columns they were never built to take, and eventually caused failure and global collapse. Failing permeter columns and pancaking floors sound like explosions and compress air in lower stories causing ejection plumes.

  7 WTC was extensively damaged by the debris from the collapse of the WTC. There is photographic evidence of this and of the fires which ragd unchecked inside. It was so badly damaged sensors set-up by firefighters warned them it was going to collapse hours before it did.

  None of the above is consistent with demolition claims.

  Likewise the damage to the Pentagon is entirely consistent with a passenger plane impact. The dishonesty of those who claim otherwise is sickening (or their credulity laughable, you chose). The damage to the interior colums is ENTIRELY consistent with a passenger plane impact. The DOZENS of people who saw it fly over the freeway (compared to the handful who THOUGHT they saw something different) make continued denial of this by Conspiracists beyond reason.

  The other plane also crashed as one would expect it to from the offcial story, and Conspiracist claims that the crater or debris spread prove otherwise are simply deceptive due to the selective use of data in making those claims.

  The planes involved ARE missing, the passengers on them have never been seen since (outside of ziplock bags). The passenger lists 'discrepancies' are easily explicable.

  Every single piece of Conspiracist nonsense relating to the above aired on this board has been refuted or shown to be no proof of a Conspiracy. Many pieces of Conspiracist nonsense have been shown to be lies, pseudoscience, arguments from personal indredulity, lies (deliberate repitition), convenient collections of selective quotes or accounts with carefully ommitted data, or just plain-old muddled thinking.

  Please point out anything THUS FAR posted on this thread that doesn't fall in the above description, and tell me what new evidence there is to refute the above.

  Otherwise, as all you've posted thus far is stuff that is pretty rubbishy if you actually look at it, I will assume (using the Duck paradigm) if it is posted by JamesThomas and looks like a Conspiracy theory, it is probably rubbish.

  You are responsible for the credibility of evidence you bring here. Back your postings up. I notice how the Conspiracists like skyking or seawolf run away when nasty facts show them to be in error - I hope you have more guts than that.
• 

  plmkrzy

  Abaddon why the hostility? This is a discussion not a personal attack on YOU. None of this has anything to do with You personally.
• 

  acsot

  I agree with plmkrzy, Abaddon. Have some tea, kick back, relax! From what the link Jourles provided mentioned (interview with the editor of Popular Mechanics), it seems that the WTC 7 collapsed due to the fires and damage on its south side. However, no one knows. They're working on assumptions which seem to be the most plausible. The 9/11 Commisson didn't deal with WTC 7 at all. And the problem with cell phone calls is still there.

  Personally, I don't think Dubya has enough brains in his head to cross the street without help from Cheney and Rumsfeld (and for all the Bush lovers out there, that's called hyperbole), let alone orchestrate anything on the scale of 9/11, even with their help.

  Again, from the interview:

  "Meigs: I don't think that NIST ever used the term 'pancake theory' to describe World Trade Center 7. I don't think they're distancing themselves from anything. You know, those sorts of engineers are scientists, and as you know, as a journalist, if you've interviewed scientists, they're always very, very careful not to overstate their findings, not to claim certainty when there's still an investigation going on.

  And I think, in this case, you know.. no one knows exactly what was going on in that building. Now, to a scientist or journalist or historian, this is an opportunity to learn more, let's find out as much as we can. let's keep our minds open and explore every possibility. To conspiracy theorists, it means 'ah, hah - if you can't prove how that building came down, there's only one other option - somebody blew it up.'

  I think the responsible course is to keep an open mind, let's look at all possibilities - absolutely including if there's any evidence of controlled demolition, let's look for it. But so far, no one has turned up a single shred of legitimate evidence that there were any sort of controlled demolition in any of those buildings."

  There - see? I bolded both parts .

  Acsot, of the participating-in-a-discussion-board-should-be-for-the-most-part-enjoyable class
• 

  Jourles

  From my point of view, if there was a conspiracy, I agree that the pres couldn't pull it off himself(at least come up with the how's and what's). This is why he surrounds himself with people who can. Those people who work behind the scenes are the ones who can devise plans according to the president's wishes. "Can y'all come up with a plan to get us into Iraq so I can get Saddam back for makin' my daddy look bad?"
• 

  Abaddon

  ascot, plmkrzy

  I am surprised more people don't object to having bullshit shoveled at them by people. I had WAY enough of it as a Dubbie and do not like it when people spread harmful disinformation, whether it is through intent, psychological problems, laziness, gullability, lack of critical thinking or whatever sorry ass reason they might have. Note I don't say stupid, as believing in rubbish has nothing to do with intelligence (but a lot to do with whether you've ever taught yourself to think or been taught how to think).

  Obviously anyone can make a mistake and I personally am quite happy to own to one when I make one, as I have done on this thread. However, as I have pointed out, the vast majority of Conspiracists claims can be disproven with equal or less effort than it takes to defend them, so there is no real excuse for repeated silliness in this area.

  What really is amasing are those like JamesThomas who post rubbish that is totally demolished, then come back months later with no new evidence to support the rubbish that was demolished previously to repeat the same rubbish, then saunter off for ten days, not defend anything they've posted or respond to a thing, and YET AGAIN, apparently without new evidence, essentially repeat their claims. Monomania anyone?

  I suppose continuing to believe in something fervently without evidence is not a surprising trait in an ex-cultist. I suffer from the reverse form of the condition, that of not accepting facts unless I am sure they are facts, sometimes to the point of absurdity.

  And it's not the people but their ACTIONS I am annoyed with. If they want to decieve themselves, fine. Serial attempts to deceive others and ignoring the holes all the way through their arguments is just dishonest. Yes, this IS a discussion board, that's the entire point. It's not a 'post the same rubbish claims I posted months ago and not really engage in discussion about it' board.

  ascot, the 9/11 commission IS dealing with 7 WTC, it's just they finished the report on 1/2 WTC first rather than employ two teams. The cell phones can be made into a problem, but only if you ignore the fact that EVERYTHING else fits the official story. And if you read the PDF file way up there in one of my posts, you'll see the intial report on 7 WTC really gives a very good working THEORY (i.e. something with supporting evidence, as distinct from what should actually be called conspiracy hypothesis which have NO real evidence) of the collapse.

  Now, if there weren't so many day-dream believers clouding the issue maybe these facts wouldn't have been so obscured, as you (a perfectly reasonable person in my experienece) actually say stuff like "However, no one knows" (when those that are competent enough to have a respectable opinion are pretty sure actually, even if they have enough sense not to make statements they cannot support 100%).

  Personally, I don't think Dubya has enough brains in his head to cross the street without help from Cheney and Rumsfeld (and for all the Bush lovers out there, that's called hyperbole), let alone orchestrate anything on the scale of 9/11, even with their help.

  Mmmmm... but wouldn't most people who are STILL Bush lovers think hyperbole was a bigger version of the Superbowl? ;-)
• 

  JamesThomas

  Abaddon,

  There are basically two conspiracy theories being presented for 9/11. One is the official conspiracy theory of 19 Arab men weaving through all the defences of the most powerful nation in the world to pull the whole thing off themselves. The other theory that there was government complicity involved which helped things along.

  I posted a summery of 42 areas of concern which present relevant circumstantial and corroborating evidence strongly implying government complicity; and so I ask for thorough, unhindered and open investigations by nongovernmental experts in all the areas of concern that there be proof one way or the other as to what is true.

  You want to refute individual concerns one by one as if this proves your theory true and others wrong. All you are doing is presenting conceivable evidence which refutes a specific claim; and this is how it should be to prove an opposing claim falsifiable and so valid. So, you are actually supporting the fact that there are valid and appropriate claims of concern.

  If I say no steel building has every undergone total symmetrical collapse which was not demolitions and history supports this, it does not mean that it could never happen without explosives. I just presents the fact that it is highly unlikely, and there is need for stringent unhindered and open examination; which many feel we are not getting. There are hundreds of such unlikely events in and around 9/11 that allowed for it to unfold the way it did. The summary I posted brings much of this to the surface. The new documentary I have posted shows just how helpful the U.S. government hasn't been.

  Passing opinions back and forth, forever and ever, even those based on strongly held scientific theory does not prove anything. For example if the cell phone calls were able to be made from the planes, this does not prove the ones in question were faked anyway. This would have to be determined via far more stringent examination than can be supplied here.

  A long thread full of your opinion may give plenty of opportunity to beat your chest, boost your ego and insult and belittle people, but in the end it proves little beyond your rudeness and small mindedness in swallowing the official conspiracy theory hook line and sinker. Intelligence goes beyond just being able to form sentences and make arguments; it includes the ability to be respectful of varying views and the insight that we may be proven wrong. Clearing the path to investigation and truth is a far nobler goal than hindering it.

  My post was directed at people who are concerned enough to thoroughly read the summary I posted, ponder it, and then do what they feel is right from there -- if anything. I presume they have sense enough to come to their own conclusions; and I have no psychological need to force my opinions on them, because I only know in regards this issue I don't really know. I have strong suspicions, but I don't yet know the truth of this matter. I want to know, as it is too important not to know.

  j
• 

  acsot

  Youpiee!!! I've made it to the big leagues!! Abaddon ripped apart one of my posts!!

  As for the 9/11 Commission, it's ongoing??? ("they're dealing with it" was what you said about WTC7) According to the interview I saw, I thought it was over. And I'm going on what Meigs said (you know, the Popular Mechanics guy) when saying "no one knows". I guess I should have said: "no one knows 100%". There, am I still reasonable??

  Now I just have to:

  1. read Dawkins;

  2. disagree with something he says (as if);

  3. post it here; and

  4. watch it go up in flames!!

  BTW, had your tea yet, Abaddon??

  Acsot, of the so-busy-changing-my-mind-about-things-I'm-getting-dizzy class.