Have We Been Mislead About 9/11? Revisited

by JamesThomas 144 Replies latest members politics

• 

  funkyderek

  JamesThomas:

  I want to know, as it is too important not to know.

  I don't think that's true. If you really wanted to know the truth, you wouldn't be defending these absurd conspiracy theories, especially after their obvious failings have been repeatedly pointed out to you. You will be hard pressed to find someone here who's willing to dissect every one of your 42 points. It's too much trouble, and as you already believe what the conspiracy theorists say ahead of the evidence of your own eyes, what would be the point?

  I understand the urge to believe that there must be something bigger than a rag-tag group of disaffected Muslims behind such a shocking event. You yourself described "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." It hardly seems believable when you put it like that, does it? But what did they actually do? They walked through lax airport security with makeshift weapons. They surprised everyone by hijacking the first aeroplanes in American airspace in over a decade, and then, unlike any hijackers before, made no demands but instead all crashed their planes, causing damage on the scale one would expect, confirmed by the hundreds of hours of footage of the attacks in New York, which completely support the official story, as do the eyewitness accounts of those in and near the Pentagon, and the phone records and the flight recorders from Flight 93.

  You can, of course, continue to pretend that this is not true, that what we all saw with our own eyes, live and a hundred times or more since, didn't really happen the way it appeared to happen. I can only guess your reasons for doing this. Your grip on reality generally seems to be quite tenuous, so maybe you don't "believe" it in the normal sense of the word.
• 

  JamesThomas

  absurd conspiracy theories, especially after their obvious failings have been repeatedly pointed out to you.

  First Derek, thank you for your civil and sane tone. As I have pointed out already, it is the nature of valid claims that presenting an alternative view does not negate it.

  There are at least ten characteristics of demolitions within the collapses of the Towers that day. Indeed some theorise that this could have happened without explosives and they present their evidence. But that does not prove that demolitions were not used, only that it is possible they were not, and this is the nature of falsifiability that a valid claim must have logical counter-explanations. Many here are confusing this dynamics with proof.

  Personally I am not so concerned with how the building fell -- though it is certainly important that we acquire proof, one way or the other. What I am most concerned with is the mass amount of unlikely events which when government-complicity is factored in, they become very likely, if not imperative. Study of the summary I posted brings a lot of data together to form a comprehensive picture -- compared to focus on individual aspects. Again, this is not proof and not presented as such. It is however very strong and valid reason for thorough investigations.

  Also the documentary I posted, which is not so much about the mechanics of the events, but rather the people of the events, gives another very important view which helps bring many loose ends together. I hope you get a chance to take a very thoughtful look at both of them.

  j
• 

  sammielee24

  I'm curious about the cell phones. There must be a record of calls made from all air phones and cell phones to the families and/or 911 centers that were dialed. Where are the records? Have they ever been made public? If one wanted to stop this part of the conspiracy theory from continuing, wouldn't it be simple to produce the records? Might the technology today be better than 5 years ago as well so that even if we tried a call from the air today and it went through today, does it mean that it would have gone through then? There was an article from 2004 that said American Airlines research had tried some new technology for cell phone usage on planes that did work in 2004, but that it would not be available to use for another 2 years. sammieswife.
• 

  Jourles

  Might the technology today be better than 5 years ago as well so that even if we tried a call from the air today and it went through today, does it mean that it would have gone through then?

  The "technology" required to complete a call today in mid-flight is pretty much the same as it was in 2001. In 1998, the FCC released the "PCS" spectrum via auction. This was to open the way for multiple competing cellular companies(more competition means lower prices). Prior to 1998 and even through today, the most likely frequency band to complete a call on while flying is the 800MHz band, also known as the "cellular band." The PCS spectrum operates in the mid-1800MHz to low 1900MHz bands. The lower the frequency, the further the signal will travel. Also, the lower the frequency, the better the penetration into buildings. The PCS freqs travel a shorter distance compared to the cellular freqs at the same transmit power. They are also more reflective, which means building penetration is also tougher compared to the cellular freqs.

  When you compare the applications that run on these frequency bands though(max amount of voice calls, data), PCS outperforms the cellular bands. The higher the freq, the more "bits per hertz" you can push back and forth to the subscriber. In other words, PCS spectrum is much more efficient than the cellular spectrum.

  But getting back to the airplane question - knowing that the cellular bands can travel further and penetrate better than PCS, it would be highly likely that for any of those passengers to have made a call, they would have to have had a phone that was capable of communicating over the 800MHz cellular bands. This would rule out Sprint(and any of its affiliates) and T-Mobile right off the bat. Both of those "nationwide" carriers utilize the PCS spectrum only. In 2001, Verizon Wireless and AT&T Wireless would have been the most likely carriers. Even today, any calls made at lower elevations would almost have to use Cingular and Verizon Wireless as they are the only two that still use the cellular bands. Although Sprint now is partnered with Nextel and they also have spectrum in the neighborhood of the cellular bands, but do not nearly have the nationwide rf footprint that the other two big cellco's have.

  Hope that answered your question.
• 

  hemp lover

  Swife
  I was about to ask one of your same questions. I'm still not sure how they determined which calls were placed from cell phones and which from airphones.

  Forgive me from straying from the cell phone issue, but...

  There was an interesting article in Vanity Fair last month re: whether or not United 93 was shot down. The author acquired 30 hours of previously unreleased NORAD tapes from 9/11.

  http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/articles/060801fege01

  When I read this and saw how much confusion there was in just one government agency, it wasn't hard for me to understand how 19 Arab men did what they did five years ago, especially with as little interagency communication there was (and probably still is).
• 

  sammielee24

  Thanks Jourles. That did answer the question about the technology part. What about the records part though? I've checked all over and can't find any real proof of all the calls that were allegedly made and any proof that would indicate which calls were made from cell phones and which were from airphones. I would think that all the records would be made available during the investigation as proof, because all that we have been told and I'm thinking about flight 93 here, is only what we've been told was put together by people on the plane calling their families or friends. So where are the transcriptions of those calls? Where is the proof they were made and what was said in them? I just find it interesting that no cell phone records or recordings were provided as proof and yet there were over a dozen calls made. sammieswife.
• 

  Leolaia

  As things stand, the internet is not (yet!) the sum total of all knowledge and the absence of these records on the internet does not necessarily mean that the records used in an investigation do not exist or that their unavailability should be indicative of there being something to hide. Even for the most prosaic matters, the government is loathe to release things without being prodded into doing do by the press or by an FOIA request. Private citizens too may well have information or records that could shed light on things but want to keep such things private for personal reasons.

  I was reminded of this today when I found out that there was a third video of the first WTC crash of which only a few frames have been made public, because the video was taken by an artist who did not wish to release his material to the media or to the public (he has used them in a public exhibition of his art however, which is how the only images of it have been leaked through the gallery). I was so surprised by the images that I thought that they had to be fake, until I realized that they were indeed legit.
• 

  Abaddon

  JamesThomas

  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.

  Oh deary me James. By making it sound as if the 19 acted alone you show exactly the sort of twisted partial argument you have to present in order to try and retain some form of credibility.

  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.

  ALL of those points areas regarding to the physical nature of the impact, what hit what and what collapsed for what reason, have been extensively refuted both here and on other websites and even (shock horror) by offical websites. You are repeating claims which have shown to be false. Why? Is it too difficult for you to go through that list and remove the rubbish and then present us with a list of CREDIBLE areas of concern? Do you get a kick out of spreading kn own falsehood?

  You want to refute individual concerns one by one as if this proves your theory true and others wrong.

  James deary, if one refutes an argument one HAS shown it to be false (remember, under the real meaning of theory THERE ARE NO CONSPIRACY THEORIES as none of them have facts to support them).

  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.

  You funny. So someone refuting creationist bollocks shows "there are valid and appropriate claims of concern" by the act of refuting bolocks?. I though people belieiving in an unsubstanciated hypothesis actually showed that there are individuals who through enculturation, education, or whatever, put their faith in unsubstansiated nonsense. I didn;t think dealing with such arguments gave those arguments credibility.

  You are claiming that IF there is a contray argument then it shows "there are valid and appropriate claims of concern", which is credulous nonsense.

  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.

  So, you're admitting that red herring means nothing?

  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.

  False argument; something not having happened before is NOT an indication of it being unlikely that it happened under the right circumstances. All it means is that the right circumstances have not arrisen previously. You are saying because no Titanic class ship sank, it is highly unlikely that one would sink. You are saying that because no O-ring seal failed during a Space Shuttle launch it is highly unlikely that an O-ring seal would fail. Those examples show how false the argument you are using is.

  There are hundreds of such unlikely events in and around 9/11 that allowed for it to unfold the way it did.

  Yup, so people say, just like people say ther are unlikely coincidences over the assination of Lincoln and Kennedy. This;

  http://www.snopes.com/history/american/linckenn.htm

  ... actually shows how many such so-called-unlikely events in that example are either meaningless or WRONG. And with 9/11 people pull the same trick; mundane facts are presented as having significance, and seasoned with false claims; like the often presented false claim that thousands of Jews didn't turn up for work adds to the coincidence of some

  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.

  Ah, so no new data, just reheated rubbish.

  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.

  You still haven't defended one of these silly little claims you so kindly provide us. Instead, rather than addressing the problems with these claims you get all bent out of shape that someone should call you regarding your behaviour. And catch this for a sentence that shows what YOU think of yourself;

  small mindedness in swallowing the official conspiracy theory hook line and sinker

  So JamesThomas, you think that someone who accepts the official story is small minded. And obviously as you don't accept it you consider yourself one of the great minds of the 21st Century? Yes sweetie.

  Note how you don't address the fact that 'swallowing' on my behalf actually involves going over conspiracist claims with a fine tooth comb and debunking them. Is that what you call swallowing? On the same basis I have swallowed evolution! And what do you do? Defend your claims? No, you make more and get sniffy as they disagree with your, er, 'great' mind. I consider spreading deciet when you've been warned and shown you're spreading deciet BEYOND rudeness, and the treatment you get is a direct result of your disingenuous behaviour. Poor little diddums wants to spread lies and not get called on it.

  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.

  Respectful of the right to an alternate view? Yes. Respectful of ALL views? No, as all views are not equal in their worth. Believing we were created in a literal manner as described by a bronze-age goatherd is a view not worthy of the same respect as a view based on evidence; the right to hold an opinion is the same, the opinions worth is not the same.

  An opinion that the building was demolished by thermite (0.13lb required per 2lb of steel beam to do what is required; last time we had this conversation I pointed out the unfeasably large quantity of explosive required but didn't have the figures, now I do) when there is no real evidence of this and a very complete theory explaining the collapse that fits with the available evidence is simply not worth a lot.

  It's like believing Santa Claus delivered the presents when theres a perfectly decent theory (the parents did it) that fits the evidence.

  But obviously in your world an opinion, no matter how often it is proved wrong, no matter how unlikely and fanciful it is, no matter it has no backing evidence, is worth just as much as one without those shortcomings.

  Clearing the path to investigation and truth is a far nobler goal than hindering it.

  Ah, so you reckon you have a noble goal too. I'm arrogant, sure, but your conceit is beyond belief.

  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.

  James darling, I read it and did what I felt was right from there. You just don't like the fact I call you on spreading rubbish.

  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.

  Balls, but funky says it better...

  ascot

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

  ascot, that wasn't ripping. Maybe I need to work on 'nice'??

  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.

  Here's the facts;

  http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

  See note 14.

  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??

  Ah you got me, I was being picky. No one knows for sure. But I was being picky for a reason. The experts not knowing for sure (just being 95% certain or thereabouts) doesn't mean they think it is 5% likely it was a Conspiracy, or mutant space goats if it comes to that. So many of the conspiracist claims WE KNOW FOR SURE ARE FALSE, any uncertainty is due to the difficulty of piecing together the exact sequence of events in a massive incident like that.

  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.

  Mmmm... depends. If you had found a flaw in an argument then it would be kudos to you and non-flameworthy. If you disagreeed because you wanted to believe that the Earth was created by a Babylonian goid cutting a dragon in half, then, well, I don't that would get flamed so much as laughed at. Of course, you could argue that god made it all using natural forces, like someone shufling a deck of cards and calling the sequence they will deal them in. That isn't something that can disproved, unlike bronze-agre creation myths which can be disproved. As I've pointed out in discussions over creation and evolution, I'm surprised people don't go for that more often. But sorry if you think I am being mean to James; I hope I've explained why I think he is disingenuous.

  funkyderek

  JamesThomas:

  I want to know, as it is too important not to know.

  I don't think that's true. If you really wanted to know the truth, you wouldn't be defending these absurd conspiracy theories, especially after their obvious failings have been repeatedly pointed out to you.

  Funky, James is a great mind... show some respect...
• 

  ballistic

  After reading some of this thread, I decided to do some google research into conspiracy theorists and what makes them tick. I came across a guy that set up his own web site about conspiracy, and it turns out he has stopped believing in conspiracies because, he now believes the conspiracy stories are purposefully spread in order to detract people's attention from THE REAL TRUTH!!! Good grief... next thing this guy is going to stop believing in himself, after all he is spreading these double conspiracies, designed to decieve people like himself. I truly believe that some of these people have some kind of delusional psychosis similar to paranoia.
• 

  Abaddon

  Hey Jourles, I found this;

  http://www.911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html

  Anecdotal? Yup. But the conclusion seems reasonable;

  None of this is 100% conclusive, but it does illustrate the point: there?s plenty of support for the idea cellphone calls can be made from altitude, and the Airfones were available for everyone else. Overall we see no compelling reason to believe the calls weren't genuine.