Have We Been Mislead About 9/11? Revisited
by JamesThomas 144 Replies latest members politics
-
-
Pleasuredome
here is my post from the other 9/11 thread.
this is something i posted a couple of years ago. just some observations about what was reported by the media from oficial sources like the FBI. this post assumes you know the official version of what happened that day as what i posted is countering what was reported.
is this a pic of "Atta" and "Alomari" making their way to board flight 11 at Boston? No, it isnt. this was taken at Portland, Maine not Boston. Boston Logon had no surveillance cameras in the departure lounge. strange that they had them at Portland, a small airport but not Boston, an international airport.
notice the 2 different time codes, one in the centre (which is the last place you would put it) and the one on the bottom (where you would put it) that shows only 6 mins before the plane left Portland?
that pic supposedly shows Atta and Alormari, although its now shown not to be Alomari 'cause he's been found alive and well. lets say this is Atta. why would the leader of the biggest plane hijack in history, taking years of planning, risk flying into Boston that morning and giving himself only an hour and a quarter between landing in Boston from Portland and taking off on flight 11? why would he wait until the day before to book his ticket? USAir flight 5930 was scheduled to depart at 6am, Atta had 6 mins to get from security, from where the pic was taken, to boarding! the FBI claims they both checked out of their hotel in Portland at 5.33am, just 27 mins before their plane was due to depart and then they had to park their rental car, check in and get to the gate. Anyone who travels by air knows that if you leave it that late you are highly likely to miss the flight. not only did the organiser of the biggest hijack in history take the chance of flying into Boston on a connecting flight that morning, he arrived so late that the Portland plane left only minutes after he got to the gate. and he only secured a seat the day before! all that planning and he took those risks of not even getting to Boston? what was it the washington post said about the "...astonishing degree of organisation and planning undertaken by the terrorists"?
lets say the time code in the center of the pic is true, it would mean Atta and friend must have checked out of their hotel, taken their car to the airport carpark, checked in and passed through security to the gate in all of 12 mins!
other "hijackers" arrived at Boston airport at about 7.15am, so the official story goes. the car contained 5 arab men who had a window sticker allowing them access to restricted areas of the airport, says the FBI. an unidentified "witness" claimed to have seen them arguing over a parking space. Ok, so its 7.15am and their flight's departing at 8.00am, and they're still in the car park, yet to check in and go through security to the gate. so, "5 arab men" leave it ridiculously late to arrive at the airport, on that day of all days, risking long cues at check-in, and wasted more time arguing over a parking spot? years of planning this took did it? more worried about a parking space were they? not only this but thay bought their tickets in cash when they arrived at the airport! reportedly paying $4,500 for their last minute first class tickets. David Boeri on NewsCenter 5 in Boston reported :
"sources say at least four suspects, described as middle-eastern men arrived late to the airport, purchased one-way tickets and paid in cash for them, all of those factors being known security risk flags"
wouldnt "highly trained" hijackers have known this, and why didnt they book their tickets long before that day?
the other airports planes were hijacked from had cameras in the departure lounges, but where was the the video footage? we see "Atta" at portland, so why not the other hijackers at the other airports?
and of all the luggage of all the passengers on all the airlines in the world on that day of all days, it was Atta's bag or bags that didnt make it onto flight 11. of course, the FBI says it found in his bags, along with a note on how Atta was willing to be a martyr in a holy war against infidels, a copy of the Koran, a saudi passport, and amazingly a video of how to fly a comercial airliner.
Why would a man who is about to fly a passenger jet into the world trade center take bags with him and check them into the hold? but miracles do happen *thinking of the passport*.
and here's some great syncronicity too: the car the "5 hijakers" parked at Boston had inside a copy of the Koran, a fuel consumption calculator and a flight training manual written in Arabic on how to fly a 767.
the FBI made a bad error in releasing "extracts" from the note and other notes from other hijackers which included instructions and most importantly prayers, which muslims and investigative journalists trashed as fake because the way they were written shows no muslim would have written what Atta suposedly did.
these are supposed to be just some of the "facts" of the official version of events of 911.
-
sammielee24
official version of events of 911.
I haven't read the commission report yet, but in the paper yesterday a reference was made to someone being in the basement (2B I think)of one of the towers at the time of the hit. In his testimony, he apparently said that while he (and others) were there, they heard a loud explosion underneath them and a man came screaming and running into the area where they were, yelling that there was an explosion. This all happened before the jet hit the building. Was this in the 911 commission report? If I get a chance I'll dig out the man's name that testified to this. sammieswife.
-
Jourles
I don't have to. We know that it can work (as proven by Conspiracist)
You don't have to because detailed information doesn't exist on the web relating to handoffs, or because you rely on a conspiracist's website for your information? You say handoff's were PROVEN by conspiracists. Let's take a look at that site again, shall we? The ONLY mention of handoffs on that site was here:
Before a cellphone call can go through, the device must complete an electronic "handshake" with the cellsite servicing the call. This handshake can hardly be completed in eight seconds. When the aircraft comes into the next cell, the call must be "handed off" to the new cellsite.This process also absorbs seconds of time. Together, the two requirements for a successful and continuous call would appear to absorb too much time for a speaking connection to be established. Sooner or later, the call is "dropped."
This assessment is borne out by both earwitness testimony and by expert opinion, as found in Appendix B, below. Taking the consistency of theoretical prediction and expert opinion at face value, it seems fair to conclude that cellphone calls (at any altitude) from fast-flying aircraft are no more likely to get through than cellphone calls from high-flying slow aircraft.
You said handoff's were PROVEN by this "conspiracist." Where was this proven? It wasn't. His statement even alludes to the fact(without saying it directly), that his calls did not hand off. His statement of "sooner or later" tells me that a call originating on a cellsite is dropped once the plane travels out of its usable rf range. So again, in your own words, how do we know that it can work if a conspiracist can't get it to work? Would you like to try again?
There's proof of cell phones being used at 8k ft. Even if it is only a 10% chance
10% chance in what type of situation -- are we talking apples to apples here? Looking back at your reference site again, let's use the statistics found in Test 3 which were extrapolated by using an aluminum skinned aircraft - the nearest test representation of a commercial airliner:
Private pilots flying light aircraft are nowadays familiar with the fact that they may use their cellphones to make calls to the ground, at least if they are not higher than one or two thousand feet. Above that altitude, calls get rather iffy, sometimes working, sometimes not. The higher a pilot ascends, the less likely the call is to get through. At 8000 feet the pilot will not get through at all unless he or she happens to be using a cellphone with the same capabilities as C5 (See appendix A.) But even that cellphone begins to fail at 6000 feet.
Calls from 20,000 feet have barely a one-in-a-hundred chance of succeeding.
The results just arrived at apply only to light aircraft and are definitely optimal in the sense that cellphone calls from large, heavy-skinned, fast-moving jetliners are apt to be considerably worse.
Huh, considerably worse for an airliner? Go figure. So first off, all the passengers would have needed to use a phone similar to the Motorola Timeport 8767. And for them to have a 10% chance with this particular phone in making a successful call, they would need to be flying in an aircraft such as the Cessna 172-R traveling at its standard rate of speed - far below 500mph. We do need to note here that any measurement above 8k feet is a simply an educated guess. Without conducting these real life tests at 20k feet and above, there is no hard evidence besides hearsay. And as I've pointed out prior, Mkr's cell phone bill would kill this thread once and for all. Don't you agree Abaddon? You've made no mention about his bill in this thread thus far. I would think you would like to see this "proof" as well, correct? But my guess is, you are ignoring this one piece of significant evidence because you know it probably does not exist either.
Back to the height thing; modern jets climb at 600 - 3,000 fps, the lower being a full laden 757 taking off from a hot airport, the higher end being at 77% of maximum take-off weight (max passengers, fuel for a 2 hour flight) a 757 can climb at over 4,000 fps.
ROFLMFAO!! I don't know which "website" you got your information from, but do you want to take a look at it again and recalculate your figures? C'mon man, use your common sense! Climbing three thousand feet per second?? Can military jets even pull that off going straight up vertically? I'm not totally sure, but I thought "modern jets" only took off at around 200-250mph. You might want to recalculate using FPM and try again. Even on a horizontal flight path at 500mph, your rate of speed is only ~733 fps. Add in the inclination of climbing in elevation and this figure lowers considerably. To even come close to your 600 fps rule, an airplane would have to take off like the space shuttle. LOL!
as you've already decided there WAS a conspiracy and therefore simply have to find 'evidence' for it
Here again, as you've done several times already, you assume I am trying my hardest to support a conspiracy. I don't know how many times I have to say it, but I am only interested in the cellular aspect of this discussion. If my arguments just happen to support or refute a conspiracist's claim, then so be it. I can only assume that by you labeling my arguments on the side of the conspiracists, it lets you slap an easy label on me. The conspiracists are whackos, therefore I must be a whacko. You have yet to refute, conclusively, any of my theories on the cellular side. And it's no wonder you cannot do so, especially in light of your above reference to FEET PER SECOND. I don't know if you think that by posting what appears to be scientific evidence, everyone will feel compelled to believe you and not challenge it since it looks good on the screen. You should know by now in this part of the discussion, every sentence is being picked apart by the both of us.
Sit through "Loose Change" with me sometime and see how often I point out ommisions, mis-directions, out-of-context quotations or unsupported statements.
I have seen it and I think most of it is a load of BS. It's your typical conspiracy theory, but on Crack. You'll have no argument from me about it.
You yorself do something similar in your post about making calls at 30k ft. Never said that, why the straw-man?
If I said I have never been able to make a call at crusing altitude over the years I've flown, how is that a straw man? That is simply another point-of-view that cannot be supported by me or anyone else. I can't prove that I didn't make a call. If I could make a call, I would prove it....kind of like how Mkr has declined to do. It seems odd to me that you haven't encouraged Mkr to show you this proof. What does he have to worry about?
OK Mkr, since we're both going to be in Orlando during Halloween, why don't you bring along your phone bill and just point out the call to me. This way, no electronic evidence(a scan) will ever exist. Sound reasonable? I'll understand at this point if you don't want to meet up now knowing that I would like to see your phone bill. I assume you've already called it off in your mind.
-
-
Abaddon
Such a massive 'cover-up' that the BBC were reporting on the FBI were saying some of the hijackers identity were 'in doubt' only ten days after the attacks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1553754.stm
Isn't it funny how this cover up is so big and massive I can find succesive (openly revised as data was collected and sifted) lists of hijacker names?
Of course, to the Conspiracist mind-set it is unthinkable that terrorists would use false ID or steal real identities, as terrorists simply wouldn't do anything so sneaky as that. Equally to a Conspiracist mind-set the idea that there was confusion over the identity of the hijackers and a lack of physical evidence as to their real identities is sure proof of a cover-up. And naturally Mohamed Atta's dad wouldn't lie...
God the sheer inanity of some people's thought processeses is beyond belief.
Here you go, read this - especially the red comments hacking the conspiracist (Gary North) bullshit to pieces... http://home.teleport.com/~photoget/north_82.htm
This is getting boring now...
-
skyking
Boy that disprove everything that all the facts about the cell phones, metal melting at such low temperatures, the firefighter reporting he was on at the floor were the plane hit and the fire was under control, the every fact he could of made it to the floor, the building falling at all most the same rate as free falling, parts of the motor of flight 93 being found 25 mile away, thousands of Jews not showing up to work that day, tower seven being pulled....... HELL the passports thing disprove it all. Abaddon thank you for showing how stupid I am.
-
Abaddon
Jourles
As you may notice by my calculation of how quickly those people we KNOW make calls from commercial flights would have to make calls if mobile phone calls were impossible over 2k ft, whilst I type fps I obviously mean fpm. Seems you jumped on an error and then stopped reading, rather than noting I am making a valid point regarding the implications of the (correct) calculation. The calculation stands despite my typo. Also if you check out the above FBI link in my post immediatly above the FBI's report on the event makes it clear much of the Spotsylvania flight was at 5,000ft.
So, do you think the mobile phone use in flight study was flawed (actually, it was, they admitted their equipment was only sensitive enough to pick up some phones if they were near the recording equipment) and no calls are made from flights? Or do you think all these calls are made in the first minute or last few minutes?
I also will not base my convictions on unverified data; just as you might be self-engrandising so to may mkr. A published report showing 1-4 calls are made per flight is far more interesting evidence to base my position on.
Even if you ARE only arguing about cell phones, you DID assume the flight was not at 8k ft until someone saw it, which undermines what you say as it shows a desire to assume what fits in with your assertion (no calls possible) even if that means making assumptions.
As for hand-off's, what I said in my last post was;
There's proof of cell phones being used at 8k ft. Even if it is only a 10% chance, how often would YOU re-try to dial if you were on a hijacked aircraft?? How many times can you re-dial in a minute - let's say 6 times. So with a c. 10% chance on each try, you are certain to get through (briefly, just like the accounts verify) once every few minutes.
Could you tell me how many times you would redial in that situation?
This quote;
Private pilots flying light aircraft are nowadays familiar with the fact that they may use their cellphones to make calls to the ground, at least if they are not higher than one or two thousand feet. Above that altitude, calls get rather iffy, sometimes working, sometimes not. The higher a pilot ascends, the less likely the call is to get through. At 8000 feet the pilot will not get through at all unless he or she happens to be using a cellphone with the same capabilities as C5 (See appendix A.) But even that cellphone begins to fail at 6000 feet.
Calls from 20,000 feet have barely a one-in-a-hundred chance of succeeding .
The results just arrived at apply only to light aircraft and are definitely optimal in the sense that cellphone calls from large, heavy-skinned, fast-moving jetliners are apt to be considerably worse.
... just proves calls can be made. I also call your attention to the report; they say in it they expected worse figures for an aluminum bodied plane, but the figures were not massively different from the composite bodied one. The speed factor and hand-of difficulties would explain the brevity of some calls.
I'm glad you agree about Loose Change.
-
Jourles
Abaddon,
I didn't know how you came up with your math regarding the rate of climb(cut and paste from a website??), but I'll show you my math and see if it matched yours.
To make this simple, I will only calculate a direct horizontal speed in FPS. Climb rate speed varies based on an angle of ascent. Besides, a horizontal path would give your calculations the maximum benefit.
Here we go....
- A plane is traveling at 500 miles per hour. At this rate of speed, the plane will travel 8.33 miles per minute. (500mph \ 60 minutes = 8.33 miles per minute) --- (A mile is 5,280 feet in distance)
- 8.33 miles per minute equates to 43,982 feet per minute. (8.33 x 5280 = 43,982)
- 43,982 feet per minute equals 733 feet per second. (43,982 \ 60 seconds = 733)
Is this what you came up with? Show me where I'm wrong in my math if I goofed somewhere.
-
Pleasuredome
Such a massive 'cover-up' that the BBC were reporting on the FBI were saying some of the hijackers identity were 'in doubt' only ten days after the attacks.
doesnt that say something to u? like maybe, they dont know who did the hijacking, if there were any hijackers? so how do we come to the conclusion it was al qaeda? oh yes, the fbi say so. thats that sorted then.
plus, where are the passenger lists with the names of the hijackers or their false names? nowhere to be seen. hmmmm wonder why?
