WTC attacks - the alternative thread
- Thread starter fela fan
- Start date
editor
hiraethified
How much 'skill' do you need to type "9/11 phone calls" into google and read the results?Jangla said:
If you wish to hold an intelligent debate on a given subject, please have the courtesy to undertake the most basic of preliminary research beforehand.
But here's one for you to ponder over: if it was all an Evil Conspiracy, why would the USG trouble itself to assemble a host of Mike Yarwoods to manufacture a host of personal phone calls from the planes when it didn't have to?
Such an operation would be hugely expensive, involve hundreds of extra operatives (for bugging and background info), could backfire very very easily and would be extremely risky.
This from the link in post #268 by editor:
"Shortly after, the phone rings in the San Francisco suburb of San Ramon. It is Deena Burnett's husband Tom, away on a business trip.
"Are you OK?", she asks him.
"No," he tells her. "I'm on the airplane, the airplane that's been hijacked and they've already knifed a guy. They're saying they have a bomb. Please call the authorities."'
He hangs up."
It gets interesting when one reads the transcripts. This Tom man, from what he says, definitely knows that his wife already knows that one aircraft has been hijacked. If this man was unaware of other hijackings, and unaware of other plane problems, then he quite simply would not say:
'I'm on the airplane, the airplane that's been hijacked '.
Why did he feel the need to clarify to his wife which plane he was on? 'The airplane that's been hijacked' is clear indication that he expected his wife to already know about his plane.
How could he have known his wife already knew?
"Shortly after, the phone rings in the San Francisco suburb of San Ramon. It is Deena Burnett's husband Tom, away on a business trip.
"Are you OK?", she asks him.
"No," he tells her. "I'm on the airplane, the airplane that's been hijacked and they've already knifed a guy. They're saying they have a bomb. Please call the authorities."'
He hangs up."
It gets interesting when one reads the transcripts. This Tom man, from what he says, definitely knows that his wife already knows that one aircraft has been hijacked. If this man was unaware of other hijackings, and unaware of other plane problems, then he quite simply would not say:
'I'm on the airplane, the airplane that's been hijacked '.
Why did he feel the need to clarify to his wife which plane he was on? 'The airplane that's been hijacked' is clear indication that he expected his wife to already know about his plane.
How could he have known his wife already knew?
editor
hiraethified
Err, maybe because he thought she would have heard about a plane being hijacked on the news?fela fan said:
It seems a perfectly logical thing to say to me.
I suppose the fact that the wife had no doubts whatsoever that she was talking to her husband is even remotely important to you, is it?
Bonfirelight
Crocodile
Couldn't he have just assumed people would have heard about the hijacking?
Now type in "9/11 calls" and "9/11 call transcripts" and see what a difference in results you get. Please don't accuse me of not bothering when a small change in the search string yields wildly different results.editor said:
For the last time, I have already conceeded that the calls made from Flight 93 (the Pennsylvania incident) are real - I asked for more transcripts (not news articles and stories) of calls made from the other flights. So far you have provided one quote with an unrelated link, one between flight attendants and ATC - not loved ones - and another link to calls from Flight 93, mentioned above.
Now please supply the correct link for your first phone call quote.
editor
hiraethified
Don't be silly! That's way too obvious!Bonfirelight said:
Surely it must have been the CIA Lenny Henry Perfect Impressionist Operative fluffing his lines as the remote control planes headed towards their targets, with the original planes, crew and passengers already disposed of/mass murdered in a hush-hush operation...
Bonfirelight
Crocodile
Why would you murder them in a hush hush operation, when it'd be easier to just have them on the plane that hit the building?
editor
hiraethified
Do your own fucking research.Jangla said:
You've already shown how incredibly lazy/ill-informed you are with your first wildly inaccurate claim: "As far as I can find, there were only calls made from Flight 93" and I really can't be arsed to further assist someone so reluctant to do the most basic of research.
But I'm feeling generous, so here;'s a useful link for you.
How to use Google effectively
editor said:
There is just no way on earth you can claim that unless you have read an interview with her just after the event. And another interview with her a long time afterwards, long enough for her to have replayed in her mind all the events.
Please provide me with a link for those interviews.
editor said:
Now then, how might she have known that his plane had been hijacked? How would he have come to that conclusion?
And he doesn't say anything like 'no i'm not okay darling, our plane's just been hijacked'.
No, he says immediately after being asked if he is okay, 'I'm on the airplane, the airplane that's been hijacked...'
The airplane eh? The airplane that's been hijacked?
'The' means only one, and it refers to shared information between speaker and listener as perceived by the speaker.
Language is everything. It is the context, law, power, evidence, history. The language that this Tom man is using is not conducive to his context in any way at all.
The smallest words in the english language have the most impact and most powerful meanings...
Bonfirelight
Crocodile
im on the airplane, the airplane thats been hijacked (thats probably all over the news)
its not hard to imagine is it? And dont they have local TV stations on internal US flights?
its not hard to imagine is it? And dont they have local TV stations on internal US flights?
Personal attacks continuing then? Charming.editor said:
Your personal attacks are entirely unjustified - I have shown you the search strings I used and you should easily see the difference in results yielded.
And as for my "wildly inaccurate claim", it was nothing of the sort. I couldn't find the information based on the search strings I have already told you I used and asked for people to post links to transcripts of other calls from other flights as I was unable to find them. It's called asking for help in your research, not making wild claims. A BB is, is it not, a conduit for information exchange?
BTW, complete your own research. You posted a link to an article that doesn't reflect the quote you atributed it to. I'm sure you would reprimand other posters for doing the same.
Jay Emm said:
There is some talk of one call being made from one of the other aircraft and none from the other two as far as I can determine. But if you have any evidence for any other calls being made other than from flight 93 then it would be useful if you could present it here.
editor
hiraethified
So, according to your utterly perverse logic, unless she's done an interview categorically stating that it was her husband that she spoke to, then you think it's reasonable to assume that she does in fact, harbour doubts about it?fela fan said:
Cloud fucking Cuckoo Land, pal.
If she had any doubts that her husband's voice had been faked, I'm sure she would have let the world know all about it a long time ago.
editor said:
Not perverse logic at all. You, editor, are assuming that what you haven't heard fits in with your hypothesis. Now that's perverse logic!
That's how you claimed that Iraqis believed Saddam/Uday and Qusay had been captured/killed, with no evidence. Then when I put up a link showing that they disbelieved it you said the relatives must believe it, again, without evidence. Then when I showed that their mum didn't believe the sons were dead you said she must believe Saddam captured - again, without evidence. Now, she thinks he's a double.
Out of all those who supposedly received calls on 9-11, only one family has come forward on TV to swear that they could identify the caller - the Glick family.
While they have great emotional appeal the phone calls are no more than 'soft' evidence. There are any number of ways they could be fabricated, and a mixture could have been employed on the day. They could feature the real person lying. They could have been faked. They could feature the recipients lying. And they could have simply invented with neither caller nor recipient existing! Before you ridicule the last notion, consider this - the FBI itself admits that some of the alleged hijackers could have been the victims of 'identity theft', because we know eight or nine of them are still alive. If two-bit hijackers can manage that, why not the FBI/CIA?
Let's have a look at some HARD evidence which knocks the official theory out of the ballpark.
www.letsroll911.org
scroll down until you find the classic footage of the South Tower impact in slow motion. Even you, editor, will be in no doubt that there is appendage underneath the aircraft from which a missile is fired just before impact. This is visible in the other footage also.
I too have seen that footage in various states of doctoring (missile in, missile out) and this makes me wary of them all, but there is one undeniable thing - the huge appendage is present in every version and highly visible for a number of frames.DrJazzz said:
And Ed, your continual "have you learned to use google" comments are beginning to sound childish. You found links using one search string. I found others using a different one. I claimed nothing - I asked for more information if it was available. End of.
I won't even ask you to post the correct link again. Unfortunately this means no-one has yet posted any link to any reports (or preferrably verified transcripts) of personal calls being made from any other plane than Flight 93.
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
Why would a massive aeroplane full of fuel need to fire a missile into the building 1/3 of a second before it crashed into it? Seems like a pretty pointless thing to do. Not that the footage has been doctored or anything.
It hasn't been doctored goldencitrone. You can get the originals from here and presumably other sources. In 'CNN video 2nd WTC crash' you can even see the missile being fired in real time, once you know what you are looking for.
Planes and cars may always explode when they crash in Hollywood blockbusters, but that ain't the case in real life. The object of the whole exercise of 9-11 was to bring the towers down. To do this they had to demolish them. In order to make it look as if they came down another way you need fires. To generate them you need big Hollywood explosions, and you want that anyway as this are going to be the seminal images with which to terrorise the population of the whole western world.
Planes and cars may always explode when they crash in Hollywood blockbusters, but that ain't the case in real life. The object of the whole exercise of 9-11 was to bring the towers down. To do this they had to demolish them. In order to make it look as if they came down another way you need fires. To generate them you need big Hollywood explosions, and you want that anyway as this are going to be the seminal images with which to terrorise the population of the whole western world.
editor said:
Cloud cuckoo land. You said it mate, not me.
And as for the other bit, you have exposed yourself in a nutshell. If you cannot believe it happened, it didn't!!!
"If... I'm sure...". Well that's it ladies and gentleman, a debater is 'sure'. End of debate eh?
Jay Emm said:
But that doesn't square with editor's assertions that the 'loved one's would know every timbre and pitch ad nauseam of their partner. This was a unique event, so language ain't gonna be normal.
So yes, this Tom man could have got all his syntax wrong, but if he got that wrong, then maybe his pitch, or tone, or normal idiosyncratic speech wasn't normal either...
Like i said, folk under extreme fear and/or stressful situations don't speak in their normal manner.
goldenecitrone said:
Stop typing into your brain questions that are beyond its comprehensibility. You'll just supply your own answers. If your brain cannot accept something then asking just such a question will get you nowhere.
You answered your own question.
Why not imagine the impossible, chew on it, work it over in your brain, and see where the exit point is? Don't stick with what you know and understand, stretch your brain, challenge it!
Jangla said:
You have to remember jangla that editor demands proof and evidence to back up what the 'conspiracy theorists' say.
But then when the shoe is on the other foot, they tell you to do their own research. Fucking amazing really when you think about it!
It was why i started this thread. To put the shoe on the other foot. But it didn't fit...
And when the heat gets too much, they flee the kitchen
.Similar threads
