Did Rumsfield and Chums want and allow 9/11 to happen? The Poll!
- Thread starter DrRingDing
- Start date
editor
hiraethified
Just wait until he moves on to the Walt Disney toy puppet voice emulator (no, really!) and then try and get a straight answer how 'they' managed to totally fake the voices, personalities, accents, characteristics, quirks and intimate expressions of people who weren't even supposed to be on the flights and completely fool their loved ones.flimsier said:
Again, you repeat questions I have already answered, and call for 'evidence' where I have provided evidence that such calls are not possible and it is up to the USG to provide the documented evidence that they existed (which should be very easy).editor said:
Obviously, if any of the calls were made by the real passengers on the ground, then they would have been either made with the persuasion of some burly and armed FBI types under a pretext that a national emergency was underway (which it was - note how nearly all the calls were from flight 93) and they must do as told - or either caller or receiver was in on it and fibbing (e.g. the Olsen call is suspicious in this regard).
The point is, we know how the cellphone calls didn't take place, and that is in an airplane travelling at 500+ mph.
editor is referring to real-time voice emulation software which can convert one voice into sounding like another. Backatcha Bandit had the link, I don't know it. Given that telephone connections discard the frequencies which help make voices identifiable, fooling a relative already in a state of emotional distress would unfortunately be pretty surefire - as I said, I did it the other day without trying, and without any software, and without applying any emotional distress.flimsier said:
editor
hiraethified
Not only have you never adequately explained how the calls could have been faked so convincingly that the loved ones never knew, you've not even bothered to read the links I just posted up about in-flight cell phone calls.DrJazzz said:
But just to go along with your evidence free theory, could you offer an opinion as to what 'really' happened to the passengers then?
Ignoring for a moment your highly improbable scenario that they were all effortlessly lying to their husbands and wives, could you explain where the passengers actually were if they weren't on the planes?
Where did they go?
Who killed them?
Where? How?
Where are their bodies?
editor
hiraethified
It's beggars belief, doesn't it?.flimsier said:
Imagine the scenario:
"Hi Ma'am.
In the interests of national security we need y'all to get off the flight right now and sit in this pretend aircraft.
Now I want you to keep on ringing up your husband, tell him how much you love him while pretending that you're in a plane that's been hijacked by terrorists.
Then we need you to tell him that you're going to die and that you're going to miss your children.
Some tears will go down jus' fine too and make the mission go that mch better...
But remember... keep on lying the whole time while you're scaring the fuck out of him and telling him that your children are soon going to be without a mother....
You don't mind doing that do you Ma'am?..."
That does little to suggest that mobile calls are possible from fast-moving aircraft, I'm afraid.flimsier said:
What's left of them is probably buried at 'Fresh Kill' - relatives had not had access to the remains, of course.
Yes, with the exception of the Olsen call which I believe is a fib on the part of Ted Olsen, a man who once stated "There are lots of different situations when the government has legitimate reasons to give out false information". Make of that what you will.
Citizen66 said:
It does appear that I mistook someone else's nonsense for that of you. Please accept my apologies for that.
editor said:
DrJazzz, I need you to explain the answers to these questions (I've edited it a bit - deleted a bit and added my bits in bold), and you seem very committed to your theory, so can you answer my others please? I'm open to the 'Rumsfield knew' bit (I really am actually) but I can't believe your theory.
I was tempted by your screening (and that is also not a lie, out of interest) but the above do need answers. If they are unsatisfactory ones to me, that's better than refusing to answer.
bigfish said:
What a pompous person you are!
DrJazzz said:
Fair point, to me, but not that calls were possible from aircraft.
So is your theory that they were all killed by the state outside of the aircraft?
You will genuinely have to explain this to me. I don't know what you are talking about. I'm a nove to the 9/11 stuff...
Sure flimsier, but I might just have a breather as this thread is moving far too rapidly and I am finding five new posts appearing for the one I am addressing, so I'll do it in a large post tomorrow.
Oh and it wasn't 'my' screening. I haven't screened anything.
Oh and it wasn't 'my' screening. I haven't screened anything.
DrJazzz said:
St Augustine is famous for having prayed to God to make him a good Christian, "but not just yet".
editor
hiraethified
I'm sorry. Could you point me to the part where it says that mobile calls are impossible from fast-moving aircraft because I couldn't find that.DrJazzz said:
And I sincerely hope you're not going to bring up the 'evidence' produced by one of Prof Dewdney's experiments.
His highly improbable claims of invisible aircraft flying in hugely dangerous, illegal, near-impossible formations over a population the size of greater Manchester during the rush hour make him somewhat of a dubious witness.
Oh sorry. Did I say 'invisible'. My mistake. The planes were invisible to the entire population, save for two conveniently anonymous eye witnesses who decided to tell just one person about the 'amazing' sight they'd seen.
And that person was - believe it or not - Prof Dewdney! How remarkable that they knew how to contact him!!
I do believe you think him to be a credible source, DrJ.
'Probably' eh?DrJazzz said:
And what proof are you basing this 'probabilty' on?
Anything at all?
And who killed them? That must have been a tough job for an American soldier, no?
That sounds like a perfectly normal thing for a politican to say.DrJazzz said:
So what is it supposed to prove in this context?
flimsier said:
Sadly, he's not.
flimsier said:Will you quote and answer all of my questions? No time limit! (Obviously I mean, in your own time, not that you should wait a year!)
Just wanted to repeat this question.
I will come to another film screening if I can ask these and get answers.
If I'm doing nothing else.
I know the screening you refer to, it just wasn't 'mine', and yes I will address your questions as I said.flimsier said:The film screening.
Will you quote and answer all of my questions? No time limit! (Obviously I mean, in your own time, not that you should wait a year!)
To be fair, Dr Jazz, you wrote this on a different thread:
Unless I've missed it, you actually haven't said that you will answer my questions, and can you tell me which ones you think you have answered conclusively. The best way would be to quote each one with you answer.
Unless I've missed it, you actually haven't said that you will answer my questions, and can you tell me which ones you think you have answered conclusively. The best way would be to quote each one with you answer.
flimsier said:
Now it's you who must be joking!
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
Dr Jazzz - you can phone from a plane at 500 mph.
From the American Airlines site...
How the Satellite Network Operates
Today's advanced satellite technology has opened up a world of opportunity for airline customers to stay in touch with virtually anyone around the globe. With a system of geostationary satellites strategically placed above the earth, the AIRCOM system communicates with satellite communication equipped aircraft almost anywhere the aircraft happens to be. Your call is sent to an Inmarsat satellite, transmitted to ground stations, and then routed to any phone in the world.
http://www.aa.com/content/travelInformation/duringFlight/onboardTechnology.jhtml#Top
Besides - those planes were going a lot slower than 500mph... and low enough for cellular reception.
So it's not impossible.
NEXT!
From the American Airlines site...
How the Satellite Network Operates
Today's advanced satellite technology has opened up a world of opportunity for airline customers to stay in touch with virtually anyone around the globe. With a system of geostationary satellites strategically placed above the earth, the AIRCOM system communicates with satellite communication equipped aircraft almost anywhere the aircraft happens to be. Your call is sent to an Inmarsat satellite, transmitted to ground stations, and then routed to any phone in the world.
http://www.aa.com/content/travelInformation/duringFlight/onboardTechnology.jhtml#Top
Besides - those planes were going a lot slower than 500mph... and low enough for cellular reception.
So it's not impossible.
NEXT!
pk said:
Some points.
1. Most of the calls came from flight 93 belonging to United Airlines not American Airlines.
2. Flight 93 was a boeing 757. According to the link you've provided only Boeing 777 and 767 aircaft are fitted with the inflight satellite system.
From the same link:
3. The article does not say when the system was inaugurated.
Similar threads
- Locked
