Did Rumsfield and Chums want and allow 9/11 to happen? The Poll!
- Thread starter DrRingDing
- Start date
editor
hiraethified
Using mobiles on aircraft. Have a read, DrJ and then you can tell us more about your completely bonkers claims that all the passengers were lying through their teeth to their loved ones in your laughable 'Operation: Pretend You've Been Hijacked'.
Then you might explain exactly who murdered them all in cold blood. And how they managed to get the plane ful of passengers to the 'Killing Zone' without any of the mentioning..
I would have thought that even the strongest pro-Bush 'patriot' would have had immense problems with being asked to slaughter a plane full of American civilians in cold blood, so who may have done this dastardly, callous deed?
Then you might explain exactly who murdered them all in cold blood. And how they managed to get the plane ful of passengers to the 'Killing Zone' without any of the mentioning..
I would have thought that even the strongest pro-Bush 'patriot' would have had immense problems with being asked to slaughter a plane full of American civilians in cold blood, so who may have done this dastardly, callous deed?
editor said:
I haven't claimed anything, except that calls from cellphones from aircraft moving in excess of 230mph are not possible.
Your link does absolutely nothing to suggest that they are. From your own link
"The maximum speed of travel in a mobile phone system is limited by several factors, frequency changes, rate of change of timing offset, etc. The speed of an aeroplane often exceeds these (typically phones are designed for use in a fast car) which means the mobile will fail to register to the network and retry registration repeatedly."
pk, you are talking about the satellite phones installed in the planes. The official theory maintains that many passengers called from cellphones.
flimsier said:
Stop making it up as you go along flim, it makes you look like an ignorant chancer.
PK would have a case he can prove that a similar satellite phone system to the one installed by American Airlines was also fitted to United Airlines Boeing 757's like flight 93 before 9/11/01 for example, but so far he hasn't proved anything to anyones satisfaction other than his own.
Why are you asking me?
Incidentally, I see that you claim earlier in the forum that you're "open to the 'Rumsfield knew' bit", so why did you vote for option 4?
editor
hiraethified
Are you going to answer any of my questions about your "Operation Pretend You're About to Be Killed By a Terrorist" or was that just a total piece of pointless, bandwidth wasting fabrication you threw in for the hell of it?DrJazzz said:
Each time you concoct another fucking ludicrous, fact-untroubled theory, your credibility plunges further.
Please elaborate on your fascinating suggestion that the passengers were in fact sitting in on the ground taking part in a mass session of husband/wife-fooling, telephonic amateur dramatics.
What actual evidence have you for this utterly idiotic claim?
Who killed the passengers? Where? And how?
flimsier's questions
If I told you that the toenails of Jesus were buried in my back garden, and you couldn't give me an alternative location for them, must you believe me? I don't think so.
This is simply another possibility for the calls. I wouldn't rule it out. Your plane lands and you are escorted by armed FBI types to a secure place. You are told there is a national emergency and you are shown that two planes have crashed into the WTC centre. Further your plane was due for the same treatment but you have been saved by the good guys - however for reasons of national security it is imperative that it appears the hijacking has gone ahead. Relieved to be still alive, and with an emergency taking place, I would have been inclined to do whatever told, wouldn't you? Of course, in a few hours, you expect to be reunited with your family.flimsier said:
Not at all.
Not necessarily (Bush crony Ted Olsen being one possible), not very many, and certainly not.
Why is it up to me to answer these questions? I can speculate that they ended up at 'Fresh Kill', but I don't really know. However, it's not me that told you that flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, which it clearly did not. It's not me that told you that cellphone calls were made from flight 93, which is not possible. It's not me that told you, sorry we don't have any hard evidence for any of this. It's not me that dressed up a fat man as Osama Bin laden to 'confess'. Why ask me?
If I told you that the toenails of Jesus were buried in my back garden, and you couldn't give me an alternative location for them, must you believe me? I don't think so.
Yes, or possibly in the aircraft which crashed as flight 93.
I'm doing my best!
editor
hiraethified
But you haven't a single, solitary shred of proof to support this bonkers 'scenario'.DrJazzz said:
Moreover, none of the people who took calls off their loved ones have ever expressed the slightest doubt about the authenticity of the calls.
The notion that people would willingly - and convincingly - respond to an utterly bizarre government request to ring up their loved ones and tell them they're all about to be murdered on their (non existent) planes by (non existent) terrorists is risible in the extreme.
Your 'theory' is pure Alice in Wonderland. You haven't a single fact to support your wild fantasy.
Isn't there a fiction/bonkers paranoid site you can post this kind of evidence-free nonsense on?
Lock&Light said:It does appear that I mistook someone else's nonsense for that of you. Please accept my apologies for that.
Oh, now there's a surprise! The point i believe citizen may have been trying to make is that this goes on a whole load of times by a whole load of posters. Including yourself.
I know, coz i get misquoted and misrepresented all the time. One gets used to it after two years.
I think it's part of the tactics. Or just plain old human follies.
editor
hiraethified
With DrJ's wild and weird imagination it's not short of daftness, that's for sure.fela fan said:
Do you believe it's remotely likely that the passengers were all asked to take part in "Operation Pretend You're About To Be Killed By Non Existent Terrorists While We Fly Our Remote Control, Missile Firing, Pretend Passenger Planes into the WTC", fela?
editor said:
No i don't.
Mate (sorry, editor
) you were missing quite a few hyphens there... 
, and probably had way too many capital letters...And it wasn't drj's contributions i was thinking about with regard to the entertainment. Not that i think he's boring or owt!
editor
hiraethified
If you didn't keep on posting up so many clueless, comic book fantasies from Planet Conspiracies'r'Us, I wouldn't have to keep on laughing at them.DrJazzz said:
But you're probably right. Seeing as you're clearly incapable of substantiating your latest work of risible fiction, it may be time that this ludicrous thread is dumped in the bin.
editor said:
Now, i've said this before, and i feel obliged to say it again, particularly on this pot-pourri thread.
I myself am not patronising, oh no sir. I am simply a mirror to yourself. If you think i'm patronising, then that is a reflection on the values of your life. Others will think i'm speaking sense, that too is me being a mirror to their lives. I am the same at all times, but the reaction i engender in different people depends on those different people's make-ups.
For you to continually refer to me as patronising, the only poster in the history of urban to do so, then it really has far more to do with you than me. It's your values you're espousing, not owt to do with me man.
errr, no mateeditor said:
This is my 22nd post on the thread. That means you have been making seven posts for every one of mine! It is you who is being impossible thanks to your obsessive posting and relentless asking of questions combined with your favourite appeal to ridicule.
Congratulations to all of those switched on people who have rejected the official USuk/BBC orthodoxy and voted for option one in the thread pole. You're keeping very good company indeed as a New Zogby International Poll Reveals Half of New Yorkers Believe U.S. Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9/11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York's Attorney General.
It looks like the "it was Al-Qaeda wot done it, honest guv" mob are losing the argument hands down and with it the battle for hearts and minds.
Keep up the great work guys, the tide is beginning to now turn in our favour, despite the unremitting efforts of the court of King Kanute.
It looks like the "it was Al-Qaeda wot done it, honest guv" mob are losing the argument hands down and with it the battle for hearts and minds.
Keep up the great work guys, the tide is beginning to now turn in our favour, despite the unremitting efforts of the court of King Kanute.
(DOWNLOAD COMPLETE BREAKDOWN OF RESULTS www.911truth.org/dossier/zogby911.pdf)
The poll is the first of its kind conducted in America that surveys attitudes regarding US government complicity in the 9/11 tragedy. Despite the acute legal and political implications of this accusation, nearly 30% of registered Republicans and over 38% of those who described themselves as “very conservative” supported the claim.
The charge found very high support among adults under 30 (62.8%), African-Americans (62.5%), Hispanics (60.1%), Asians (59.4%), and “Born Again” Evangelical Christians (47.9%).
Less than two in five (36%) believe that the 9/11 Commission had “answered all the important questions about what actually happened on September 11th,” and two in three (66%) New Yorkers (and 56.2% overall) called for another full investigation of the “still unanswered questions” by Congress or Elliot Spitzer, New York's Attorney General. Self-identified “very liberal” New Yorkers supported a new inquiry by a margin of three to one, but so did half (53%) of “very conservative” citizens across the state. The call for a deeper probe was especially strong from Hispanics (75.6%), African-Americans (75.3%) citizens with income from $15-25K (74.3%), women (62%) and Evangelicals (59.9%).
The poll is the first of its kind conducted in America that surveys attitudes regarding US government complicity in the 9/11 tragedy. Despite the acute legal and political implications of this accusation, nearly 30% of registered Republicans and over 38% of those who described themselves as “very conservative” supported the claim.
The charge found very high support among adults under 30 (62.8%), African-Americans (62.5%), Hispanics (60.1%), Asians (59.4%), and “Born Again” Evangelical Christians (47.9%).
Less than two in five (36%) believe that the 9/11 Commission had “answered all the important questions about what actually happened on September 11th,” and two in three (66%) New Yorkers (and 56.2% overall) called for another full investigation of the “still unanswered questions” by Congress or Elliot Spitzer, New York's Attorney General. Self-identified “very liberal” New Yorkers supported a new inquiry by a margin of three to one, but so did half (53%) of “very conservative” citizens across the state. The call for a deeper probe was especially strong from Hispanics (75.6%), African-Americans (75.3%) citizens with income from $15-25K (74.3%), women (62%) and Evangelicals (59.9%).
editor
hiraethified
Yeah. You're right. It's time to dump this thread.DrJazzz said:This is my 22nd post on the thread. That means you have been making seven posts for every one of mine! It is you who is being impossible thanks to your obsessive posting and relentless asking of questions combined with your favourite appeal to ridicule.
fela fan said:
What bollocks. I've certainly called you patronising before, as have at least two other posters I can think of on one thread. What a convenient lapse of memory.
Last time - when a whole batch of posters pointed out the inconsistencies in your approach, criticised your illogical witterings and suggested that you came across as patronising - you flounced off, failing to answer any of our points or engage in debate. Apparently because you were 'so happy' and couldn't give a toss what we really thought.
And now there's all this condescending 'mirrors and reflections' guff, which masks one essential truth: far more posters think you write a load of patronising, unsourced and unjustified crap than would ever say that you're 'speaking sense.' We can put it to a poll if you like, but let's stop misleading yourself and posting duplicitious crap like this in the meantime eh...
editor
hiraethified
bigfish said:
808 adults?!!!!
Wow. There's a big, meaningful sample to project on to a population of 294 million.
I suggest you read this: http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm
And now you carry on just randomly throwing up links as if they must support your argument!editor said:
Using their calculator shows that a sample of 808 adults gives confidence intervals of less than four percent with a confidence interval of 95%. It's quite a reasonable sample, similar to the ones for election polling in the UK.
Stop making so much noise!
DrJazzz said:
What's your point Dr J. That Mike shouldn't vigorously defend the credibility of his site from an assault of your often poorly sourced and objectionable claims.
I've asked you plenty of pertinent questions in the past, but you've never been courteous enough to reply. Instead you wriggle and avoid any difficult questions which work against your conspiracy-tastic worldview. I've largely avoided posting on these threads - largely because it's the same handful of conspiracy nuts posting rubbish and failing to engage in debate. It's a unrewarding process - most folks simply can't be bothered after the first time.
On the other hand Mike's spent years building up this site - I can fully understand why he feels motivated and compelled enough to defend his site from such nonsense.
Instead of asking the host to butt out (and leave you unchallenged to post up evidence-light witterings like 'Huntley is innocent') perhaps you should concentrate on giving a little more credibility to the substance of your arguments.
tarannau said:And now there's all this condescending 'mirrors and reflections' guff, which masks one essential truth: far more posters think you write a load of patronising, unsourced and unjustified crap than would ever say that you're 'speaking sense.' We can put it to a poll if you like, but let's stop misleading yourself and posting duplicitious crap like this in the meantime eh...
Now then you, how on earth can you make that assertion? 'Far more posters' eh? How could you possibly know that? How can you account for those posters that don't post up their opinion? Mystic Meg are we?
Did you never come across the fact that folk are far more ready to pile in with negative reactions than positive reactions? That's how the media make their money.
You really are barking up the wrong tree.
In good old time-honoured fashion of these 911 threads, kindly post up irrevocable proof that more posters think i'm patronising than speaking sense.
And you're right in one way, i don't give a flying fuck either way. But you obviously do. Mirror mirror on the wall. Unless one refuses to see the wall that is.
Or the mirror.
Similar threads
