Did Rumsfield and Chums want and allow 9/11 to happen? The Poll!

[pk]

Oh this is daft now.

I am tired of being alluded to in this fashion and have reported the post.

Dr Jazzz - stop acting like a little girl, you're just trying to get me banned and it's very embarrassing to see.

Bigfish - you said...

But PK, if you're unable to place the hijackers in the airports and on the planes then obviously the phone calls are a crude deception designed to fool the gullible in to believing that they were on them when really they weren't.

It seems to have worked a treat in your case.

So you are now moving the issue to the hijackers before addressing your previous wild-armed messy-haired hysterically insistant point.

Tell me, before we go further (though I don't see why you can't do this yourself) does this mean you agree that phone calls were possible from Flight 93 after all?

Because that's what we were talking about a minute ago.

Let's clear one thing up at a time, eh?

 

[bigfish]

Oh you're a Bigfish in a rapidly shrinking pond aren't you?

You obviously aren't paying attention to the poll. According to the vote and to recent public opinion polls, the pool I'm in is expanding all the time. On the other hand, the pool you're in is beginning to shrink. People are waking up fast PK. Increasingly, they're beginning to see through the hysterical horseshit peddled by people like you.

 

[pk]

So.... are you going to answer my last post - oh knowledgeable one?

 

[pk]

My interpretation of that stupidly worded useless poll suggests that 59 people think it's bollocks whilst 44 people actually like reading these conspiracy threads, and believe there is something in your theories.

We shall see.

It would be interesting to find out how many votes of your 44 are your pseudonyms and those of the conspiranoid fraternity though...

 

[bigfish]

So.... are you going to answer my last post - oh knowledgeable one?

I'll leave that to Dr Jazzz, as that's who its addressed to... though I wouldn't hold my breath for an answer if I were you.

 

[pk]

Why's that?

You agree with me - that he shys from the proven truth like you?

 

[pk]

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY BIGFISH
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.

---------------

So it was addressed to you Bigfish. It has been proved to everybody's satisfaction.

If you want to dance a little jig around in circles to avoid this point, be my guest, but I will be here waiting.

Do I have a case or what Bigfish?

 

[editor]

Whether they do or not, if some did have any doubts, you wouldn't know about it.

Why's that then? Several people who took calls from their husbands/wives have given media interviews since and not one of them has ever, ever brought up any doubts whatsoever about the conversation they had.

So why is that then, DrJ? Do you think you know better than them?

Lyz Glick thinks about her last phone call with her husband all the time:

Lyz Glick: “When I’m driving in the car, I’m having that conversation in my head. Before I go to sleep, I’m thinking about it. I do think about it a lot
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080114/

And she remembers what was said in some detail:

Lyz Glick: “The first part of our conversation when we were talking about more personal things that we needed to say for one another, that seems like it lasted forever. It was just so much strength coming out of both of us together.”

And you have the fucking audacity to post up your offensive, evidence free bullshit and claim that she was either being lied to by her husband or she was being fooled by some USG Mike Yarwood.

You're a fucking disgrace. Your moronic comments defending the multiple child killer Huntley were bad enough but now you have the neck to post up and say that this woman is either a liar or too stupid to recognise her own husband of nine years.

 

[pk]

Mike, leave it, he'll only report your posts if you swear...

 

[pk]

Quote:
Originally Posted by pk
So.... are you going to answer my last post - oh knowledgeable one?

Posted by Bigfish:

I'll leave that to Dr Jazzz, as that's who its addressed to... though I wouldn't hold my breath for an answer if I were you.

Ms. Black, if you would my dear, your audience awaits again...

 

[pk]

Oh man I wish I could play the sound of that Cilla song with the image....



"Lorra lorra laffs"

 

[editor]

I note that you didn't comment on the fact that I recently fooled my flatmate's mum into thinking I was her son - without even trying. That was without the benefits of an distressing situation, without any rehearsal, without any fancy software.

Have you any idea how offensive your idiotic comments are?

You have the fucking nerve to compare an intimate, personal, deep, desperate conversation between a loving wife about to lose her husband - and the father of her child - with some brief mix up between your friend's mother?

Are you fucking stupid? Can't you see the difference?

I'm actually stopping myself writing any more now because I'm afraid I only have outraged abuse for someone as moronic, as insensitive and as pathetically immature as you.

 

[pk]

Can you report Dr Jazzz's posts if they're too offensive?

 

[fela fan]

I still think rumsfeld wanted and allowed 911 to happen.

And it's not hard at all to imagine someone as genuninely nasty and insane as rumsfeld putting the plan into action in the first place.

It's easy to imagain bush not being told about it all.

It's interesting to see the increased interest in 911, not only on urban, but in other places too. It seems to me that gradually folk are beginning to question the official theory.

And that theory has more holes in it than any conspiracy theory that so enrages some on this forum.

For a start how come almost all automated procedures failed to automate that morning? Could Rumsfeld have put in some orders...?

 

[editor]

Can you report Dr Jazzz's posts if they're too offensive?

I can do a lot more than that.

Truth is, I'm finding his moronic, evidence-free suggestions that Lyz Glick was either being lied to by her husband in 'Operation Pretend We're Going To Be Killed' or too stupid to realise that she was talking to a USG Pretend Husband even more offensive than his filthy 'Huntley is innocent' claims.

Why should I let this poor woman be defamed or her dead husband's reputation be dragged through the shit any longer?

It's time for DrJ to produce some solid evidence to support his deeply offensive claims or I may consider refusing to host his disgusting fantasies any further.

After all, I've got the reputation and credibility of this site to think about.

 

[pk]

I'm just having a laugh really, popping conspiranoid fantasies passes the time. Especially when they get the answers they want and then ignore them.

But yeah, he should stick to poker and the piano.

Looks like the conspiracy ball has been well and truly deflated for the night, anyway. The kids don't want to play anymore.

I'm off. Back for more later I guess.

 

[bigfish]

Do I have a case or what Bigfish?

If you've got hard evidence able to establish the presence of the alleged hijackers in the airports and on the flights, then you've got a case PK. If you haven't, then obviously the calls couldn't have been about them and you've been royally duped.

Have you got any evidence other than the time-stamp-less "Dulles" CCTV footage showing four unidentifiable fuzzy blobs monkeying around apparently in an airport? Can you remind me again how Salem al Hamzi, named as one of the blobs, is supposed to be dead and alive both at the same time?

 

[editor]

If you've got hard evidence able to establish the presence of the alleged hijackers in the airports and on the flights, then you've got a case PK. If you haven't, then obviously the calls couldn't have been about them and you've been royally duped.

Well, the passengers who made the calls seemed quite emphatic that their planes had been hijacked. Absolutely certain, in fact.

Have you any proof that they were all lying, bigfish, or have you been well and truly royally duped by some evidence free conspiracy tosh?

And why would they all tell their loved ones that they'd been hijacked if it wasn't true? Any ideas?

 

[pk]

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY BIGFISH
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.

-----------------

On THIS issue, do I have a case Bigfish.

I will come to your other points, oh yes, but in good time.

One thing at a time, like an intelligent debate.

I have proved 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.

Have I not?

I know this is boring Bigfish, but this clears it up once and for all, yeah?

 

[pk]

Obviously not tonight then Bigfish.

It's OK I can wait.

 

[bigfish]

I will come to your other points, oh yes, but in good time.

One thing at a time, like an intelligent debate.

Okay PK, "one thing at a time" and first things first. Chronologically then, according to your theory, the alleged hijackers went to 3 airports and boarded 4 flights. So, over to you... all we need is for you to establish their presence at the airports with solid material evidence and then we can talk about the phone calls.

Always remember PK, you can't put the cart before the horse... didn't your mum teach you that when you were a lad?

 

[Lock&Light]

all we need is for you to establish their presence at the airports with solid material evidence and then we can talk about the phone calls.

This is typical Bigfish Bullshit. Just supposing, which I don't, that there is absolutly no 'solid material evidence' to establish that the hijackers passed through any airports, this lack of evidence would in no way prove that there were no hijackers.

 

[editor]

Okay PK, "one thing at a time" and first things first. Chronologically then, according to your theory, the alleged hijackers went to 3 airports and boarded 4 flights. So, over to you... all we need is for you to establish their presence at the airports with solid material evidence and then we can talk about the phone calls.

Always remember PK, you can't put the cart before the horse... didn't your mum teach you that when you were a lad?

Unless you can prove that the phone calls were faked and/or the loved ones who took the calls liars, there's absolutely no point wasting time discussing any of your fascinating, fact-free, speculation-heavy 'theories'.

The wives and husbands have never, ever doubted the authenticity of the calls, they've never doubted the identities of the callers and they have never doubted their circumstances.

So where's your proof that they're not telling the truth or have been fooled by DrJ's truly bizarre "Operation Tell Your Loved Ones You're About to be Killed by Non-Existent Terrorists For the Sake of the USG"

 

[fela fan]

Has any urban poster been high up in the air and tried using their mobile?

I know they say you mustn't due to possible interference with the navigational instruments, and it was this that made me bottle it last week when on a plane myself.

I'm not saying either way whether these calls were fake or not, just trying to establish, from urbanites' own experience, how easy or not it is to make a call from so many metres up in the air.

Coz just going up a 2000 foot mountain causes me to lose complete signals, and i'm on the ground. It just therefore makes me wonder how you can make a call from say 20,000 foot up in the air.

And then there was that one call that went on for several minutes. Presumably with a clear signal all that time?

I'm genuinely mystified.

 

[editor]

Has any urban poster been high up in the air and tried using their mobile?

I know they say you mustn't due to possible interference with the navigational instruments, and it was this that made me bottle it last week when on a plane myself.

I'm not saying either way whether these calls were fake or not, just trying to establish, from urbanites' own experience, how easy or not it is to make a call from so many metres up in the air.

Coz just going up a 2000 foot mountain causes me to lose complete signals, and i'm on the ground. It just therefore makes me wonder how you can make a call from say 20,000 foot up in the air.

And then there was that one call that went on for several minutes. Presumably with a clear signal all that time?

I'm genuinely mystified.

So you haven't read any of the links I've patiently posted up for you?

 

[editor]

I don't know why I'm bothering any more but...

Calling From 30,000 Feet

Because wireless networks are designed for terrestrial use, the fact that so many people were able to call from the sky brings into question how the phones worked from such altitudes.

Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson, said systems are not designed for calls from high altitudes, suggesting it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations.

“On land, we have antenna sectors that point in three directions — say north, southwest, and southeast,” she explained. “Those signals are radiating across the land, and those signals do go up, too, due to leakage.”

From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops. Although calls are not reliable, callers can pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain altitude, she added.

Brenda Raney, Verizon Wireless spokesperson, said that RF signals actually can broadcast fairly high. On Sept. 11, the planes were flying low when people started using their phones. And, each call lasted 60 seconds or less.

“They also were digital phones, and there's a little bit more leeway on those digital phones, so it worked,” she said.

It helped that the planes were flying in areas with plenty of cell sites, too. Even United Airlines flight 93, which crashed in rural Pennsylvania, was supported by several nearby cell sites, Raney added.
http://wirelessreview.com/ar/wireless_final_contact

The weather conditions were perfect that day.

And of course, the planes were planes were NOT at cruise altitude, they were on approach for New York.

 

[fela fan]

So you haven't read any of the links I've patiently posted up for you?

Editor, i am interested in urbanites' own personal experiences as i pointed out in my post just now. I as a person have a big problem in accepting 'experts' words, having seen personally how they can be wrong from my own life experiences.

I'd much rather take the word of an urban poster who tells me of their own experience. They'd be nowhere near as anonymous as an expert or unknown journalist.

And like i said, from my own experience, i cannot get any signal whatsoever when i'm 2000 feet up a mountain while on the ground. This is the case for northern thailand and for northern australia. It makes me wonder why 20,000 feet would then be possible.

 

[editor]

And like i said, from my own experience, i cannot get any signal whatsoever when i'm 2000 feet up a mountain while on the ground. This is the case for northern thailand and for northern australia. It makes me wonder why 20,000 feet would then be possible.

Because you've read the links I've patiently posted up for you, you are, of course fully aware that mobiles rely on 'line of sight' for their signals.

That's why you can be in an office and not get a signal, that's why you can be up a mountain and not get a signal and that's why you can be in the centre of London and not get a signal.

It's also how you can be in the middle of nowhere without a transmitter in sight and find yourself able to make calls.

It's really very simple.

 

[fela fan]

Editor, that’s fine, I’ve read your links before. Reading this one causes me problems.

How did the woman know all the phones used were digital? Is that possible in 2001?

She said all calls were under 60 seconds. But you often refer to a call that went on for several minutes.

And then there’s this from your excerpt:

“Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson, said systems are not designed for calls from high altitudes, suggesting it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations.”

A fluke? And so many phones, so many flukes…

Maybe you can see why I doubt all these reports and stuff that we read in papers. I want to know of urbanites’ experiences.

 

[fela fan]

Because you've read the links I've patiently posted up for you, you are, of course fully aware that mobiles rely on 'line of sight' for their signals.

That's why you can be in an office and not get a signal, that's why you can be up a mountain and not get a signal and that's why you can be in the centre of London and not get a signal.

It's also how you can be in the middle of nowhere without a transmitter in sight and find yourself able to make calls.

It's really very simple.

Okay fair enough that is informative. I in no way read all your links, depends on my motivation to do so on each basis. I hadn't read that one for sure.

But i still want to know of anyone who's tried using their mobile up in the air. Maybe you're satisfied with what you've read, and what you know, but i'm not.