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

[pk]

...besides... Flatley will get you nowhere, mate.

 

[pk]

And neither will Slattery, for that matter.

 

[fela fan]

pk, yer a fuckin bully.

and you love it.

 

[Jessiedog]

That's because in HK, you have transponders installed underground to relay cellular signals.

Subway wiring is usually done with "leaky coax" cables, which is the standard cable wires you're used to from your cable TV punctured with tiny holes "allowing incoming and outgoing signals to travel."

Standard base antennas and electronic boxes to capture and resend wireless date are installed in the subway stations as well.

We don't have this in London, nor do they have it in New York.

Too many people live in the tunnels, the workmen get scared down there...

Ah!

That would explain it then. Thanks pk.

Our trains also run at approximately sixty to ninety second intervals during the rush hour (yeah, seconds, not minutes ). And every three to four minutes outside the rush hour. Found myself getting impatient the other day, 'cos I'd been waiting more than three minutes for a train.

Damn I miss the London Underground!



Carry on peeps.

Woof

 

[Thumper Browne]

If the hijackers never were on any of the flights, then even a blind man speeding by on a galloping horse would see that the phone call depicting hijacks in progress by them were obviously faked.

That is an ENORMOUS jump in logic, Atta my not have been on the plane but that doesn't mean that the phone calls were faked, any number of other people, be they Al Quaida or CIA, could have been hijackers on that plane.

 

[editor]

That is an ENORMOUS jump in logic, Atta my not have been on the plane but that doesn't mean that the phone calls were faked, any number of other people, be they Al Quaida or CIA, could have been hijackers on that plane.

There's no logic at all to bigfish's posts.

He hasn't come up with an even remotely feasible explanation about how the calls could have been faked either, preferring to endlessly shift his 'argument' to something else whenever challenged.

But let's ask again: how could have those phone calls been faked so incredibly well that none of the relatives have any doubts at all about their authenticity and how could they have possibly pulled off such a remarkable deception when some of the callers weren't even supposed to be on the flights, bigfish?

 

[Jo/Joe]

bigfish and drj pin too much of their hope on nonsensical claims that completely undermine any sensible criticism of the USG over 9/11. Remember the missiles??

 

[editor]

Remember the missiles??

And the rest!

According to the various theories posted here by DrJ et all, the WTC towers were first struck by a salvo of missiles fired from a pretend passenger plane (possibly holographic), and then hit by remote control missiles pretending to be passenger planes (possibly holographic) and then finished off with 'small arms fire' and sundry bombs, explosions etc fired off around the towers before the entire structure was blown up by secretly planted explosives, pre-wired invisibly into the building's structure.

 

[Thumper Browne]

According to the various theories posted here by DrJ et all, the WTC towers were first struck by a salvo of missiles fired from a pretend passenger plane (possibly holographic), and then hit by remote control missiles pretending to be passenger planes (possibly holographic) and then finished off with 'small arms fire' and sundry bombs, explosions etc fired off around the towers before the entire structure was blown up by secretly planted explosives, pre-wired invisibly into the building's structure.

It IS amaaazing what they can do nowadays!

 

[Jazzz]

Oh, call me a cunt, for fuck's sake... you know you want to...

Is that really your preferred form of address amongst friends? Y'know, like Blair would say 'Call me Tony'.

Weirdo.

 

[editor]

Is that really your preferred form of address amongst friends? Y'know, like Blair would say 'Call me Tony'.

Very weak, DrJ.

 

[pk]

Originally Posted by DrJazzz
Is that really your preferred form of address amongst friends? Y'know, like Blair would say 'Call me Tony'.

I would hardly count you as a friend now would I?

 

[bigfish]

You still haven't offered a remotely credible explanation about how those phone calls could have been faked.

I don't have to prove the cell phone calls were faked... YOU, as the person making the assertion, have to prove the calls were 1. technically possible 2. genuine. To do that, first you have to establish the presence of the alleged hijackers in the airports and prove beyond reasonable doubt that they boarded all the flights in question. Can you do that please? I mean, you've only had 3 years to anti up the evidence, but all you've given us so far are two sets of images, a photograph and a video, that wouldn't even make it in to a properly convened court of law.

You and the rest of your pals might be happy to convict a person based on nothing more than your maket-uppy opinions, but I'm not... Okay?

That is an ENORMOUS jump in logic, Atta my not have been on the plane but that doesn't mean that the phone calls were faked, any number of other people, be they Al Quaida or CIA, could have been hijackers on that plane.

The assertion being made by the "it was Al-Qaeda wot done it, honest guv" mob is that A-Q Islamic fanatics "hijacked" the planes in question and that it was them the "passengers" were refering to in the phone calls.

For this assertion to have any basis in either logic or law, then the person making it must first establish with HARD evidence the physical presence of the "hijackers" in 3 airports and prove they boarded 4 flights. If the alleged hijackers never were at any of the airports then obviously they couldn't have been present in the planes during the times in question.

With respect Thumber, you're repeating the same error as the Usual Suspects. Now you seem to be claiming: "any number of other people, be they Al Quaida or CIA, could have been hijackers on that plane."

However, the same principle applies with equal force to you also. Which people were "hijackers"? Where is the evidence upon which you base your opinion that others may have been responsible? Do you have security picture and witness statements describing these "other people"? Can you identify any of them as "Al-Qaeda" or CIA agents?

 

[Jo/Joe]

For fuck's sake bigfish, you're demanding standards that you aren't prepared to follow yourself. You are making the most outlandish assertion of all. You prove it.

 

[editor]

I don't have to prove the cell phone calls were faked... YOU, as the person making the assertion, have to prove the calls were 1. technically possible 2. genuine.

I've done that. I've provided links to the people who took those calls. Their stories are very compelling and the fact that they've never raised any doubts whatsoever about the authenticity of the calls is good enough for me.

Unless you can prove they're all lying or too stupid to tell the difference between talking to a USG Instant Mike Yarwood and their loved ones, you 'arguments' are nothing but fruitloop fantasies.

So where's your proof that they're lying?

And there's been ample evidence posted about the possibility of making mobile phone calls - and, of course, there's the tricky problem of the passengers who used the SkyPhone.

Meanwhile, you're yet to provide a single, solitary shred of hard evidence.

 

[bigfish]

The phone calls, we are told, describe "hijacks" in progress. That MUST means that the "hijackers" passed through 3 different airports in order to have boarded all 4 flights that were apparently "hijacked". Therefore, HARD evidence proving beyond doubt the suspects were actually in the targeted airports at the appropiate times and that they did actually board all 4 flights in question, would be an absolute prerequisite for overcoming any doubts an honest jury might reasonably be expected to harbour in their deliberations with out it, thereby securing a proper criminal conviction in a properly convened court of law.

No honest jury would ever convict a fellow human being on the basis of your own argument above. And that's because your argument is not rooted in the reality of the events as they are known to have unfolded in real time. No jury would convict a group of accused men of bank robbery without first being convinced by hard evidence that the accused really were in the building at the time of the robbery. An anecdotal account transmitted down a phone line to a third party from an apparently deceased witness claiming that the accused did rob the bank would not be permitted into evidence by the judge for a number of fairly obvious reasons.

If you were an investigating officer presenting your formula above as 'evidence' before a sworn jury, then the judge would be forced to censure both you and the prosecuting council who called you as a witness, for your shear disregard for the principles of comman law. If you can't place any of the alleged hijackers in the airports and on the planes in the first instance then your phone calls 'evidence' is a dead duck and inadmissible.

All you are doing is trying to overcome the very serious obsticle of an overwhelming absence of any HARD evidence able to support your case, by presenting an abundance of (highly dubious) SOFT anecdotal evidence as a substitute. Clearly, no one in their right mind would ever want to convict anyone on such a shabby basis.

 

[editor]

All you are doing is trying to overcome the very serious obsticle of an overwhelming absence of any HARD evidence able to support your case, by presenting an abundance of (highly dubious) SOFT anecdotal evidence as a substitute. Clearly, no one in their right mind would ever want to convict anyone on such a shabby basis.

So you really can't muster any credible evidence that proves that the wives, husbands and parents who took the phone calls were all lying through their teeth?

That really fucks up your conspiracy yarns, doesn't it?

But seeing as you're so keen on hard evidence, be sure to post up your 'hard' evidence that explains how these personal, intimate calls were made.

Looking forward to it...

 

[Streathamite]

I don't have to prove the cell phone calls were faked... YOU, as the person making the assertion, have to prove the calls were 1. technically possible 2. genuine. To do that, first you have to establish the presence of the alleged hijackers in the airports and prove beyond reasonable doubt that they boarded all the flights in question.

whaaat?
are you pulling my chain? in the normal run of circumstances, there is FUCK ALL reason to doubt that a call was made from phone A to phone B, if that's what's there. There's a body of evidence. and most of the whole world thinks those calls were made - that's important, and it's called consensus, unless you know better than the majority of the world's population (by any conservative population). It's up to you, surely, to prove the calls were NOT made, or have I missed something here?

 

[Jazzz]

Complete nonsense Red Jezza

That's just an argument for following the crowd. How dare one think differently!

But let's note that we are not in a court of law here - no-one need 'prove' anything. - we are here to exchange opinions and reasoning. We don't have to agree.

I really cannot fathom why people get so uptight - there is absolutely no call for it. If you want to believe the calls are genuine - be my guest! It's none of my business what your brain wants to think.

 

[cynical_bastard]

OMG teh lizards did it!11!1!1

 

[pk]

Bigfish - stop being a wanker.

I have proved that the calls were possible.

The testimony of the close relatives who took the calls proves they took place, as well as the answer machine messages.

So YOU prove they never happened. Of course you can't... you just expect everyone to believe you, when in fact everyone is laughing at you, just like this chap...

 

[editor]

That's just an argument for following the crowd. How dare one think differently!

Not like 'dangerous' DrJ who dares to think outside the box with his oh-so enlightened logic and insights.

 

[editor]

If you want to believe the calls are genuine - be my guest! It's none of my business what your brain wants to think.

If you can't prove that the calls were faked, kindly desist from endlessly posting up your tedious evidence-free claims.

 

[Jazzz]

If you can't prove that the calls were faked, kindly desist from endlessly posting up your tedious evidence-free claims.

Hang on editor - YOU keep asking for theories and opinion on the phone calls, for the people that discard the official theory for whatever reason, like the fact that the hole in the Pentagon just isn't big enough. If someone considers it impossible for a 757 to have hit the Pentagon, it's plenty good enough to provide a possible explanation for the phone calls, not one that requires proof.

As ever you want to have your cake and eat it too.

And can I draw your attention to the fact that over 50 pollsters have now voted "yes, quite possibly". It should be abundantly clear that the thorny issue of 9-11 isn't going anywhere around here, or anywhere else. I haven't even started a 9-11 thread for a long while, yet you attempt to single me out as if I am posting the whole thing

 

[Lock&Light]

And can I draw your attention to the fact that over 50 pollsters have now voted "yes, quite possibly".

Of what possible value is a poll so painfully poorly worded as this one?

 

[editor]

Hang on editor - YOU keep asking for theories and opinion on the phone calls, for the people that discard the official theory for whatever reason, like the fact that the hole in the Pentagon just isn't big enough. If someone considers it impossible for a 757 to have hit the Pentagon, it's plenty good enough to provide a possible explanation for the phone calls, not one that requires proof.

Face it. You really can't come up with a remotely credible explanation about how those phone calls could have been faked, can you?

And without a credible explanation, all your fruitloop tales about Instant USG Mike Yarwoods, Oscar-worthy lying loved ones, remote control aircraft, pretend passenger aircraft firing off missiles (invisible to all in NYC) and all the rest of the rubbish you post here are absolutely worthless.

and remember: it's not the USG making the claims about the calls: it's the loved ones who knew their husbands/wives better than anyone else - even self-deluded conspiracy fans!

 

[Jazzz]

The point, eloquently made by bigfish, is that the calls are soft evidence. They prove very little. Come up with an airphone record of the call, or cellphone triangulation records, and you are then dealing with hard documented evidence. Without that there is no reason to be certain whatsoever that the calls came from the planes they were meant to have done. In fact we haven't seen any cellphone bills showing the calls so there is no reason to think that they came from cellphones.

And this isn't considering whether the calls are possible in the first place - I have seen very little so suggest that they were.

 

[editor]

The point, eloquently made by bigfish, is that the calls are soft evidence. They prove very little.

The calls fit all the available evidence and all of the loved ones who took the calls have never ever expressed any doubts whatsoever about their authenticity. And that makes for compelling testimony.

Your alternative 'explanation' is so improbable, ludicrous and evidence-free that it's positively embarrassing and almost as insulting as your equally moronic Huntley claims.

But go on: remind me again how 'they' could have faked all those calls and I'll be delighted to shred your childish fairy stories into little pieces.

 

[Jazzz]

Why should I keep repeating myself just because you do? To be honest I'm getting rather bored addressing your posts. It's really rather trying.

 

[editor]

Why should I keep repeating myself just because you do? To be honest I'm getting rather bored addressing your posts. It's really rather trying.

Like a good little conspiracy obsessive, I see you're still running away from tackling those tricky questions that upset your evidence-free theories...