Do you like to sing hearty songs around the camp fire as well?
*The evidence for the 'hijack' theory of 9-11
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
- Status
Good words mate! I think you concisely encapsulated the feelings of millions and millions of 'conspiricists' around the world regarding 9/11. Those that just find it so hard to accept that Bush and his gang are innocent of any complicity. And it's hard, coz all the evidence provided looks so bloody dodgy.
I will take this opportunity to furnish some information to urban's british based posters that much of the world believes the US to be complicit, at the very least of letting it happen. I guess coz all mainstream media there deliver the news with the appropriate british slant on things and of life on the planet, that there is less scepticism offered against the official version.
And britain is the US sidekick these days (what a reversal), thus the british slant is in essence quite an american slant too.
It will be interesting to see what happens in a year or two when both bush and blair are history. Will all sorts of leaks and info come into the public eye?
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
I went to bed, had a good sleep, got up, rolled a phat one (it's the National Day Holiday today in China), booted up and avidly hunted down this thread, and then.......
NOTHING!
NADA!
MOA!
Not one single, solitary, piece of verifiable evidence has been presented to support this thread's hypothesis.
Come on all you "hijack theorists".
I'm so disappointed.
Gutted!
Woof
I went to bed, had a good sleep, got up, rolled a phat one (it's the National Day Holiday today in China), booted up and avidly hunted down this thread, and then.......
NOTHING!
NADA!
MOA!
Not one single, solitary, piece of verifiable evidence has been presented to support this thread's hypothesis.
Come on all you "hijack theorists".
I'm so disappointed.
Gutted!
Woof
WouldBe
Dislicksick
I offered, you asked, here they are www.stevenbailey2.freeola.com/Me/Quals.htm
Apologies for the poor quality but I don't have a scanner at the moment.
I have nothing to hide, I have no need to lie infact I am crap at lying. Unless anyone else can provide proof of avionics qualification it looks as though i am the closest to an expert you are going to find that is verifyable.
DrJazz I never stated that any pet names were used during the phone calls. I used that as an example of the way people use different vocabulary when talking to different people. When I call my mum I always start with 'Hi mum it's me' which is a turn of of phrase I would not use if phoning to book a plane ticket. So to convince the relatives, whoever 'faked' the phone calls would have had to know what phrases the passengers normally used and you wouldnt get that from a recorded phone call to a ticket desk.
Backatcha Bandit CB radios do not work on the same frequencies as HiFi's or TV but can still cause interference similarly with car / motorbike engines. Now while a bit of snow is not harmful on a TV similar interference could be disasterous in an aircrafts systems.
If there is no problem with mobile phone interference why anr you warned NOT to use them? As the compass system on an aircraft detects the very small magnetic field of the earth then any equipment which can produce a magnetic field, whether from a magnet or electronically induced would be able to affect the compass system of the aircraft.
It is also possible for the equipment on an aircraft to affect other systems, even if they don't work on similar frequencies, under certain circumstances.
editor
hiraethified
Absolutely.
I think it very, very unlikely that I'd be fooled by phone calls coming from CIA black-helicopter hovering ops pretending to be my girlfriend because of the rapport we have between each other.
How could you fake that? Or is someone going to seriously suggest that they tracked and bugged each and every possible passenger on those flights - as well as the considerable amounts of people who might just change their mind at the last minute and hop on the flight?
And - crucially - if it was all one big fit up, why on earth go the truly staggering amount of effort to fake the phone calls in the first place?
But there is an added factor that needs to be taken into account.
Fear.
If one is calling from a plane that seemingly is going to kill everyone, then a casual 'hi mum it's me' seems somewhat unlikely. C'mon, let's take the context into consideration, eh WouldBe?
I have never been hijacked, but i've been on the phone before and not recognised both my mum and girlfriend. Mates too on occasion don't sound like they normally do.
So there you are watching the tv over the WTC crashes, not exactly normal times, then a relative calls you to say they've been hijacked and about to die. Already in a state of extreme shock, you get this call from, say, your son, and naturally in recalling the phonecall retrospectively, even if you could remember, if you doubted the voice somehow, you'd put it down to the context.
Now, i have proposed a scenario whereby, mainly because of the unique context of the situation, phone calls could be passed off as real enough, even though they weren't.
And any american posters out there able to tell us whether such domestic flights could be expected to have individual phones in all seats?
Or were they pretending to queue for the toilet, then quickly nipping over to the single phone on the plane to make a call while the hijackers weren't looking?
One managing this four times.
I don't know what happened, just conjecturing.
have you never flown in a plane? the phones are right there behind the seat in front of you. and you can use a cell inflight, my bro did so on a flight to hawaii once. i was sitting next to him. we were still overland.
or is the mother of the now dead son just some actor? or maybe the wife of another phone caller is just a classically trained shakespearian theater actor lookin for some money? a shame that they brought her children into it. oh wait those were just haley joel osment and the pespi girl werent they? oh well... we got duped huh?
the hijackers paid for their one way tix with cash. the editor has already put up other evidence of osama taking credit for it.
here is some more:
hijacker proof
they did have photos of them. they were all over the news when it went down.
the hijackers who were all on the same flights (coincedence?)
most of whom were already known terrorists (conspiracy?)
most of whom had taken flight school lessons (coincedence?)
had gone out celebrating the nights before (conspiracy?)
yes you are right. there was a conspiracy. several arabian men of middle eastern nationalities conspired to hijack four planes. they got 3 for 4.
here is more proof
more hijacker proof
editor
hiraethified
It doesn't have to be "all seats" - just some seats.learn more
And your 'analysis' about how all people are supposed to act under pressure remains an example of cod-psychology at its finest.
I'm getting tired of repeating this stunningly obvious fact, so unless you can disprove it, I trust you will now keep your amateur psychological ramblings to yourself: different people act completely differently when under extreme stress.
Loki... my post following the one you quoted me on followed and is near the top of this page. That explains things.
Editor... and now just c'mon man! You have asked many times for an explanation over the phone calls and how they could possible have been faked.
I provide you with a possible scenario. That's all i did. And it seemed possible to me. Doesn't it to you?
The result is that you make a connection that i am supplying my opinion. I'm not. And you tell me that i've made an 'analysis' akin to the psychology of a fish. I haven't.
And you're right, it is stunningly obvious which is why i agree with it.
Editor... and now just c'mon man! You have asked many times for an explanation over the phone calls and how they could possible have been faked.
I provide you with a possible scenario. That's all i did. And it seemed possible to me. Doesn't it to you?
The result is that you make a connection that i am supplying my opinion. I'm not. And you tell me that i've made an 'analysis' akin to the psychology of a fish. I haven't.
And you're right, it is stunningly obvious which is why i agree with it.
editor
hiraethified
I've entertained (and paid for) enough of these tedious, repetitive threads for long enough now.
Unless anyone has something genuinely new (and evidence-backed) to say on the subject, I warmly invite you to relocate these endlessly circular arguments to a more appropriate board.
I would suggest posting on the boards that Vialls 'found' as they seem to get some interesting characters there, but sadly they only seem to exist in Joe "Sources? What Sources?!" Vialls' mind.
These boards weren't set up for the gratification of a tiny minority of conspiracy fans, and I see no reason to encourage any similarly minded people here - it hardly makes for the most riveting of debates, does it?
Unless anyone has something genuinely new (and evidence-backed) to say on the subject, I warmly invite you to relocate these endlessly circular arguments to a more appropriate board.
I would suggest posting on the boards that Vialls 'found' as they seem to get some interesting characters there, but sadly they only seem to exist in Joe "Sources? What Sources?!" Vialls' mind.
These boards weren't set up for the gratification of a tiny minority of conspiracy fans, and I see no reason to encourage any similarly minded people here - it hardly makes for the most riveting of debates, does it?
It does seem rather that the thread title here 'The evidence for the 'hijack' theory of 9-11' is drawing very little of such evidence!
That's a shame, because people who are beginning to doubt everything the FBI comes out with might like to see what evidence there is for it.
Should this thread end up in the bin, it really won't do much to help convince people of the hijack theory. It would appear that the invitation for evidence for it is simply too much to bear!
That's a shame, because people who are beginning to doubt everything the FBI comes out with might like to see what evidence there is for it.
Should this thread end up in the bin, it really won't do much to help convince people of the hijack theory. It would appear that the invitation for evidence for it is simply too much to bear!
Or it could be that people are simply sick and tired of the subject ...
editor
hiraethified
Frankly, I couldn't give a fuck what you think on this particular topic, and I'd imagine most people wouldn't rely on a thread on a bulletin board to formulate their own opinion about whether remote control planes were whirring around the skies of NYC.
Still, if think so many people agree with your fascinating take on events, feel free to invite them over to your tumbleweed-strewn, conspiracy-tastic boards, where like-minded folks can happily swallow the latest Vialls updates in a cheerfully uncritical manner.
By the way, I wrote to both the 'aeronautical organisation' that Vialls claims to have been a member of and to Joe "no source!" Vialls himself.
I asked Joe for details about his pal, the ever-elusive Peter Kirsch MD, and the URL of the several bulletin boards where he was supposedly posting.
And guess what? I'm still waiting for answers!
And still you believe the guy? Such blind faith is nothing short of mind boggling!
Here's a chance to see whether the FBI 'hijack' theory is, in your words,
"evidence-lite conspiracy shite"
... if they haven't got back to you editor, that hardly means it Vialls wasn't a member! It means they can't be fucked dealing with such trivia; I know I am sick of it, even if you are not.
"evidence-lite conspiracy shite"
... if they haven't got back to you editor, that hardly means it Vialls wasn't a member! It means they can't be fucked dealing with such trivia; I know I am sick of it, even if you are not.
Maggot
The Cake of Liberty
1) Al queda/Osama bin laden claimed responsibility
2) All the phone calls to loved ones would have been impossible to fake
3) Most or all of the hijackers took flying lessons
4) The technology to fly a large commercial plane by remote control does not exist
5) The US Govt wouldn't fly a plane into its own building (Pentagon)
6) None of the US's enemies (Saddam etc) claimed it wasn't a hijack even though they could have gained a huge political advantage by saying so. This is because they knew they would look ridiculous saying so.
Hmmm ... two simultaneous threads taking the piss out of the disingenuously labelled 'tin-foil hatters' (which term, for the purposes of er .. . 'debate' ... includes anyone idiotic enough to express any doubt whatsever about what happened), and a third de-railed to provide yet another vehicle for venom and scorn, run on and on and on ... then suddenly folk get 'sick and tired' when asked to provide some basis for their own beliefs.
Bless.
And it's all gone quiet ... all gone quiet ... all gone quiet over there.
Read Maggot's post just before yours.
I certainly have no intention of going over and over the same tedious ground. You obviously think you have some kind of haymaker of an argument here but to me it sounds like the recycling of the same old shit.
I certainly have no intention of going over and over the same tedious ground. You obviously think you have some kind of haymaker of an argument here but to me it sounds like the recycling of the same old shit.
Yay! A genuine attempt to respond to the thread, rather than de-rail it into a carbon copy of it's predecessors. Thanks Maggot.
Points 1-4: all have been taken issue with elsewhere, but let's not go over old ground. Instead, why would any of these indicate that the USG could not be in any way complicit?
Point 5: I'm just not convinced by this. PNAC, in 1997, laid out their plans for the post-Cold War era, to establish unquestioned US pre-eminence and make them unchallengeable as the sole super-power. These plans included massive military interventions across the globe, starting with Iraq. The authors explicitly recognised that this kind of intervention would likely be impossible without an attack on America similar in scale to Pearl Harbor.
{Edited to add: Would they attack the Pentagon? It's not a bad point, but I'm not sure it stands up. In terms of getting the US people riled up, the WTC attacks were undoubtedly much more significant; the Pentagon attack got much less attention, certainly because there were far fewer killed and it was altogether less dramatic, but it has been suggested that this was possibly also in part because it was a military, and hence vaguely 'legitimate' target. However, to inspire a nation to go to war, you need the military on your side too. There was precious little support amongst the military for war on Iraq as it was. The attack on the Pentagon, if (and I mean if) the USG were involved in planning it, or knew about it and decided not to try and prevent it, may have been considered useful to stoke up the hawks in the Defence Department and shift the balance of power vis-a-vis the much more dove-ish State Department.}
Point 6: Your second sentence kind of answers the first; I can't see what kind of gain would be made from making the claim without being able to prove it. Appealing to the international community to rein in the worst excesses of US military adventurism would be a much better strategy than provoking more outraged victimhood from the USG and alienating those who might otherwise have some power to influence their course (including US voters).
Points 1-4: all have been taken issue with elsewhere, but let's not go over old ground. Instead, why would any of these indicate that the USG could not be in any way complicit?
Point 5: I'm just not convinced by this. PNAC, in 1997, laid out their plans for the post-Cold War era, to establish unquestioned US pre-eminence and make them unchallengeable as the sole super-power. These plans included massive military interventions across the globe, starting with Iraq. The authors explicitly recognised that this kind of intervention would likely be impossible without an attack on America similar in scale to Pearl Harbor.
{Edited to add: Would they attack the Pentagon? It's not a bad point, but I'm not sure it stands up. In terms of getting the US people riled up, the WTC attacks were undoubtedly much more significant; the Pentagon attack got much less attention, certainly because there were far fewer killed and it was altogether less dramatic, but it has been suggested that this was possibly also in part because it was a military, and hence vaguely 'legitimate' target. However, to inspire a nation to go to war, you need the military on your side too. There was precious little support amongst the military for war on Iraq as it was. The attack on the Pentagon, if (and I mean if) the USG were involved in planning it, or knew about it and decided not to try and prevent it, may have been considered useful to stoke up the hawks in the Defence Department and shift the balance of power vis-a-vis the much more dove-ish State Department.}
Point 6: Your second sentence kind of answers the first; I can't see what kind of gain would be made from making the claim without being able to prove it. Appealing to the international community to rein in the worst excesses of US military adventurism would be a much better strategy than provoking more outraged victimhood from the USG and alienating those who might otherwise have some power to influence their course (including US voters).
It certainly has gone quiet on the western front.
No evidence being put forward.
Sudden tedium washing over, unheard of before.
Waste of time repeating themselves.
'Conspiracy nuts, bloody fools the lot of them'.
I am declaring that those who for months have ceaselessly targetted DrJ and anyone else they perceive to be a conspiricist over their beliefs and questioning habit they have towards 9/11, have fluffed it.
Here was a perfect opportunity for them to get back to debating the message rather than attacking the messenger as some sort of loon, the degree of which depended on the poster's urge to ridicule. They have failed miserably, calling time out.
Where's the evidence? Why do you believe uncorrobarated mass media reports? Why were no planes scrambled despite a system put into place for just such a day?
You've spent all the time calling people names, but due to your inability to argue the arguement, you have kept quiet on this particular thread. Coz here you are being asked to put up evidence, rather than the other way round.
That shoe don't like the other foot now does it?
Now we know much more about these 9/11 threads. Those conspiricists just won't let them go, believing as they do that a massive crime has been committed. Those who cannot bring themselves to ask the right questions, instead like to snipe and ridicule and attempt to make fun of anyone who dares to ask awkward questions.
Posters bottled it, make no mistake. Very poor form.
No evidence being put forward.
Sudden tedium washing over, unheard of before.
Waste of time repeating themselves.
'Conspiracy nuts, bloody fools the lot of them'.
I am declaring that those who for months have ceaselessly targetted DrJ and anyone else they perceive to be a conspiricist over their beliefs and questioning habit they have towards 9/11, have fluffed it.
Here was a perfect opportunity for them to get back to debating the message rather than attacking the messenger as some sort of loon, the degree of which depended on the poster's urge to ridicule. They have failed miserably, calling time out.
Where's the evidence? Why do you believe uncorrobarated mass media reports? Why were no planes scrambled despite a system put into place for just such a day?
You've spent all the time calling people names, but due to your inability to argue the arguement, you have kept quiet on this particular thread. Coz here you are being asked to put up evidence, rather than the other way round.
That shoe don't like the other foot now does it?
Now we know much more about these 9/11 threads. Those conspiricists just won't let them go, believing as they do that a massive crime has been committed. Those who cannot bring themselves to ask the right questions, instead like to snipe and ridicule and attempt to make fun of anyone who dares to ask awkward questions.
Posters bottled it, make no mistake. Very poor form.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I am declaring that those who for months have ceaselessly targetted DrJ and anyone else they perceive to be a conspiricist over their beliefs and questioning habit they have towards 9/11.
Declaring them what? King, heads of the postal service? Chief laugher at-er - and who granted you that power?
As far as i can see a number of conspiracy minded people have shown themselves to the most close-minded, dogmatic and laughable posters on here - not a thing you've said has stood up to scrutiny and you've all gone quiet when it suited you to do so. I suggest you take what's left of your critical faculties and fuck off to the beach. You nuts really do make it harder for those of us who are trying to offer some real opposition to what's going on in this world.
Just fuck off the lot of you.
(That's about as balanced as you nutjobs deserve - you fucking freaks)
Declaring them what? King, heads of the postal service? Chief laugher at-er - and who granted you that power?
As far as i can see a number of conspiracy minded people have shown themselves to the most close-minded, dogmatic and laughable posters on here - not a thing you've said has stood up to scrutiny and you've all gone quiet when it suited you to do so. I suggest you take what's left of your critical faculties and fuck off to the beach. You nuts really do make it harder for those of us who are trying to offer some real opposition to what's going on in this world.
Just fuck off the lot of you.
(That's about as balanced as you nutjobs deserve - you fucking freaks)
editor
hiraethified
More like: Posters got utterly bored repeating themselves again and again and again to a collection of paranoid, blinkered conspiracy nuts who wouldn't know the truth if it landed directly on their tin foil hats with a flashing sign exclaiming, 'THE TRUTH'.
Talking of 'bottling it': where's your own website, big man?
I would have thought someone so keen as you to 'expose the truth' would be duty bound to produce a fact-packed, well-researched and accurately sourced killer website that would prove all your theories beyond doubt.
Except you can't be arsed. It's too much like hard work.
That's how much 'the truth' means to you.
I am declaring that you are all mouth and no trousers.
Now fuck off with your tedious whining and bleating. It's giving me a headache and I'm paying for it.
Who gave me that power? Stupid question. Me of course. It's a free life, free speech, even if you don't like that speech.
Anyway, same to you. Serious git. Don't want to get in the way of you folks who make up the real opposition to what's going on in this world do I now? Who gave you that power anyway? Hypocrite.
Now get on with the good work, and kindly ingnore those who make your head ache. Or do you just HAVE to get your put down in?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
