*The evidence for the 'hijack' theory of 9-11
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
- Status
"who believes the internet anyway?"
I think Mike was referring to anonymously authored, unattributable sites committed to proagating these wonderful theories.
Yours would no doubt be properly sourced and fully verified, choc-fully of references and back-up material.
I think Mike was referring to anonymously authored, unattributable sites committed to proagating these wonderful theories.
Yours would no doubt be properly sourced and fully verified, choc-fully of references and back-up material.
editor
hiraethified
Sadly, for many conspiracy theorists, it's their only source - and some aren't even bothered if the 'evidence' comes way of 'quotes' made up by non existent experts on non existent bulletin boards.
Can't wait to see your website as I'm sure you won't make the mistake of linking to highly dubious, uncorroborated, unattributed sources.
When can I, err, expect to see it?
Willy waving at its absolute best, or what?
editor
hiraethified
Whatever you think.
I know what I'd do if I thought I had amazing revealing insights into the conspiracy of the millennium - and it sure as hell would be a little more than posting on a bulletin board.
These boards are for open and lively debate and discussion, not for a handful of people to post up the same stuff again and again, with a near-religious, unbending belief in their rightness.
The issues have been discussed ad infinitum, and the quality of recent posts tells that there's not much point pursuing the matter further.
Fela fan has announced that anyone who's too bored to continue repeating themselves in this miserable debate has 'bottled it'.
With no of his own website to further his strong beliefs, I can only assume that his passion about the 'great conspiracy' only runs as far as posting here.
Forgive me if I'm underwhelmed.
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
The day you use the reliable impartial source of the daily telegraph as evidence is a very sad day indeed
I remember reading that article thoroughly on the day (I didn't buy it but my tory mate did) and there was NO evidence in it at all. The closet the suppossed transcript got was that OBL reffered to the hijackers as brothers iirc.
You may want to read a little about who Lord Conrad Black is and his place with the Bilderbergers to find a better idea of his real motives.
Maggot
The Cake of Liberty
The evidence that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist.
We all know that the Loch Ness Monster exists.
I challenge all you doubters and cynics out there who don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster to prove that it doesn't exist. Show me the evidence.
If anyone can prove it doesn't I am willing to be swayed, but until then I am going to carry on believing.
We all know that the Loch Ness Monster exists.
I challenge all you doubters and cynics out there who don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster to prove that it doesn't exist. Show me the evidence.
If anyone can prove it doesn't I am willing to be swayed, but until then I am going to carry on believing.
So you'll be waiting a long time mate. As i've already told you now a couple of times, i'm not building one mainly coz i don't know how to. And right now other motivations are more important to me. So, no site for me just yet.
My interest in these threads (not sites as i mentioned earlier) you'll be glad to hear is now no longer very high. Everything is clear.
editor
hiraethified
editor
hiraethified
I don't recall using those words. Could you remind me where I said that?
The Telegraph just happened to the first in a long line of links reporting OBL's involvement with 9/11, but if you don't like that one, here's a BBC story
No need to reply, as just about everyone here has had enough of this tedious conspiracy shite.
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
Will you be my first hit??
One day i'll get round to it, and ta for the links. But it won't be on my beliefs - i don't have any.
We could take a short cut and have you set up a corner of urban for all the nutters to conglomorate in. You could even carry a public health warning for that section of urban. Particularly to remind yourself not to go there, or even to start a thread there...
Meanwhile, where's the evidence that the US elite weren't involved??
well, like nala1917 I applaud maggot for actually providing a list of 'evidence'; even though none stands up to the most basic scrutiny.
1) They also denied responsibility. It depends which 'source' you look at. One of the audio tapes in which OBL claimed responsibility has been declared a fake by Swiss voice researchers Guardian. No one must ask oneself - who would fake it? Similarly the CIA video which most people know about has all sorts of problems, the transcript is innaccurate, and IMHO the man pictured looks nothing like Bin Laden! I don't think the video could possibly count as evidence in a court of law for very good reasons. And even if it is OBL, why accept the brag? It's well known for terrorist organisations to claim responsibility for stuff they had nothing to do with!
2) This is not the case - with good research on the targets - and who knows what voice alteration devices exist - it would be easy to do. Calls that went well would be repeated, ones that were going badly terminated; most were very short. As people have pointed out, any differences would be easily dismissed as the speaker being flustered (such as "Hi mom, this is Mark Bingham". And let's note these reported calls are far from hard, physical evidence. The emotional nature in which these calls are held does nothing to strengthen them as evidence.
3) This is inaccurate (it was just a few) and utterly circumstantial. You could simply name hijackers who were pilots. In fact, that's what they did, because at least one is still alive and flying for a Saudi airline!
4) This is a naive proposition if I may say so. Have you seen the guidance systems in place for missiles? And there is no proof that the flights that impacted were the ones they are held to be; and good reason to suspect that they were switched. (The transponders were all turned off in every plane with no 'hijack' code broadcast - an astonishing feat for which the hijackers had no reason to do). The first impact simply cannot be identified as a jumbo. The second can, but it may not be the right one. And as for the Pentagon....
5) Really? We know for a fact that they have considered committing attacks on their own citizens so as to look like that of other terrorists (Operation Northwoods).
6) As nala17 points out, how can they claim a huge political advantage by looking ridiculous? But I don't know what they have said in any case, perhaps the evidence that the enemies of the US have concurred with the hijack theory could be presented, should it exist, of course!
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Firstly a missile system is a lot simpler than a multi engine airplane.
Secondly missiles are NOT remote controlled they are autonomous. Thats why most of them are 'fire and forget'
Even if the IFF transponder is turned off the aircraft could still be tracked by radar. If another aircraft moved onto the same flight path to be able to perform a switch and confuse the airtraffic controllers as to which 'blip' was what aircraft, the airtraffic controllers would have contacted the second plane to get it to change course thinking a mid air collision was imminent.
It is no 'astonishing feat' to turn off all the transponders on an aircraft as all the on/off switches are all located in close proximity on the center console. They did have reason to turn off the radio system as this would prevent any crew contacting the ground.
And just to clarify, my avionics qualifications have already been posted.
... Exactly how would the air traffic controllers get the second plane to obey their instructions, if your man chose that he didn't much care to, probably likely if he planned to fly it into the WTC?
And I really don't understand how you can pooh-pooh the idea of remote control planes. Here's Global Hawk which is just such a plane. And here's a reference to Bob Ayling admitting their existence for commercial aircraft.
and thanks for making discussion.
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
Wouldbe:
You'll have to forgive me if I find the opinion of some bloke with a BTEC who worked for Ericsson (you fail to state in what capacity) slightly less credible than the US Federal Aviation Administration, RTCA Inc. (nonprofit organization that sets industry standards for aircraft electronics) and the mighty ZDNet.
With reference to potential EMF interference upon sensitive avionics from cellphones etc, I feel compelled to point out to you that such systems are designed to be as resistant as possible to such interference.
To my mind, the most sensitive piece of equipment would probably be a flux gate compass? (you'll have to share a little of your knowledge here - I'm assuming that modern commercial jets use FGC's, tho I don't know for certain - are gyrocompasses used? please do correct me if I'm 'off course' ).
Out of curiousity, this afternoon I conducted an experiment with a mobile phone and the FGC built into the Brooks and Gatehouse Autohelm fitted to a friends boat (just out of the water for the winter and on a trailer in our yard).
The B&G unit displays the bearing on an LCD display in the cockpit, the FGC is in a seperate box screwed to the bulkhead in the cabin. To cut to the point, I couldn't get the phone to make any difference to the displayed bearing, despite sending texts and checking voicemail whilst waving the phone about around the FGC.
This rather surprised me, especially considering the effect the phone has on CRT computer monitors (makes the video go squiggly) and the breakthough (noise) I get if I leave it on top of my HiFi amp.
So why are we forbidden from using cellphones on commercial flights? According to things I have read, it would be because they would much prefer you to spend £3 per min using the 'Airfone'... (That and the fact that it simply wouldn't work).
Perhaps if you want to convince people that you know better than the ZDNet article, (something of a prerequisite if you would like an apology) it would help if you could elaborate slightly on your experience gained working in the field of avionics (assuming that you did) and cellular telecommunications systems (assuming, again, that you worked in a technical capacity for ericsson - big company with lots of dirty toilets).
So far you have failed to demonstate a particularly indepth knowledge.
You'll have to forgive me if I find the opinion of some bloke with a BTEC who worked for Ericsson (you fail to state in what capacity) slightly less credible than the US Federal Aviation Administration, RTCA Inc. (nonprofit organization that sets industry standards for aircraft electronics) and the mighty ZDNet.
With reference to potential EMF interference upon sensitive avionics from cellphones etc, I feel compelled to point out to you that such systems are designed to be as resistant as possible to such interference.
To my mind, the most sensitive piece of equipment would probably be a flux gate compass? (you'll have to share a little of your knowledge here - I'm assuming that modern commercial jets use FGC's, tho I don't know for certain - are gyrocompasses used? please do correct me if I'm 'off course'
).Out of curiousity, this afternoon I conducted an experiment with a mobile phone and the FGC built into the Brooks and Gatehouse Autohelm fitted to a friends boat (just out of the water for the winter and on a trailer in our yard).
The B&G unit displays the bearing on an LCD display in the cockpit, the FGC is in a seperate box screwed to the bulkhead in the cabin. To cut to the point, I couldn't get the phone to make any difference to the displayed bearing, despite sending texts and checking voicemail whilst waving the phone about around the FGC.
This rather surprised me, especially considering the effect the phone has on CRT computer monitors (makes the video go squiggly) and the breakthough (noise) I get if I leave it on top of my HiFi amp.
So why are we forbidden from using cellphones on commercial flights? According to things I have read, it would be because they would much prefer you to spend £3 per min using the 'Airfone'... (That and the fact that it simply wouldn't work).
Perhaps if you want to convince people that you know better than the ZDNet article, (something of a prerequisite if you would like an apology) it would help if you could elaborate slightly on your experience gained working in the field of avionics (assuming that you did) and cellular telecommunications systems (assuming, again, that you worked in a technical capacity for ericsson - big company with lots of dirty toilets).
So far you have failed to demonstate a particularly indepth knowledge.
Kept what up for so long??
editor
hiraethified
The author of that article claims to be "Sir Peter Bonnell... an American Knighted for an "outstanding fight against world communism". He was promoted to Commander & Brig. Gen. In 1978, served as Ambassador of the Sovereign Order of St. John 1978-1980, appointed as Chairman of the Ohio Governor's Export Council to Central America in 1982 ".
For a man claiming to 'bring the truth' he sure seems to have something of a Peter Kirsch MD whiff about him:
1. Americans who are knighted can not use "Sir" in front of their names (they can only put the letters KBE after it).
2. The only reference to the 'Ambassador of the Sovereign Order of St. John' on the entire web is....on Sir Peter Bonnell's website
3 . The only reference to the 'Ambassador Ohio Governor's Export Council to Central America' on the entire web is....on Sir Peter Bonnell's website
I'm sure you wouldn't make the mistake of citing a complete charlatan with a pretend knighthood and made up qualifications, so I'll be delighted to see your credible, verifying sources.
(edited to add: oh yes! he's a very credible source, alright! )
(editor wipes away tears of laughter)
Lovely politics on that site too.
What are you talking about? If they don't like these sorts of threads, they needn't read them, far less conrtribute to them. And even far less start them, particularly if they induce such tedium in oneself.
Such strange behaviour. Do you read reams and reams of stuff rednblack that bores you to tears?
And i assume editor will be binning his own particular 9/11 thread if he bins this one?
editor
hiraethified
Oh yes, I'll be binning the lot.
But only after DrJ defends his fascinating source!
Have you seen that site? It's a complete hoot! Go on - check the guy out!
Here's a quote to be going on with (next to a random photo of a soldier):
Well, just read what this bonnel chap has to say. Probably more believable than any known writer in the Telgraph or Mail or Sun or Times if you ask me.
I don't know anyone who can always provide the level of corroboration you seem to expect editor.
To me, bonnel is a complete stranger, so he doesn't score highly on the believability stakes on that aspect. But what i always think when reading similar things to what this bonnel chap is writing, is that it must be harder to make up than to write truthfully.
Bonnel says this:
"Yet, even though it was reported that the order was given to shoot that plane down the government denies it. There is nothing wrong with shooting down that plane when three others had already been flown into other buildings. A commander HAS to make decisions sometimes to sacrifice some to save many. Yet, the government it seems is afraid to tell the truth about anything to the people.
This would also show that Pres. Bush and the "good guys" in the military did not know about the attack beforehand. If they were a part of it, why shoot it down? But, with Echelon and the billions we spend on defense and Intel, some surly knew!"
So, there he is making a case for bush's innocence!!
I don't know anyone who can always provide the level of corroboration you seem to expect editor.
To me, bonnel is a complete stranger, so he doesn't score highly on the believability stakes on that aspect. But what i always think when reading similar things to what this bonnel chap is writing, is that it must be harder to make up than to write truthfully.
Bonnel says this:
"Yet, even though it was reported that the order was given to shoot that plane down the government denies it. There is nothing wrong with shooting down that plane when three others had already been flown into other buildings. A commander HAS to make decisions sometimes to sacrifice some to save many. Yet, the government it seems is afraid to tell the truth about anything to the people.
This would also show that Pres. Bush and the "good guys" in the military did not know about the attack beforehand. If they were a part of it, why shoot it down? But, with Echelon and the billions we spend on defense and Intel, some surly knew!"
So, there he is making a case for bush's innocence!!
editor
hiraethified
You've either not read his site or you are so gullible it hurts.
I suggest you go off and research his claims fast, because if you're going to take this guy's claims at face value without even bothering to check them, I truly despair for you. Really.
Are you really this desperate to find conspiracy at every turn?
Listen to this gibberish!
But why wait? I thought it was all too tedious, specially all that nutty stuff DrJ comes out with?
Why start threads that you will then bin?
Why bin them? In the whole of urban, surely these two or three threads take up a miniscule amount of bandwidth?
And there are far more really tedious threads all over the place that could be binned if that were the criteria for binning.
They can't be that tedious to urbanites coz they get a lot of posts.
But they're not really tedious are they
?- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
