WTC attacks - the alternative thread

[FridgeMagnet]

God, you sound so fucking insulted. I mean, it's so deeply insulting isn't it?? It's so terrible...

It would be most easy to fake a call. I mentioned before the case of dozens of Japanese people who were just so 'conned' that they were listening to a 'loved' one.

You're so fixated on your own experiences on life, it precludes you from thinking straight.

Actually, no, you didn't - you mentioned earlier vaguely thinking you remembered hearing about some case in Japan where people had been fooled, quoting no details or references.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Indeed, Fridge. But it would indicate that the story as presented to us (concerning hijack) is false. You propose that if they were not hijacked by those alledged by the USG, then they may have been hijacked by 'someone' else?

...

If the USG's theory were shown to be invalid, logically one of the alternatives - whether it's one we have considered or not - must therefore be valid.

That's no logical fallacy.

If the planes weren't hijacked by those alleged by the USG, I think it is reasonable to start looking around for other hijackers or hijack methods rather than leaping straight to remote control, selectively-visible planes etc, simply because human guidance via hijacking is a pretty well established method of controlling planes, and ties in well with things like prior warnings that seem now to have been received by US intelligence, phone calls from the planes and so on.

Sure, if the USG's theory were not the case another theory would be correct, but that doesn't mean the remote control theory is any more valid than any other evidence-lite theory. There are loads of them about. There still doesn't seem to be any positive evidence for this particular one, just lots of statements that it would be theoretically possible and argument about exactly how hard it would be, which isn't a good basis for believing something in my book.

 

[WouldBe]

But why would the 'hijackers' use false ID after purchasing their tickets in their real names in the first place?

As I remember it your own link stated that tickets had being bought by the terrorists in the last few days of August. It didn't mention any thing about who's names they were bought in.

You also seemed to think it was strange that the tickets were bought in advance. It would be pretty bad planning to turn up at the airport and try to buy tickets just before the flight only to be told it was full. OK so we now know that the flights were no where near full, but there was no way of knowing that in advance.

 

[editor]

It would be most easy to fake a call. I mentioned before the case of dozens of Japanese people who were just so 'conned' that they were listening to a 'loved' one.

Not this again. You 'mentioned' these Japanese people but failed spectacularly to provide any specific details, context, background, names or even a single source for this tale. Please provide a credible reference to this story if you wish it to be taken seriously.

I don't believe it is even remotely 'easy' to fake calls between loved ones, especially when they're as serious as the ones made from the plane.

For some CIA impressionist to be able to fool a partner married for over ten years over the course of FOUR phone calls would be a near-impossible task.

You're so fixated on your own experiences on life, it precludes you from thinking straight.

I've no idea why you felt the need to throw in yet another off-topic, personal insult but I'm warning you now to desist.

And I'm thinking very straight, thanks.

 

[bigfish]

I suggested no such thing.

My post, which contained no references to other groups anyway - not sure quite where you got that bit from - made no suggestions, any more than saying "if unicorns had wings they could fly" is a suggestion that unicorns have wings.

It was in fact a criticism of your continually repeated assertion that, if the USG is wrong about the names of the hijackers, the planes can't have been hijacked at all and must have been remotely controlled, which is about as sensible as saying that if they were wrong it must have been aliens that did it. (I should have used a different word to "validity" in hindsight, it should have been something like "truth".)

I must say that it takes a certain chutzpah to ignore the post and then misquote it later for a different purpose.

Look FM, if you want to gleen answers from me or anyone else to your rather poorly formulated questions then I respectfully suggest you put much more effort into their construction. In other words try very hard to make yourself clear, Don't, for example, use terms like the abstract term "they", but rather say who you mean at the very least. Then everybody will know precisely who the fuck you are talking about and not just you... okay?


That way, you wont be able to come steaming in like the Lone Ranger pretending to rescue the situation with a wizz bang anwer rooted in your abstract phrasing,

Thanks for your time, I know you're a busy man.

 

[WouldBe]

Something has been bugging me about the flight of the aircraft to hit the North tower of the WTC.

If you look at the flight tracks you can see that the aircraft turns north off it's 'intended route'. Then does a sharp turn to the south and meanders into NYC.

These questions have been bugging me -

If this was a USG op, How comes the pilot doesn't know how to get to NYC and be able to navigate a direct path?

If the plane was remote controlled, again why was a direct path either programed in or followed remotely?

Now take a look at a road map for the area

I took this image and the one for the flight plan and using Photoimpact 7 tried to scale them to the same size and make the road map background transparent and then overlaid them.

This is the result. (If some one can do a better job of making this clearer I would be grateful)
The flight path taken closely follows route 49 West, circles round Albany, then closely follows route 23 south to NYC.

This sound suspiciously like someone who doesn't know how to navigate is flying the plane.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

bigfish: Apparently you're a terribly busy man as well; too busy, it appears, to actually read posts. First you claim I'm supporting things which I didn't, and now you appear to be under the illusion that I'm asking you a question.

I'm not asking you any questions (except, perhaps, rhetorically). I'm making the simple, clear assertion that believing that "USG theory is incorrect -> remote control theory must be correct", which you stated quite clearly, is balls.

Generally, when someone's statement is termed balls, they either say "yes, I admit, it is balls" or "no, actually, it's not balls because..." - either that or they can't be bothered to reply at all, which is something I would have some sympathy with, given the arse-numbing tediousness of this discussion. On the other hand, misquoting tends to imply that you did at least notice the existence of a post if not its actual content.

Just to make things simple, though, I'll ask a question. In what way does lack of evidence for the USG's theory count as meaningful evidence for the remote control theory? But don't strain yourself, you can always ignore this post and pretend that I said bananas were pink later on or something.

 

[bigfish]

It didn't mention any thing about who's names they were bought in.

But you mentioned false ID's WB... which ID's were false WB you neglected to tell us. You also neglected to provide any evidence supporting your claim.... was that an oversight on your part?

You also seemed to think it was strange that the tickets were bought in advance. It would be pretty bad planning to turn up at the airport and try to buy tickets just before the flight only to be told it was full. OK so we now know that the flights were no where near full, but there was no way of knowing that in advance.

Wrong! If you want to fly on a definite day... its best to book in advance. If you also want to leave a false trail... it's also best to book in advance.

 

[editor]

Could we have a show of hands here, please.

Who actually believes that all these people were completely fooled by faked phone calls from loved ones made by a hitherto unknown Black Ops Mike Yarwood Impressionists Team??

Here's just some of the conversations that took place on Flight 93.

Lauren Grandcolas left a message for her husband
Linda Gronlund called her sister
Joe Deluca called his father.
Burnett called his wife four times
Mark Bingham called his mother
Jeremy Glick called his wife
Sandra Bradshaw, the flight attendant, called her husband
Elizabeth Wainio spoke to her stepmother
Marion Britton called a longtime friend
source (Reuters/Seattle Times)

 

[editor]

And here's the solid proof that destroys this bonkers theory completely:

There was, in airline parlance, a “light load” that morning. Only 37 of the plane’s 182 seats were occupied. Some of the passengers had never planned to be on the flight.

Jeremy Glick was supposed to have been on Flight 93 a day earlier, but missed the Monday flight after getting stuck in traffic on his way to Newark Airport. It was his first business trip in months.

Another passenger, Lauren Grandcolas was on her way home to Marin County, north of San Francisco, after attending her grandmother’s funeral in New Jersey. Originally scheduled on a later flight, she had been pleasantly surprised to easily get a standby seat on Flight 93 at the airport. “I can’t wait to see you,” she told her husband Jack in a message she left on the couple’s answering machine before dawn in California, telling him she would be home a few hours early.

Newsweek

So, Glick wasn't even supposed to have been on the flight - so how could they have faked his voice and a conversation with his wife for 26 minutes? (source)

And how about Lauren Grandcolas?

Or are we supposed to believe that the Black Ops Mike Yarwood Team were already fully trained up and fully acquainted with the intimate details and voice patterns of tens of thousands of people who just might have travelled on a flight that day?

I believe this proves beyond doubt that the 'faked phone calls' theory is a load of utter bollocks. Any conspiracy fans capable of coming up with anything even remotely credible that could explain how those calls could have been faked?

 

[editor]

Come on conspiracy fans! Someone explain how a conversation as deep, as personal and as moving as this could have been faked by some fucking ludicrous CIA Lenny Henry agent:

One of the most poignant (calls) came from 27-year-old Elizabeth Wainio - calling her stepmother, Esther Heymann.

"Elizabeth said this really nice person had handed her the phone and told her to call her family," says Longman. "Apparently it was Lauren Grandcolas, who had been sitting next to Elizabeth in row 11 when the plane left Newark.

And Elizabeth seemed to be speaking calmly, but her breathing was very shallow, as if she were hyperventilating. And Esther said, 'Elizabeth, I've got my arms around you, and I'm holding you. And I love you,' trying to calm her. Elizabeth said, 'I can feel your arms around me. And I love you, too.' And they talked approximately ten minutes. There were long silences. Esther began to get the feeling that Elizabeth was resigned to what was going to happen to her. And that she actually seemed to be leaving her body, going to a better place. She had two grandmothers who were deceased, and at one point she told her mother, 'They're waiting for me.'"

But suddenly, something yanks Elizabeth back to the moment. She snaps to attention.

"And then finally," says Longman, "shortly after 10:00, Elizabeth said, 'Mom, they're rushing the cockpit. I've got to go. Bye.'"
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080117/

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Sure, if the USG's theory were not the case another theory would be correct, but that doesn't mean the remote control theory is any more valid than any other evidence-lite theory. There are loads of them about. There still doesn't seem to be any positive evidence for this particular one, just lots of statements that it would be theoretically possible and argument about exactly how hard it would be, which isn't a good basis for believing something in my book.

I totally agree there Fridgemagnet. I personally don't yet feel we have grounds to be 'believing' any one 'theory' over another.

My position here has consistently been that we do not yet have any grounds to dismiss 'remote control' on technical grounds, particularly when the evidence would appear to support a position to the contrary.

Way back in history, the editor asked me:

So do you believe all four planes were somehow flown by remote control?

And if so, could you give some real-world examples of how it may have been technically implemented?

I would have thought that such a feat would involve considerable alterations to the aircraft, so perhaps you might offer some specific technical precedents and explain why ground staff, refuelling crew, pilots, co-pilots, navigators etc all completely failed to notice such additions.

I think Wouldbe (who is qualified in avionics) has answered the question pretty well:

Just to make clear I have at no point stated that remote control by any means is impossible.

Is it possible with existing hardware? Yes quite probably.

That's all I wanted. People to stop telling me that it is technically impossible when it 'quite probably' isn't.

That established, perhaps we should move on.

-

A fortean, a believer, and a skeptic are out walking at night. The fortean sees an odd light in the sky, and says "Look, a UFO!".

The believer cries out "Finally, proof of life elsewhere in the universe! I knew this day would come!".

The skeptic says "It's not an alien craft, the chances are infinitesimal. It's most likely a satellite or weather balloon".

The fortean turns to the other two, and says testily "Look, which part of UNIDENTIFIED don't you understand?"

-

I have stumbled across all sorts of information that leads me to doubt claims of the technical impossibility of 'faking' calls, if anyone is particularly interested. Perhaps another day and another thread.

 

[editor]

That's all I wanted. People to stop telling me that it is technically impossible when it 'quite probably' isn't.

Not quite. It's been suggested that it might be technically possible, although no-one's managed to produce a single example of a remote controlled passenger aircraft in action. That would suggest that it's more difficult than some would suggest. For it to be used in 9/11 and work perfectly, first time without anyone even noticing anything about it stretches credibility to the limit.

Seeing as 9/11 was over two years ago, you would have thought that this technology would now be widely available if it were so easy to implement.

Airlines would be queueing up to install such a marvellous, reliable and presumably cheap anti-hijacking feature, but they're not. Why not?

I have stumbled across all sorts of information that leads me to doubt claims of the technical impossibility of 'faking' calls, if anyone is particularly interested. Perhaps another day and another thread.

Short of the USG having an advanced, detailed, updated, cross-referenced and comprehensive voice archive on every one of its citizens (and a squadron of perfect Impressionists to hand), there is no way that they could have faked the calls of passengers who hadn't intended to be on that flight.

I believe that to be technically and humanly impossible. But I'll be fascinated to hear your thoughts on how such personal, deep and emotional conversations between close family members and partners could be faked so convincingly that not one person who received a call has ever doubted them.

 

[fela fan]

[Editor, please accept my apologies, i feel i was unneccesarily rude last night, and can only weakly blame all the beers that were inside me. Sorry man.]

As i expected when i started this thread, it has moved away from the alternative context i was hoping to explore.

I really did want to find out why some posters are seemingly ready to accept the official version put out by the USG.

It is interesting that this classified document that the commission forced the USG to release to them a day or so back has shown unarguably that the government knew Al Q were intending to attack US targets, and with hijacked planes, and by flying them into buildings.

Rice, i believe, it was that said just after the attacks that there was no conceivable way of anticipating such a kind of attack.

She was blatantly lying as this White House document proves.

Why did she lie?

 

[editor]

It is interesting that this classified document that the commission forced the USG to release to them a day or so back has shown unarguably that the government knew Al Q were intending to attack US targets, and with hijacked planes, and by flying them into buildings.

Surely, the release of these classified documents blows holes in the idea of the Big Conspiracy Theory?

If it was all a big cover up there is no way that documents so damning would be released - they would have been hidden away along with the other 10,000 things that would need to be covered up.

The documents reveal what many have always suspected: the USG was slow to respond to the threat due to a mix of incompetence and arrogance and has lied through its teeth ever since trying to cover its ass.

It's important to reflect on how unexpected the attacks were: planes had never been hijacked in this manner before and America had never been attacked by hijacked planes.

As in most cases, the simplest explanation is usually the right one. There weren't remote control planes flying in the sky on 9/11 - and those phone calls damn well prove that fact beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

[fela fan]

It's important to reflect on how unexpected the attacks were: planes had never been hijacked in this manner before and America had never been attacked by hijacked planes.

As in most cases, the simplest explanation is usually the right one. There weren't remote control planes flying in the sky on 9/11 - and those phone calls damn well prove that fact beyond all reasonable doubt.

But that's not true as shown in this document. The White House had been warned in the months prior to the attacks that just such attacks were being planned by OBL and Al Q. So they just could not have been unexpected by those privy to that document: ie the higher echelons of the USG.

I cannot explain how the planes were flown, nor by whom. I cannot explain the phone calls (although the logistical background to them seems a bit damned fishy to me).

But how does one explain the USG finding one of the hijacker's passports completely unburnt that survived a mammoth fireball upon impact with the WTC?

And how does one explain pilots executing such skills in airmanship needing to do last minute revision, along with some last minute prayers from the Koran (which i thought all dedicated muslims knew off by heart anyway)?

My answer is that the USG wanted very much to plant the idea that OBL and his coterie were responsible in the public's minds.

Rather like their actions in getting the public to associate Hussein with OBL and the WTC attacks. Blatant lies, and all designed to allow them to follow their declared foreign policy with the mandate from their public.

You see, just these two items of 'evidence' put forward by the USG cannot be explained away under the incompetence theory.

 

[Jazzz]

I would just like to point out briefly that all the calls editor is referring to come from Flight 93, the last of the four flights. So at best that's only evidence of the last flight being hijacked. And none of it is hard evidence! Of course we are expected to gloss over the thorny question of whether the calls were possible from cellphones at cruising altitude.

There were two calls from the other flights. Both of those are highly suspect. editor used to give the full emotive treatment of the Barbara Olsen call from flight 77, just like the ones above - but he no longer does so seeing as Ted Olsen happens to be a Bush Crony, on record as saying that "sometimes the public need to be given falsehoods" or similar, and was apparently having pronounced marital difficulties :eek

 

[Jazzz]

... If it was all a big cover up there is no way that documents so damning would be released - they would have been hidden away along with the other 10,000 things that would need to be covered up.

The documents reveal what many have always suspected: the USG was slow to respond to the threat due to a mix of incompetence and arrogance and has lied through its teeth ever since trying to cover its ass...

You rebut your own point! On the one hand you say these documents are so terrible for the USG, yet in the next clause you assert that they confirm the 'hijacker' theory. The trick is to manage the dissent by getting people asking the wrong questions.

Of course, the documents which outlined the actual 9-11 plot, not merely uncorrupted FBI agents picking up some noise from the patsies, are never going to be released as they were blown up in the CIA section of WTC7 on the day.

 

[editor]

Of course we are expected to gloss over the thorny question of whether the calls were possible from cellphones at cruising altitude.

I'll be quite honest: your obsessive conspiracy agenda-driven attempts to dismiss the tragic words spoken between loved ones about to die sickens me as much as your equally disgusting proclamations that a double child killer was as innocent as the pure driven snow.

When it comes to a widow talking abut the last words spoken to her husband and some moronic drivel 'found on the internet', I know which I choose to believe.

 

[Jazzz]

I am sorry that you are judging the issue of specific evidence on such an emotive basis.

The reason I debate 9-11 here is because I want to see proper investigations (every single hijack over US airspace was fully investigated, until 9-11), I don't want the FBI hiding all the details they should be releasing. I'd like to see George Bush account for his inexplicable behaviour while it was all kicking off, hiding in a classroom while he should have been putting fighters patrolling the skies. I want answers to lots of other questions too, questions which the 9-11 families are asking.

But which you are not. Which of us is really campaigning on behalf of the 9-11 families? Is it really you?

 

[editor]

Which of us is really campaigning on behalf of the 9-11 families? You????

You mean like you were 'campaigning' for Ian Huntley, boldly proclaiming the poor double child murdering scum to be entirely innocent of all crimes and his defence team 'nobbled'?

As I recall, you had a particularly imaginative theory for that too: apparently, child-murdering American servicemen were to blame and it was all covered up to stop the UK government losing support for the Iraq war.

Naturally, the lack of supporting evidence or a half-credible motive was no hindrance to your fascinating theory, neither did it stop you enthusiastically accusing a vast array of people of complicity in a double child murder.

After all, who cares about human emotions, respect and decency when you're building a red-hot conspiracy theory, eh? Who cares how many people you wrongly accuse or implicate if you're managing to concoct a barmy story out of the facts!

It's clear that you're more interested in churning out 'exciting' theories than finding the truth - why else would you dismiss the words of real people in favour of anonymous internet tittle tattle?

Truth is, I'm not really interested in entertaining any more of your ever-shifting, truth-twisting bonkers theories, and it's clear not many other people are interested either - why else would all your attempts to start your own conspiracy-tastic boards elsewhere have met with such failure?

 

[Jazzz]

Full of sound and fury...

Resorting to going on about Huntley - yet again, for a whole tedious page - is the desperate last resort for you, ain't it, when you have nothing on topic to contribute.

Read the questions of the 9-11 families for yourself. Why are you ridiculing those who ask them here?

And there is one person becoming increasingly isolated on these threads - despite posting furiously - and it ain't me.

 

[WouldBe]

Of course we are expected to gloss over the thorny question of whether the calls were possible from cellphones at cruising altitude.

Where is the evidence to suggets that this aircraft was flying at cruising height?

In Dewdneys fairy story the aircraft, after receiving the other passengers from the other 3 aircraft, is told to fly at 4000ft.

On Dewdneys website is a report from someone who did his own tests as to whether a mobile could make a call or not from an aircraft. He was able to get a signal below 6000ft but unable to make a call until the aircraft had slowed down for landing. But that was only 2 phones he tried.

How many mobiles would have been on an aircraft of nearly 200 people?

How do you know that one of the passengers didn't have a satellite phone? This would have very little trouble getting through.

 

[WouldBe]

I'd like to see George Bush account for his inexplicable behaviour while it was all kicking off, hiding in a classroom while he should have been putting fighters patrolling the skies.

Initial reports were that a 'private jet' had hit the north tower. So at that point it would be nothing more than a tragic accident.

 

[WouldBe]

And how does one explain pilots executing such skills in airmanship needing to do last minute revision,

The hard job was done by the airlines pilots i.e. taking off and gaining height. The last minute revision may have simply been to check where the 'autopilot disengage' swithch was.

As I have said else where, the pilot of the plane that hit the north tower appears to have navigated by following route 49 W to Albany and then route 23 S to NYC. Hardly the navigational skills of an expert pilot.

The pilot of the plane that flew into the south tower of the WTC very nearly missed it. Again hardly the skills of an expert pilot.

If someone can pinpoint the pentagon on a map of Washington (mapquest doesn't show it), I have severe doubts about the so called eye witnesses that described the aerial manouvers of flight 77.

 

[editor]

And there is one person becoming increasingly isolated on these threads - despite posting furiously - and it ain't me.

So how did they fake a 26 minute conversation between Glick (who wasn't supposed to be on the plane) and his wife, DrJ?

She has no doubts that it was her husband that she spoke to, so what makes you think you know better? How did they do it? How would they know what he sounded like? How would they know his accent, his pet names, his tone and timbre of his voice?

Any ideas?

No?


Then it's another of your fantasies...

 

[fela fan]

You mean like you were 'campaigning' for Ian Huntley, boldly proclaiming the poor double child murdering scum to be entirely innocent of all crimes and his defence team 'nobbled'?

Having taken time out to accuse me of writing off-topic stuff on 9/11 threads, and even going to the trouble of collating various bits from various of my posts, you, for the umpteenth time throw down DrJ's throat his take on the Huntley saga.

On a 9/11 thread.

Who keeps on going off-topic eh?

 

[fela fan]

Where is the evidence to suggets that this aircraft was flying at cruising height?

In Dewdneys fairy story the aircraft, after receiving the other passengers from the other 3 aircraft, is told to fly at 4000ft.

On Dewdneys website is a report from someone who did his own tests as to whether a mobile could make a call or not from an aircraft. He was able to get a signal below 6000ft but unable to make a call until the aircraft had slowed down for landing. But that was only 2 phones he tried.

How many mobiles would have been on an aircraft of nearly 200 people?

How do you know that one of the passengers didn't have a satellite phone? This would have very little trouble getting through.

Wouldbe, i'm interested in your answer to this:

there they were, all these passengers on this flight, and with all their mobiles turned off (as is the rule for flights), they get to hear about other planes getting hijacked.

How did they get to know this fact?

And another question: we are told many of the calls were made from the plane phones, which editor has said are at the back of the plane. So far as i know, every hijacked flight has hijackers patrolling the plane making sure passengers stay exactly where they are. So how could this plane have the passengers queuing up to make phone calls at the back of the plane?

And, bearing in mind the small passenger load, how could so many of the passengers make lengthy calls on their mobiles without escaping the gaze of the hijackers?

There would have been at least five hijackers (based on 19 on four flights), and for sure you cannot fit five extra people in a small cockpit. So why were the hijackers allowing all these passengers to use their mobiles and politely queue up at the back of the plane to use the plane phone?

[Perhaps the passengers weren't afraid of hijackers holding boxcutters...?]

 

[fela fan]

And that makes me think of another question.

How did the USG know that the hijackers used boxcutters?

 

[editor]

On a 9/11 thread.
Who keeps on going off-topic eh?

It's not off topic when I'm talking to DrJ and countering his ludicrous claims that by swallowing highly improbable conspiracy stories - like the faked phone calls and Huntley's 'innocence' - he's somehow 'campaigning' for anything other than his own vested interest in exciting conspiracies.

But thanks for yet another of your personal interjections.

As useful as ever.