WTC attacks - the alternative thread

[bigfish]

Which one?

The one you evaded answering by posting up 13 flapjack questions in response... that one.

But seeing as you've butted in with such a useful and highly productive comment, perhaps you might be able to provide a credible explanation for all these 'faked' calls.

Is that 'I Got You Babe' I can hear playing on the radio alarm?

 

[editor]

Is that 'I Got You Babe' I can hear playing on the radio alarm?

I've no idea what you're on about. The above 'contribution' is complete gibberish.

Why is it so hard to get a straight answer to my simple question?

If anyone wishes to seriously propose that the planes used in 9/11 were remotely controlled then they have to come up with a credible explanation as to how all the phone calls were faked.

 

[bigfish]

Why is it so hard to get a straight answer to my simple question?

Believe me, I know how you feel.

If anyone wishes to seriously propose that the planes used in 9/11 were remotely controlled then they have to come up with a credible explanation as to how all the phone calls were faked.

I don't suppose you can come up with a credible explanation as to how the phone call made by Mohammed Atta to his father in Cairo on September 12 was faked can you?

According to your own method, until you or anyone else can prove otherwise then we have to assume that Atta's call to his father was genuine. After all, one would certainly expect a father to recognize the sound of his own son's voice when he hears it and Mr Atta senior seems certain it was his son he spoke to. In which case, and by your own evidential standard, Atta could not have been at the controls of flight 11 when it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC on September 11. Therefore, if Atta was not piloting the plane that morning then who or what was guiding it to its final destruction?

 

[Jay Emm]

Have you a source for the Sep 12 call?

 

[editor]

I don't suppose you can come up with a credible explanation as to how the phone call made by Mohammed Atta to his father in Cairo on September 12 was faked can you?

Why can't you just answer my bloody question?

So far you've posted up a gibberish piece of nonsense about a 1960s pop song and now you're waffling on about some other unrelated topic.

Unless you can provide a credible explanation for all these 'faked' calls - particularly the ones from people who weren't even supposed to be on the flights - then the exciting remote control theory remains nothing more than comic book fiction.

So have you got an explanation or not?

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Have you a source for the Sep 12 call?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/oneyearon/story/0,12361,784541,00.html

 

[fela fan]

Since this thread is still bubbling along, it might be time for another attempt to return it to its title and original aims.

Which were: what specifically is believable in the official version of events? And what kinds of evidence, if any, are available to us that support the USG line?

So far, generally summing up, we’ve had the total incompetence angle, where an inconceivably large number of things all happened to not work, on just the very occasion they were needed to work. And indeed, all these things having been planned to react to just such an event as the 9/11 attacks.

But nothing happened. That is the incompetence line: that everybody fucked up big time. Everything failed all at the same time. This theory of the reasons for the attacks, namely that the USG were just incomepetent that day, is scarcely credible! I think remote control more likely a reality than nothing happening (and I don’t think there was remote)! Where everything that was primed to happen in reaction to emergencies like 9/11, simply DID NOT HAPPEN! How lucky OBL and his coterie were, where everything simply didn’t work, and didn’t happen!! How much easier their job. So kind of the americans to so totally fuck up.

Where are all the posters defending the USG version, providing evidence for each aspect of the attacks? We know what they don’t believe, but what DO they believe? And what evidence do they have that makes them question every single thing those that disbelieve the USG version air in these debates?

It’s very quiet on the western front…

 

[fela fan]

As for the remote controlled theory, as requested on this forum, irrevocable evidence has been put forward that it is possible.

As for the 'faking' of the phone calls. Well, i don't know either way, but i accept it's possible. I have no evidence of course, but i have enough of a grounding in psychology and the mechanics of fear to know that it is possibility.

There are those who think this faking entirely impossible. That is their right to believe this, but just coz they can't see how something can be done, is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. They just state their limitations of understanding and human experience.

Anyway, who gives a toss about these fake calls and remote theories. This thread is supposed to be about why we should stop thinking the USG version is not the truth.

But so far, the thread has failed spectacularly. But there again, so have those that scream 'conspiracy theorist' and 'tin foil hat'.

 

[editor]

As for the 'faking' of the phone calls. Well, i don't know either way, but i accept it's possible. I have no evidence of course, but i have enough of a grounding in psychology and the mechanics of fear to know that it is possibility.

There are those who think this faking entirely impossible. That is their right to believe this, but just coz they can't see how something can be done, is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. They just state their limitations of understanding and human experience.

But there again, so have those that scream 'conspiracy theorist' and 'tin foil hat'.

Ah. So by not believing in the wildly improbable tale of a crack team of CIA Mike Yarwoods, I'm revealing my 'limitations of understanding and human experience'.

What deeply patronising drivel.

Seeing as some of the callers weren't even supposed to be on the flights, please offer some remotely credible explanation as to how 'they' could fake length, personal and intimate phone calls between loved ones and do it so incredibly convincingly that the no-one noticed?

To impersonate someone so perfectly, you'd need to know huge amounts about their background, accent, timbre, pitch, personality, mannerisms, sense of humour, expressions, pet names, emotional make up and more. Moreover, you'd have to get it so incredibly spot on that the wife/husband wouldn't even have the slightest idea that they were talking to a USG Lenny Henry.

Of course, with enough research and background material, it's easily possible for a gifted impressionist to create a passable copy of someone, but unless 'they' had managed to plant microphones between the bedclothes, they'd have no idea about how couples interact in private.

Now kindly expand my 'limitations of understanding and human experience' and tell me how the USG could simultaneously reel off note-perfect conversations between loved ones - some of whom weren't even supposed to be on the flight?

 

[editor]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/oneyearon/story/0,12361,784541,00.html

Ah yes. And the bit you conveniently omitted to mention was:

The interview painted a picture of a tortured man who has not come to terms with his 33-year-old son's death or with the huge crime laid at his door. He said he feared the US would try to poison him.

 

[fela fan]

Ah. So by not believing in the wildly improbable tale of a crack team of CIA Mike Yarwoods, I'm revealing my 'limitations of understanding and human experience'.

To impersonate someone so perfectly, you'd need to know huge amounts about their background, accent, timbre, pitch, personality, mannerisms, sense of humour, expressions, pet names, emotional make up and more. Moreover, you'd have to get it so incredibly spot on that the wife/husband wouldn't even have the slightest idea that they were talking to a USG Lenny Henry.

Now kindly expand my 'limitations of understanding and human experience' and tell me how the USG could simultaneously reel off note-perfect conversations between loved ones - some of whom weren't even supposed to be on the flight?

Okay here goes. In a nutshell you have decontextualised this specific situation of loved ones talking on the phone from a plane to somewhere on land, both riddled with fear.

In stating all those voice characteristics and personality traits, these are very pertinent in normal times. This event wasn't normal times. One wonders about the line connection and how good/bad it was (land to land can be quite dreadful at times on mobile phones). One wonders what's going through the minds of those on the phone on the plane, and those on land listening to their loved one who it seems is about to die.

No one operates normally when subjected to fear. The usual reaction is panic, and then the brain simply switches off. It no longer draws upon its full range of faculties. Even those not succumbing to panic, may well become somewhat automated, thinking clearly, calmly, with no emotions.

How many times has a poster here been on the phone to their loved one during a scenario where one or both of them are under the biggest stress and fear in life, namely where one or both are about to die?? Did you speak with your 'normal' voice?

Your limitations are that you talk about having to 'impersonate someone so perfectly' while ignoring the specific contextual factors that make up the whole situation.

You have ignored the fact that people who expect to die may speak differently, both in style and in content.

And you have ignored the logistical aspects, eg phone line connection.

These are either limitations in debate, or limitations in understanding. For language is nothing without context.

 

[Jangla]

If anyone wishes to seriously propose that the planes used in 9/11 were remotely controlled then they have to come up with a credible explanation as to how all the phone calls were faked.

Who said they need to be faked to support the remote control theory? First eye witness reports of Pentagon plane state it was a small business jet. You take Flight 77 and turn off the transponder. You "hijack" it and crash it into the ground (or have it destroyed by military jet - there was, after all, no burning on the ground around the wreckage of the plane that apparently crashed in the middle of no-where which is consistent with being destroyed in the air). You crash a small (possibly remote controlled) business jet into the Pentagon. Sleight of hand is all it takes. On the fateful day, there were up to 11 aircraft unaccounted for until 12:38 - hours after the attacks. If you can't identify that many craft, how can you tell me which one hit the Pentagon when all evidence of the plane has vanished?

 

[editor]

No one operates normally when subjected to fear. The usual reaction is panic, and then the brain simply switches off. It no longer draws upon its full range of faculties. Even those not succumbing to panic, may well become somewhat automated, thinking clearly, calmly, with no emotions.

Right. So in your confused world, anyone and everyone in a stressed situation immediately defaults to 'hysterical' mode where all traces of accent, personality, tone, timbre, pitch and individuality instantly vanish - and those taking the calls don't even notice the difference?

What a load of utter rubbish. And deeply insulting trash too. Your comic book dismissal of intimate and emotional last words between loved ones really shows how desperate you are to believe in a conspiracy, regardless of reality.

These weren't rushed calls from hysterical passengers in a scene from 'Airplane'. Some were intimate, calm conversations lasting as long as 26 minutes with their partners.

And yet you think that husbands and wives are so stupid that they'd believe anyone ringing them up - even if the impostor has no idea of their accent, timbre, personality, tone, race, cultural background, sense of humour and all the other million individual things that someone knows about their partner!

 

[editor]

Who said they need to be faked to support the remote control theory? First eye witness reports of Pentagon plane state it was a small business jet. You take Flight 77 and turn off the transponder. You "hijack" it and crash it into the ground (or have it destroyed by military jet - there was, after all, no burning on the ground around the wreckage of the plane that apparently crashed in the middle of no-where which is consistent with being destroyed in the air). You crash a small (possibly remote controlled) business jet into the Pentagon. Sleight of hand is all it takes. On the fateful day, there were up to 11 aircraft unaccounted for until 12:38 - hours after the attacks. If you can't identify that many craft, how can you tell me which one hit the Pentagon when all evidence of the plane has vanished?

Right. Now there's a really likely scenario, untroubled - as ever - by anything approaching a hard fact.

Now how did they fake the calls?

 

[Jay Emm]

Where are all the posters defending the USG version, providing evidence for each aspect of the attacks? We know what they don’t believe, but what DO they believe? And what evidence do they have that makes them question every single thing those that disbelieve the USG version air in these debates?

It’s very quiet on the western front…

I'm not defending it per se but I've put up links which have been rubbished as disinformation with only another news report to conflict it, if any. Just going around in circles.

 

[fela fan]

And yet you think that husbands and wives are so stupid that they'd believe anyone ringing them up - even if the impostor has no idea of their accent, timbre, personality, tone, race, cultural background, sense of humour and all the other million individual things that someone knows about their partner!

So that'll be limitations in debate and understanding then.

I thought i'd addressed two features that would make one's voice not as normal as it might be expected to be... even to a loved one.

Brains under a cloud of fear and expectation of death in the context of being hijacked.

And poor line connection.

Yet you choose to ignore these valid contributions to the debate, while simultaneously say i'm confused and write deeply insulting trash. You also attributed quite a bit to me in that post that is nothing to do with me or my thinking.

Ignore the points on the table, and attack the writer.

 

[fubert]

Ok I'll play along but first answer me this based on the assumption that the USG had a controlling influence in 9/11:

basicly a credible excuse to go into afghanistan and kick out the taliban under the pretense of they're support for al-queda.

the taliban have for years been refusing the construction of an oil pipeline from the caspian sea through afghanistan to pakistan where it could then be shipped abroad.

 

[editor]

So that'll be limitations in debate and understanding then.

Ignore the points on the table, and attack the writer.

I really can't be arsed to entertain your cod-psychological babble.

Your notion that people turn into amorphous wafflers at the first sign of stress is embarrassingly inept as is the suggestion that loved ones would somehow fail to notice a complete stranger trying to mimic their husbands and wives over a long, intimate and deeply personal conversation

You've spectacularly failed to explain how the CIA Mike Yarwood Team would even have the faintest idea of how the unchartered passengers would sound, yet still you cling to the belief that they could still magically pull off an incredibly convincing note-perfect impression which would leave not a single doubt in the heads of loved ones.

To effectively mimic someone to their nearest and dearest is not an easy task. It wold take masses of research, bugging, eavesdropping and research.

Now quit insulting me with your patronising shit about my supposed 'limitations of understanding' and come back with a credible, real-world explanation of how a note-perfect, deeply personal 26 minute call could be faked from a passenger who wasn't even supposed to be on the flight?

 

[fela fan]

I've no idea if the calls were faked or not, sure would be difficult.

But not impossible.

I'm not insulting you, nor am i patronising you.

For that 26 minute call, which i read had many silent bits, to be 'deeply personal' surely is known only to the two callers? And all the other calls you say were 'intimate', surely this can only be known to the callers themselves?

btw, it's not necessary to faithfully and accurately mimic a person's voice on a phone in the context that we are talking about here.

As i tried to point out, connections may be weak, brains are addled with fear, and the loved ones on the ground have never spoken to their partners under such a context. Thus exposure to a known voice rooted to very unknown situation.

But that is of course just more 'deeply insulting trash' from a 'confused' man who 'babbles'.

Waffles off for dinner and a beer...

 

[editor]

For that 26 minute call, which i read had many silent bits, to be 'deeply personal' surely is known only to the two callers? And all the other calls you say were 'intimate', surely this can only be known to the callers themselves?

Yes. And one of them's alive and knows that she was talking to her husband. She also knows what was said and has made no suggestion whatsoever that she was talking to a CIA Generic Scared Person Impersonator Operative.

And given the choice between believing the words of the wife who was married to soeone for ten years and the wild, unsubstantiated yarns spun by some homepage conspiracy theorists, I know damn well who I believe.

 

[WouldBe]

Why go to the trouble of faking 4 phone calls from a husband to his wife when 1 would have done?

 

[Jangla]

Right. Now there's a really likely scenario, untroubled - as ever - by anything approaching a hard fact.

Now how did they fake the calls?

First eye witness reports of Pentagon plane state it was a small business jet - FACT.
No burning on the ground around the wreckage of the plane that apparently crashed in the middle of no-where which is consistent with being destroyed in the air - FACT.
There were up to 11 aircraft unaccounted for until 12:38 - hours after the attacks - FACT.

I make that a total of 3 facts.

There are NO eye witness reports that say the Pentagon plane was a passenger jet - that source came from inside the government. There was no wreckage. And before people start ranting on about how the fuel created temperatures so high they melted the entire plane - this is simply not possible - especially as the first firefighters on site put out the bulk of the blaze in 7 minutes. You are confusing the story of how the towers collapsed with the Pentagon crash site.
The wreckage of the craft that crashed in the middle of no-where was spread over 8 miles. There is no way this plane could have hit the ground, exploded and spread itself over this kind of area. It had to have broken up in the air. This suggests it was taken out by either a device on board (a bomb, for example) or by an external force (air-to-air or surface-to-air missile, for example).

Finally a question to put to the masses - you have 11 aircraft unnacounted for but only one craft that was used had it's transponder turned off. Why?

 

[Jazzz]

If fighter aircraft had been scrambled in a national emergency to protect the capital why would they be dawdling along at only 500mph?
...
This entire account is full of holes and contradictions and if it was presented in a court of law would be ripped to shreds.

Your first observation is interesting. It's a question I would ask myself. Here's a description of one of the failed attempts to intercept flights 11/175, according to the official NORAD timeline.

NORAD claims that after being told of the hijacking at 8:40, it waited six minutes to give the scramble order to the Otis pilots. It then took another six minutes before the pilots took off. So, at 8:52, two fighters took off toward New York City. According to Lt. Col. Timothy Duffy, one of the pilots, before he took off a fellow officer had told him, "This looks like the real thing." Duffy later said, "It just seemed wrong. I just wanted to get there. I was in full-blower all the way." A NORAD commander has said the planes were stocked with extra fuel as well. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02] Full-blower meant the fighters were going as fast as they could go. An F-15 can travel over 1875 mph. [Air Force News, 7/30/97] Duffy later said, "As we're climbing out, we go supersonic on the way, which is kind of nonstandard for us." Their target destination was the airspace over Kennedy airport in New York City. [ABC News, 9/11/02]

So even if the late notification of 8:40 is true, these fighters still should have been able to reach New York City before Flight 175 as long as they traveled 1100 mph or faster - far below their maximum speed of 1875 mph. In fact, Major General Larry Arnold says they did head straight for New York City at about 1100 to 1200 mph. [MSNBC, 9/23/01 (C), Slate, 1/16/02] Yet, according to NORAD, the journey took 19 minutes, meaning the fighters traveled below 600 mph, and below supersonic speeds. [NORAD, 9/18/01] Major Gen. Paul Weaver, director of the Air National Guard, thus made the absurd statement, "The pilots flew 'like a scalded ape,' topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner." [Dallas Morning News, 9/16/01] At that speed, Flight 11 would have been traveling faster than the fighters! source

Your own comment implies that you consider it absolutely impossible that a fighter aircraft could have any business attempting interception at such a speed, and right you are... it's nuts!

However, ATC would not know whether the unidentified blip on their screen was chasing or patrolling. They certainly couldn't say that a plane wasn't military on the basis of its speed. IFF is neither here nor there - there would be no need to have it in the plane if they didn't want it there.

This entire account is full of holes and contradictions and if it was presented in a court of law would be ripped to shreds.

I couldn't have put the case against Osama bin Laden better.

 

[editor]

First eye witness reports of Pentagon plane state it was a small business jet - FACT.

Err. First eye witness reports of the WTC strike state it was a light aircraft - FACT.

But it wasn't. So what does that prove?

And are you going to address the tricky detail of these 'faked' calls or not?
Or did 'they' dress up three virtual hijackers too?

 

[WouldBe]

There are NO eye witness reports that say the Pentagon plane was a passenger jet

I have seen several eyewitness statements whilst searching for info on this that state it WAS a passenger jet. If I can find the links I'll post them up later.

Finally a question to put to the masses - you have 11 aircraft unnacounted for but only one craft that was used had it's transponder turned off. Why?

Have you got a source for the 11 unacounted aircraft? I'd like to see it.

 

[Jangla]

Err. First eye witness reports of the WTC strike state it was a light aircraft - FACT.

But it wasn't. So what does that prove?

And are you going to address the tricky detail of these 'faked' calls or not?
Or did 'they' dress up three virtual hijackers too?

It wasn't!? Got some physical evidence to back that up apart from the non-descript piece of metal put forward by the USG as evidence?

As for the calls - we really need to define which craft we are talking about here as there is a lot of confusion as to which calls were made from which craft. I'll go looking for some info so at least we are all on the same page.

 

[WouldBe]

They certainly couldn't say that a plane wasn't military on the basis of its speed. IFF is neither here nor there - there would be no need to have it in the plane if they didn't want it there.

O'Brien said they thought the plane was military based on it's speed and manouverability. Yet she also stated it headed straight for the White house which suggests it didn't manouver much. So why state it was military?

IFF is fitted as standard to military aircraft. So if this aircraft was heading to protect the capital it would have had IFF data shown on the RADAR. Again O'Brien appears to have overlooked this when claiming the aircraft was military.

Unreliable witness m'lud

 

[Jazzz]

O'Brien said they thought the plane was military based on it's speed and manouverability. Yet she also stated it headed straight for the White house which suggests it didn't manouver much. So why state it was military?

IFF is fitted as standard to military aircraft. So if this aircraft was heading to protect the capital it would have had IFF data shown on the RADAR. Again O'Brien appears to have overlooked this when claiming the aircraft was military.

Unreliable witness m'lud

Presumably because of turns at high speed with short radius, such as 270 degrees. I see what you are saying about the IFF now. It's a shame that you weren't there at the time, doubtless you could have corrected these enormously experienced ATC operators.

I note that you haven't commented on the strange case of the fighter jets that tootled along at less than 600mph to intercept flight 175, according to the official version of events, a notion that you ridiculed earlier. I'd be interested in your comments.

 

[editor]

It wasn't!? Got some physical evidence to back that up apart from the non-descript piece of metal put forward by the USG as evidence?

I'm having trouble keeping up with your ever-more complex conspiracy-tastic scenarios of switched planes, shot down airliners and faked calls: so are you saying that the aircraft that hit the WTC wasn't a passenger aircraft?

So where's the original plane, crew and passengers gone?!

 

[editor]

But so far, the thread has failed spectacularly. But there again, so have those that scream 'conspiracy theorist' and 'tin foil hat'.

I'd hate to think of you as a blustering bullshitter, so be sure to furnish me with some information as to exactly who's been screaming 'tin foil hat' in this thread.