PDA

View Full Version : Former Bush Administration Official: 9/11 was an Inside Job


Taco John
05-15-2006, 12:44 AM
Kevin Barrett: Media hide truth: 9/11 was inside job

Published: May 12, 2006


http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/index.php?ntid=83698&ntpid=1

Last Saturday, former Bush administration official Morgan Reynolds drew an enthusiastic capacity crowd to the Wisconsin Historical Society auditorium. It is probably the first time in Historical Society history that a political talk has drawn a full house on a Saturday afternoon at the beginning of final exams.

Reynolds, the former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and the ex-top economist for George W. Bush's Labor Department, charged the Bush administration with gross malfeasance, and proposed the prosecution of top administration officials.

Normally, if a prestigious UW alumnus and ex-Bush administration official were to come to the Wisconsin Historical Society to spill the beans about a Bush administration scandal, it would make the news. The local TV stations would cover it, and it would merit front page headlines in The Capital Times and Wisconsin State Journal.

Reynolds' indictment of the administration he worked for was a stunning, life-changing event for many of those who witnessed it. As the event's organizer, I have received dozens of e-mails about it from people who were deeply affected.

Despite the prestigious speaker and venue, and the gravity of the charges aired, for most Americans indeed most Madisonians the event never happened. Why? Because it was censored, subjected to a total media blackout. Not a word in the State Journal. Not a word in The Capital Times. Not a word on the local TV news. Not a word on local radio news. And, of course, not a word in the national media.

Why the blackout? Because Reynolds violated the ultimate U.S. media taboo. He charges the Bush administration with orchestrating the 9/11 attacks as a pretext for launching a preplanned "long war" in the Middle East, rolling back our civil liberties, and massively increasing military spending.

When a former Bush administration insider makes such charges, how can the media ignore them? Is Reynolds a lone crank? Hardly. A long list of prominent Americans have spoken out for 9/11 truth: Rev. William Sloane Coffin, Sen. Barbara Boxer, former head of the Star Wars program Col. Robert Bowman, ex-Reagan administration economics guru Paul Craig Roberts, progressive Jewish author-activist Rabbi Michael Lerner, former CIA official Ray McGovern, author-essayist Gore Vidal, and many other respected names from across the political spectrum have gone on the record for 9/11 truth.

Are the media ignoring all these people, and dozens more like them, because there is no evidence to support their charges? Hardly. Overwhelming evidence, from the obvious air defense stand-down, to the nonprotection of the president in Florida, to the blatant controlled demolition of World Trade Center building 7, proves that 9/11 was an inside job. As noted philosopher-theologian and 9/11 revisionist historian David Griffin writes: "It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."

A growing list of scientists has lined up behind BYU physicist Steven Jones and MIT engineer Jeff King in support of Griffin's position, as evidenced by the growth of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (st911.org) and Scientific Professionals Investigating 9/11 (physics911.net).

As a Watergate-era graduate of the University of Wisconsin School of Journalism, I was taught that exposing government lies and corruption is the supreme duty of the Fourth Estate. I simply cannot fathom the current situation. I do not understand the 9/11 truth blackout. I wish someone would explain it to me.

It is time to break the 9/11 truth blackout. Please put pressure on your local media through letters to the editor, call-ins to talk radio, and phone calls to local and national journalists.

And come see Peter Phillips, director of the media watchdog group Project Censored, who will lead a strategy session on breaking the blackout at the upcoming international 9/11 truth conference in Chicago: 9/11: Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming Our Future, to be held June 2-4 at the Embassy Suites Hotel, Chicago-O'Hare Rosemont. Go to http://911revealingthetruth.org for more information.

The event will feature presentations from dozens of 9/11 truth luminaries, from scientists like Steven Jones to intelligence agency whistle-blowers like David Shayler, and promises to be a historic, watershed event. Be there, or resign yourself to a future of endless war, lost liberty, and a craven media that cannot bring itself to breathe a single word of truth.

Taco John
05-15-2006, 03:44 AM
I wonder why the media refuses to even ask the open questions surrounding this topic.

patteeu
05-15-2006, 06:45 AM
Are you going to make it to Chicago on June 2-4, Taco?

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-15-2006, 08:34 AM
I wonder why the media refuses to even ask the open questions surrounding this topic.

An example why: NBC is owned by GE, who is a major defense contractor. This protracted conflict makes for big bucks for the parent company, so I imagine that the media component of it is told to shut the f*ck up. Since the field of journalism is so rife with cowards these days, they see no problem in the banality of evil and sit idly by.

patteeu
05-15-2006, 09:05 AM
So anyway, what did Reynolds say? What did he know? Was he aware of it or is he just as much an outsider as the rest of us?

jAZ
05-15-2006, 09:38 AM
I don't think its wise to push the MIHOP aspect of 9/11 if what you/we really want is "9/11 Truth".

There are several possible outcomes that could result from a real investigation, ranging from massive incompetence, to deliberately turning a blind eye, to full blown orchestration. I don't think it's wise to promote one possible outcome (the most easy to radicalize and ignore) when what we really want is something that everyone our nation deserves, which is "9/11 Truth" (some might think we have that already, but at least we agree that we want it).

Taco John
05-15-2006, 12:08 PM
All I know is that there had to be an internal component in order for the secondary charges to be placed... ANd that there's enough evidence of the secondary charges to reasonably conclude that they were indeed there. Whether that falls under MHOP, or WHOP, or IHOP or whatever, I don't care.

patteeu
05-15-2006, 12:21 PM
I believe the thread title is misleading. I don't believe this former Bush Admin official claims that 9/11 was an inside job. Let me know if you find what he actually did say.

jAZ
05-15-2006, 12:33 PM
Let me know if you find what he actually did say.
This might help.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/160605governmentcomplicit.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Reynolds

Taco John
05-15-2006, 12:52 PM
I believe the thread title is misleading. I don't believe this former Bush Admin official claims that 9/11 was an inside job. Let me know if you find what he actually did say.



It's not. He does.

You can't find out what he actually says because the media wont report on it.

Chiefs Express II
05-15-2006, 12:58 PM
All I know is that there had to be an internal component in order for the secondary charges to be placed... ANd that there's enough evidence of the secondary charges to reasonably conclude that they were indeed there. Whether that falls under MHOP, or WHOP, or IHOP or whatever, I don't care.

The internal charges you speak of exsist only in your head and in the heads of other conspiracy nuts. No evidence exists of any charges that could have been detonated as you have attempted to sell those on this board. It's all speculation and conspiracy that drives your beliefs.

Taco John
05-15-2006, 01:14 PM
The internal charges you speak of exsist only in your head and in the heads of other conspiracy nuts. No evidence exists of any charges that could have been detonated as you have attempted to sell those on this board. It's all speculation and conspiracy that drives your beliefs.



Whatever Tom. Evidence exists for anyone who cares to examine it.

Along with everyone else, I could care less what you think... But for anyone who is willing to examine the evidence for themselves, I present the following video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness

Once you've seen the video, which presents clear and lucid evidence that secondary charges existed, you are welcome to hear what the boots on the ground said about the secondary charges:

1) Go to this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=eyewitness&pl=true

and

2) Forward to 39:36 and listen to the firefighters give their accounts of the secondary charges.


Finally, after seeing these videos and examining the evidence, ask yourself why FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10 (http://www.911forthetruth.com/pdfs/Rodriguezvs.Bush%20.pdf)) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order.

patteeu
05-15-2006, 01:21 PM
This might help.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/160605governmentcomplicit.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Reynolds

Thanks, jAZ. I had previously read a couple of his LewRockwell articles on the subject and they only made the case of a skeptic saying that he didn't believe the official investigation and that more debate and investigation was necessary. The wiki page basically says the same thing.

Your prisonplanet link is a little more explicit, suggesting that he indicated the he personally believes the evidence leads him toward a government plot (i.e. an inside job). Assuming that this is true (I didn't listen to the audio link due to bandwidth issues), I retract my challenge as to the thread title.

It's worth noting though that despite the fact that he was an official in the Bush administration, he's just as much of an outsider as the rest of us when it comes to any 9/11 plot. This isn't a case, as prisonplanet contends, of a whistleblower spilling the beans.

Taco John
05-15-2006, 01:55 PM
Have you bothered to examine the evidence Patty? I'd be curious to hear your rationalization of it...

Taco John
05-15-2006, 02:07 PM
Or any other skeptic of the claim of secondary explosions. Rather than just denying they existed, I'd be interested in hearing the rationalizations against the boots on the ground who clearly were saying they did.

Pitt Gorilla
05-15-2006, 02:13 PM
In the first link, there is a report about the Pentagon that quotes an inlisted man as saying a military helicopter was circling the Pentagon. This helicopter then disappeared to the other side and then a fireball erupted from that side. I'm not sure I had heard this account previously. That at least seems odd.

NewChief
05-15-2006, 02:13 PM
Assuming that this is true (I didn't listen to the audio link due to bandwidth issues), I retract my challenge as to the thread title.


I've seen you griping about your connection a lot lately. When is the White House press room going to get broadband? :p

irishjayhawk
05-15-2006, 05:00 PM
"America didn't want to know and you had the courtesy not to find out..."

I think that quote from Colbert's speech pretty much sums up the media, especially on this subject.

Chiefs Express II
05-15-2006, 05:28 PM
Whatever Tom. Evidence exists for anyone who cares to examine it.

Along with everyone else, I could care less what you think... But for anyone who is willing to examine the evidence for themselves, I present the following video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness

Once you've seen the video, which presents clear and lucid evidence that secondary charges existed, you are welcome to hear what the boots on the ground said about the secondary charges:

1) Go to this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=eyewitness&pl=true

and

2) Forward to 39:36 and listen to the firefighters give their accounts of the secondary charges.


Finally, after seeing these videos and examining the evidence, ask yourself why FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10 (http://www.911forthetruth.com/pdfs/Rodriguezvs.Bush%20.pdf)) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order.

Jane, all you have is speculation. The untrained hearing and seeing things that you believe are explosives only because the seed was planted in your head.

I've seen the videos, I've even watch those that seem to have been doctored to bolster the conspiracy theory.

Have you ever been present at a demolition? Have you had first hand witness of high rise demolitions?

Face it, it is all specualtion and cannot be proven.

irishjayhawk
05-15-2006, 05:32 PM
Jane, all you have is speculation. The untrained hearing and seeing things that you believe are explosives only because the seed was planted in your head.

I've seen the videos, I've even watch those that seem to have been doctored to bolster the conspiracy theory.

Have you ever been present at a demolition? Have you had first hand witness of high rise demolitions?

Face it, it is all specualtion and cannot be proven.
And the GAG order?

Pitt Gorilla
05-15-2006, 05:55 PM
Jane, all you have is speculation. The untrained hearing and seeing things that you believe are explosives only because the seed was planted in your head.

I've seen the videos, I've even watch those that seem to have been doctored to bolster the conspiracy theory.

Have you ever been present at a demolition? Have you had first hand witness of high rise demolitions?

Face it, it is all specualtion and cannot be proven.Isn't that what we are doing? Speculating? You are more than welcome to sit back and toe the line. However, others are exercising their right to think.

Taco John
05-15-2006, 05:56 PM
Jane, all you have is speculation. The untrained hearing and seeing things that you believe are explosives only because the seed was planted in your head.

I've seen the videos, I've even watch those that seem to have been doctored to bolster the conspiracy theory.

Have you ever been present at a demolition? Have you had first hand witness of high rise demolitions?

Face it, it is all specualtion and cannot be proven.



You, sir, are the worst kind of American. I have no interest in discussing this topic with someone who is not willing to let the evidence move them, and is only interested in advancing the government's story.

In short, you can sit and spin for all I care. Nobody here respects you, and I'm not going to be the first to start.

Taco John
05-15-2006, 05:59 PM
And for the record, there's nothing to speculate on with regards to the existence of secondary explosions. They clearly existed. The video would be impossible to doctor, and for what reason would someone do that? More importantly, the eyewitness accounts of the explosions on national television would be impossible to doctor. You couldn't plant that many people saying that they heard secondary explosions in real time. It would be impossible.

I'd love to hear someone try to rationalize why so many people heard secondary explosions, and why those explosions are corroborated in video... and why they went unexplained by the 9/11 commission.

irishjayhawk
05-15-2006, 06:08 PM
I would like to note something:

I don't think TJ, nor especially I (being a supporter), believe that it's an "all or nothing" deal. That is, it is entirely plausible that terrorists DID hijack two planes and ram them into the WTC. However, it doesn't mean that everything else that took place, ranging from United 93 to the Pentagon to the WTC collapse, was brought about by terrorists.

Taco John
05-15-2006, 06:13 PM
The only thing I proclaim with any certainty is that there is a laundry list of unanswered questions surrounding the event that aren't addressed by the official report, including the presence of secondary explosions.

I would also say that in order for these secondary explosions to have occurred, there would have to have been an internal component (ie. inside job). Whether this means AQ infiltrated the security organizations or a rogue governmental faction was involved is for an investigation by the Justice Department to figure out.

Chiefs Express II
05-15-2006, 06:29 PM
You, sir, are the worst kind of American. I have no interest in discussing this topic with someone who is not willing to let the evidence move them, and is only interested in advancing the government's story.

In short, you can sit and spin for all I care. Nobody here respects you, and I'm not going to be the first to start.


You have to be kidding. I'm a bad American because I don't believe your assinine conspiracy story? You are a lost cause fighting for a place in society when your only fit is in a mental hospital.

You believe anything said that you see that can be arguably thrown against the Bush Administration.

How about this theory:

The democrats planned the attack along with Al Queda. This all happened during the Clinton administration as they knew that Gore could not win against Bush in 2000. The planning for a attack as such could not have been done during the short time that GWB was in office. On the long end, the planning for 9/11 has been proven to be in the planning for many years.

To accept your conspiracy theory I would have to beleive that the Clinton administration not only planned the attacks but the additional total destruction of the WTC.

I guess you could be right, there was a conspiracy and it was pulled together during Bill's time in office.

Taco John
05-15-2006, 06:31 PM
Get it out Tom... Get it all out... And then go away. Big kids are discussing things.

Chiefs Express II
05-15-2006, 06:33 PM
Get it out Tom... Get it all out... And then go away. Big kids are discussing things.

You aren't discussing shit jane.

You are hell bent on proving that GWB is involved with the attacks on 9/11 as well as being responsible for the destruction of the WTC.

You have no proof, you are not looking at the videos with open eyes, but the eyes of someone with an agenda.

WilliamTheIrish
05-15-2006, 06:34 PM
Get it out Tom... Get it all out... And then go away. Big kids are discussing things.


ROFL

irishjayhawk
05-15-2006, 06:36 PM
You aren't discussing shit jane.

You are hell bent on proving that GWB is involved with the attacks on 9/11 as well as being responsible for the destruction of the WTC.

You have no proof, you are not looking at the videos with open eyes, but the eyes of someone with an agenda.
ROFL.

[feed troll]Someone with an agenda? I don't think he WANTS to believe the government is behind something like this, but the questions and evidence point to it.

And of anyone to be accusing anyone of having an agenda it's you? [/feed troll]

Chiefs Express II
05-15-2006, 06:43 PM
ROFL.

[feed troll]Someone with an agenda? I don't think he WANTS to believe the government is behind something like this, but the questions and evidence point to it.

And of anyone to be accusing anyone of having an agenda it's you? [/feed troll]

What evidence are you talking about?

I watched the whole video that was put on the board, it is filled with specualtion and no substantiative evidence. The "secondary" explosions were explained by venting as well as intentional blow out windows/panels that would give way incase of overpressure.

Try checking out the building specifications for high rise buildings, not just in the U.S. but any major construction site.

You are laughing, but you are buying into a fairy tale.

Bring out one ounce of proof that the building was bombed by others than Al Queda. Everything to date is as I stated, speculation.

Taco John
05-15-2006, 06:46 PM
The "secondary" explosions were explained by venting


ROFL ROFL ROFL :drool:

You betcha Tom! :thumb:

Donger
05-15-2006, 06:50 PM
Yeah. This administration, that can't keep it's OWN op sec, was behind 9/11.

All the shiny videos can't explain that.

Taco John
05-15-2006, 06:56 PM
Yeah. This administration, that can't keep it's OWN op sec, was behind 9/11.

All the shiny videos can't explain that.



I don't think anyone is blaming "The Administration," per se...

I think this goes higher than that.

Donger
05-15-2006, 06:58 PM
I don't think anyone is blaming "The Administration," per se...

I think this goes higher than that.

Why the blackout? Because Reynolds violated the ultimate U.S. media taboo. He charges the Bush administration with orchestrating the 9/11 attacks as a pretext for launching a preplanned "long war" in the Middle East, rolling back our civil liberties, and massively increasing military spending.

Taco John
05-15-2006, 07:06 PM
Ok... well that's him. I'm not so forward. George is a dope, and I have a hard time beleiving he has any control over his own administration, let alone a conspiracy of this size. If, indeed, it happened with an internal administration aspect, I think George would have been left in the dark.

jAZ
05-15-2006, 07:10 PM
Yeah. This administration, that can't keep it's OWN op sec, was behind 9/11.

All the shiny videos can't explain that.
They can keep a ton of stuff secret. I'd say the number of things that have come out likely fits the "tip of the iceberg" model.

Donger
05-15-2006, 07:16 PM
They can keep a ton of stuff secret. I'd say the number of things that have come out likely fits the "tip of the iceberg" model.

The number of people involved in an operation such as this is directly proportional to the likelyhood that it would become public.

Taco John
05-15-2006, 07:20 PM
The number of people involved in an operation such as this is directly proportional to the likelyhood that it would become public.



Why? Because you believe people involved in the most traitorous act in American history would be quick to implicate themselves?

Donger
05-15-2006, 07:23 PM
Why? Because you believe people involved in the most traitorous act in American history would be quick to implicate themselves?

Because humans are very poor at keeping secrets. Add more and more people to the secret (as would have been necessary to carry out such a deception), and the likelyhood of that secret being kept decreases.

jAZ
05-15-2006, 07:25 PM
The number of people involved in an operation such as this is directly proportional to the likelyhood that it would become public.
I agree. MIHOP (Made it happen on purpose) would be pretty hard to pull off.

On the other hand, LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) would only take a small handful of people to "stand down" in the months leading up to 9/11. Most of the acts of standing down are factually documented public record. The only open debate on these actions was whether they were acts of gross incompetence or with deliberate intent to permit a terrorist attack on our homeland.

My personal guess is that this administration was "hoping for" a terrorist attack akin to a resturant bombing, etc.

Donger
05-15-2006, 07:27 PM
Most of the acts of standing down are factually documented public record.

List them, please.

Taco John
05-15-2006, 07:28 PM
Because humans are very poor at keeping secrets. Add more and more people to the secret (as would have been necessary to carry out such a deception), and the likelyhood of that secret being kept decreases.



What about dead people? How good are they at keeping secrets?

Donger
05-15-2006, 07:32 PM
What about dead people? How good are they at keeping secrets?

I don't know. Let's ask all the people that Clinton had killed to keep his secrets.

I'm not doing this and I would hope you wouldn't, either. It's beneath you.

Donger
05-15-2006, 07:39 PM
What about dead people? How good are they at keeping secrets?

I'm sure that your conspiracy theories know no political bounds, so I thought I'd send this to you: http://members.tripod.com/~cbn2/death-2.html

Nuts, eh?

Pants
05-15-2006, 07:43 PM
Because humans are very poor at keeping secrets. Add more and more people to the secret (as would have been necessary to carry out such a deception), and the likelyhood of that secret being kept decreases.
Well, this dude is coming out and yet you refuse to believe/accept it. Fact of the matter is, no one wants to come out with it and be crucified by the masses who refuse to look at the facts. And even if they do, the media doesn't report it. Internet is the only source of such information and we all know nothing on the internet is ever true. Afterall, only the things you see on the news channels are true.

Donger
05-15-2006, 07:45 PM
Well, this dude is coming out and yet you refuse to believe/accept it. Fact of the matter is, no one wants to come out with it and be crucified by the masses who refuse to look at the facts. And even if they do, the media doesn't report it. Internet is the only source of such information and we all know nothing on the internet is ever true. Afterall, only the things you see on the news channels are true.

Coming out is groovy. Coming out with proof is even better. Sans that, it's the human equivalent of a barking dog.

Chiefs Express II
05-15-2006, 07:51 PM
I don't know. Let's ask all the people that Clinton had killed to keep his secrets.

I'm not doing this and I would hope you wouldn't, either. It's beneath you.

It's not beneath him. He knows no bounds when it comes to the truth.

Taco John
05-15-2006, 07:54 PM
Hey Donger... All I'm doing is asking the questions that the 9/11 commission "forgot" to answer. I don't know what's so egregious about that.

Chiefs Express II
05-15-2006, 07:55 PM
Hey Donger... All I'm doing is asking the questions that the 9/11 commission "forgot" to answer. I don't know what's so egregious about that.

The questions you pose are baseless. Does that even register with you?

Donger
05-15-2006, 07:59 PM
Hey Donger... All I'm doing is asking the questions that the 9/11 commission "forgot" to answer. I don't know what's so egregious about that.

Because you can't please everyone. That's hardly proof of conspiracy.

"Did martians attack the WTC? Ha! You can't prove they didn't!" /x-files music.

It's comical to me that those that spout the possibility of the Bush administration being behind 9/11 are the same ones that espouse it's incompetency.

Which is it?

Adept Havelock
05-15-2006, 08:28 PM
The number of people involved in an operation such as this is directly proportional to the likelyhood that it would become public.
A friend of mine that worked for DOE down at Los Alamos had an aphorism he shared with me that I think applies here:

The likelihood of a secret being kept is inversely proportional to the cube of the number of people who know about it.

That's the main reason I doubt this, and most "vast conspiracy" theories.

That and "Never attribute to malice that which can be more easily explained by incompetence."

JMO.

Taco John
05-15-2006, 08:34 PM
Because you can't please everyone. That's hardly proof of conspiracy.

"Did martians attack the WTC? Ha! You can't prove they didn't!" /x-files music.

It's comical to me that those that spout the possibility of the Bush administration being behind 9/11 are the same ones that espouse it's incompetency.

Which is it?


Wow... Three cliche's in a row... That's impressive...

1) 9/11 was a conspiracy by definition, was it not?

2) I can prove that there were secondary charges in the building. I have no problems with that. That part is easy. I can't prove who did it, nor would I try. That's for the Justice Department to figure out.

3) Once again, I don't think the administration, per se, was involved. I believe it to be much higher up than that.

Donger
05-15-2006, 08:35 PM
I can prove that there were secondary charges in the building.

Do it, please.

patteeu
05-15-2006, 08:36 PM
I've seen you griping about your connection a lot lately. When is the White House press room going to get broadband? :p

:LOL: I don't know about that, but a year or two ago I read an article that said George W. Bush wants everyone to have broadband by 2007. That's going to be my make or break issue when it comes to my own personal view of his job approval. ;)

Adept Havelock
05-15-2006, 08:39 PM
:LOL: I don't know about that, but a year or two ago I read an article that said George W. Bush wants everyone to have broadband by 2007. That's going to be my make or break issue when it comes to my own personal view of his job approval. ;)
Headline to come in late 2006:

National Guard to be Deployed to run Cable to Rural Areas

;)

Taco John
05-15-2006, 08:45 PM
Do it, please.


Start by scrutinizing the evidence presented here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness

Once you've seen the video, which presents clear and lucid evidence that secondary charges existed, you are welcome to hear what the boots on the ground said about the secondary charges:

1) Go to this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=eyewitness&pl=true

and

2) Forward to 39:36 and listen to the firefighters give their accounts of the secondary charges.


Finally, after seeing these videos and examining the evidence, ask yourself why FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10 (http://www.911forthetruth.com/pdfs/Rodriguezvs.Bush%20.pdf)) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order.

patteeu
05-15-2006, 08:49 PM
Have you bothered to examine the evidence Patty? I'd be curious to hear your rationalization of it...

Not in nearly as much detail as you have. But I've focused on a couple of things you think are can't-miss, telltale signs of an inside job and I come away unimpressed. For example, I don't see anything resembling the controlled implosions I've seen before in the video you posted (which I watched in it's entirety) a while back, but you seem to find them unmistakeable. Likewise with the secondary explosions. And I find the contemporaneous speculations of the firefighters easy to discount due to the chaos and uncertainty that existed at the time.

My bottom line is that I don't believe a conspiracy this vast could be covered up and I don't believe you or I are capable of assessing the competing technical claims with any confidence.

I'm not saying that I think the official story is perfect. It never is. I'm saying that the idea that our own government was behind this and that the 9/11 commission covered for the culprits is implausible, IMO.

Chiefs Express II
05-15-2006, 08:50 PM
Start by scrutinizing the evidence presented here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness

Once you've seen the video, which presents clear and lucid evidence that secondary charges existed, you are welcome to hear what the boots on the ground said about the secondary charges:

1) Go to this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=eyewitness&pl=true

and

2) Forward to 39:36 and listen to the firefighters give their accounts of the secondary charges.


Finally, after seeing these videos and examining the evidence, ask yourself why FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10 (http://www.911forthetruth.com/pdfs/Rodriguezvs.Bush%20.pdf)) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order.

That is not proof of secondary explosions. Compressed air/gases from the collapsing building can look exactly like what is seen on the video.

patteeu
05-15-2006, 08:52 PM
Why? Because you believe people involved in the most traitorous act in American history would be quick to implicate themselves?

Because it's unlikely that you could get that many people involved in such a traitorous act in the first place without running into someone who would spill the beans.

patteeu
05-15-2006, 08:54 PM
Well, this dude is coming out and yet you refuse to believe/accept it. Fact of the matter is, no one wants to come out with it and be crucified by the masses who refuse to look at the facts. And even if they do, the media doesn't report it. Internet is the only source of such information and we all know nothing on the internet is ever true. Afterall, only the things you see on the news channels are true.

"This dude" is just as much of an outsider as you or me. He doesn't claim any insider knowledge. He's just another who happened to work for the federal government. He might as well have been your mailman.

Taco John
05-15-2006, 08:56 PM
Because it's unlikely that you could get that many people involved in such a traitorous act in the first place without running into someone who would spill the beans.



Not unless they believed deep down to their core that it was ultimately the only way to "save" America.

patteeu
05-15-2006, 08:56 PM
Hey Donger... All I'm doing is asking the questions that the 9/11 commission "forgot" to answer. I don't know what's so egregious about that.

I don't see anything wrong with your questions. It's the answers you think you've already found that bother me. I know you aren't coming to the big conclusion (i.e. whodunit), but you have drawn some conclusions and I don't think they are warranted (e.g. that secondary explosions definitely happened).

patteeu
05-15-2006, 08:58 PM
Headline to come in late 2006:

National Guard to be Deployed to run Cable to Rural Areas

;)

I can't think of any better way to use them. That should be their new top priority.

Taco John
05-15-2006, 08:58 PM
I'm not saying that I think the official story is perfect. It never is. I'm saying that the idea that our own government was behind this and that the 9/11 commission covered for the culprits is implausible, IMO.



I'm not implicating "the goverment." I do think that a rogue faction was involved, though.

Adept Havelock
05-15-2006, 09:02 PM
I can't think of any better way to use them. That should be their new top priority.
ROFL
Absolutely, who needs pesky little trivialities like disaster relief?

BTW- Love the new sig. You have an uncanny gift for hoisting someone by their own petard. Is it congenital, or was it acquired in Law School?

Adept Havelock
05-15-2006, 09:05 PM
I'm not implicating "the goverment." I do think that a rogue faction was involved, though.

The most I can say is that it is possible, though I find it extremely unlikely.

However, in your defence, people were convinced the Gulf of Tonkin incidents actually occurred until a whistleblowing Patriot named Ellsburg came forth.

patteeu
05-15-2006, 09:23 PM
ROFL
Absolutely, who needs pesky little trivialities like disaster relief?

BTW- Love the new sig. You have an uncanny gift for hoisting someone by their own petard. Is it congenital, or was it acquired in Law School?

I think I'm just a natural jerk, but school helped me realize I wasn't unique so I don't feel as much need to hide it anymore. :)

Of course, I'm just kidding. I'm a nice guy (and so were most of my class mates) even if I don't always play one on the internet.

Chiefs Express II
05-15-2006, 09:27 PM
I think I'm just a natural jerk, but school helped me realize I wasn't unique so I don't feel as much need to hide it anymore. :)

Of course, I'm just kidding. I'm a nice guy (and so were most of my class mates) even if I don't always play one on the internet.

But you are unique, just like everyone else.

Adept Havelock
05-15-2006, 09:30 PM
I think I'm just a natural jerk, but school helped me realize I wasn't unique so I don't feel as much need to hide it anymore. :)

Of course, I'm just kidding. I'm a nice guy (and so were most of my class mates) even if I don't always play one on the internet.

:hmmm: I think I just figured out why I like you, even (and especially) when I disagree with you.

As for me, sometimes I actually am a natural jerk. Other times, I just play one after sleeping at a Holiday Inn Express.

wazu
05-15-2006, 10:52 PM
Finally, after seeing these videos and examining the evidence, ask yourself why FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10 (http://www.911forthetruth.com/pdfs/Rodriguezvs.Bush%20.pdf)) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order.

I find this all very compelling, but this last piece of evidence doesn't mean a whole lot. Is there anything that verifies that a gag order exists?

Also, the secondary explosions weren't the most compelling to me. I don't necessarily have an explanation for it, but I could be sold on the idea of ventilation or something similar.

The wreckage diagnostics at the other two sites seemed tougher to explain.

irishjayhawk
05-16-2006, 12:46 AM
I find this all very compelling, but this last piece of evidence doesn't mean a whole lot. Is there anything that verifies that a gag order exists?

Also, the secondary explosions weren't the most compelling to me. I don't necessarily have an explanation for it, but I could be sold on the idea of ventilation or something similar.

The wreckage diagnostics at the other two sites seemed tougher to explain.

I wondered that (first question).

I don't see how you don't find the explosions compelling, especially on the Eyewitness video. Maybe it's me. How come you aren't sold, out of curiosity and debate?

wazu
05-16-2006, 12:55 AM
I wondered that (first question).

I don't see how you don't find the explosions compelling, especially on the Eyewitness video. Maybe it's me. How come you aren't sold, out of curiosity and debate?

I actually did find the explosions compelling. I was just more interested in the vanishing airplane parts that were detailed. With any conspiracy, I try to fill the blank spaces with wild ideas like "ventilation" or whatever might fill the gaps, but I couldn't come up with even "wild" answers for some of the airplane crashing stuff.

jAZ
05-16-2006, 01:27 AM
I actually did find the explosions compelling. I was just more interested in the vanishing airplane parts that were detailed. With any conspiracy, I try to fill the blank spaces with wild ideas like "ventilation" or whatever might fill the gaps, but I couldn't come up with even "wild" answers for some of the airplane crashing stuff.
In considering the "a missle that hit the pentagon" story, I can't get around the fact that there is a plane full of people who are missing in addition to a supposed missle being used to hit the pentagon. Where are these people?

Taco John
05-16-2006, 01:45 AM
Where are these people?



I'm guessing they're not at the Hyatt...

That question always asounds me... I can't believe anyone is naive enough to ask it... It's as if you're willing to go along, for the sake of argument, that a powerfully connected faction would put the lives of thousands in peril, but somehow the people on the plane are inexpendable.

Are you seriously expecting an answer to that question?


The best I can do to answer is is to tell you to view the footage from 56:30 for about ten minutes and draw your own conclusion of what might have happened to the people caught in the supposed plot:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=eyewitness&pl=true

|Zach|
05-16-2006, 01:47 AM
Ok, I have to admit.

The gag order info is shocking.

patteeu
05-16-2006, 08:03 AM
I'm guessing they're not at the Hyatt...

That question always asounds me... I can't believe anyone is naive enough to ask it... It's as if you're willing to go along, for the sake of argument, that a powerfully connected faction would put the lives of thousands in peril, but somehow the people on the plane are inexpendable.

Are you seriously expecting an answer to that question?


The best I can do to answer is is to tell you to view the footage from 56:30 for about ten minutes and draw your own conclusion of what might have happened to the people caught in the supposed plot:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=eyewitness&pl=true

Did the conspiracy include a phone bank with operators who placed calls to close family members of passengers on the planes and then proceeded to impersonate those family members in order to spread misinformation about the status of those planes?

irishjayhawk
05-16-2006, 09:28 AM
Did the conspiracy include a phone bank with operators who placed calls to close family members of passengers on the planes and then proceeded to impersonate those family members in order to spread misinformation about the status of those planes?

I do believe cell phone calls back in 01 weren't possible unless on equipped planes, which none were, because it was in the testing phase. However, I agree, the people who came forth on the ground....well that's harder to see.

jAZ
05-16-2006, 09:34 AM
Did the conspiracy include a phone bank with operators who placed calls to close family members of passengers on the planes and then proceeded to impersonate those family members in order to spread misinformation about the status of those planes?
I watched the last few minutes of the video TJ linked me to, and this was addressed in there. Basically it suggests that a valid cell phone connection on that plane would have had a 1% of making a connection. Dozens of calls were connected, a seemingly unrealistic number.

Radar Chief
05-16-2006, 10:27 AM
I watched the last few minutes of the video TJ linked me to, and this was addressed in there. Basically it suggests that a valid cell phone connection on that plane would have had a 1% of making a connection. Dozens of calls were connected, a seemingly unrealistic number.

Right, and its disinformation exactly like that which makes the rest of the conspiracy theory less believable.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06060/662669.stm

In the past, the FAA has found nothing to indicate that the use of passive devices like laptops or game-playing electronics poses a threat to the aircraft.
However, the CMU study concluded otherwise. While the researchers looked primarily at cell phone use, they also discovered that emissions from other portable devices proved "problematic."
"We found that the risk posed by these portable devices is higher than previously believed," researcher Bill Strauss said in a release announcing the findings.
And despite the ban on cell phone use during flights, the researchers discovered that on average one to four cell phone calls are made from every commercial flight in the northeast United States.
Some are even made during critical flight times, such as the climb after takeoff or the final approach.
The study is featured in an article in the March issue of IEEE Spectrum, a monthly magazine for technology professionals.
The study was conducted over three months in late 2003 with the cooperation of the FAA, three major airlines and the Transportation Security Administration.

jAZ
05-16-2006, 10:38 AM
Right, and its disinformation exactly like that which makes the rest of the conspiracy theory less believable.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06060/662669.stm
Keep reading, the article you link to here points out that the study "document(ed) in-flight emissions of portable electronic devices". That's not the same as making a final usable phone connection. My guess is that they noted that 1-4 phones were left on during flight. I'm sure that's about right.

The study was conducted over three months in late 2003 with the cooperation of the FAA, three major airlines and the Transportation Security Administration.

During that period, the researchers monitored radio emissions from cell phones and other electronic devices on commercial flights throughout the Northeast. The equipment used to take the measurements, including a laptop computer, had been modified for safe in-flight use and fit in a nondescript carry-on bag.

While the data date to late 2003, the researchers said they believe the study is the first to document in-flight emissions of portable electronic devices.
Also, the number I gave you was for flights at 32,000 feet. Not sure what the altitude was on this study, but it matters little given the nature of this study. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advancing this theory, just pointing out that your assertion is inaccurate and based upon a seemingly incomplete reading of your own article.

Taco John
05-16-2006, 10:47 AM
Right, and its disinformation exactly like that which makes the rest of the conspiracy theory less believable.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06060/662669.stm



Your link doesn't say anything at which altitude these calls are made. They seem to indicate that it happens during take-off and landing, which doesn't conflict with the science that says that once a plane has altitude, it gets progressively more difficult to get a cell phone connection...


1:08:46 in the video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=eyewitness&pl=true


Project Achillies report:
http://guardian.150m.com/september-eleven/cell-phones.htm

The four cellphones operated via four different cellular networks (cellsites). Because calls were made from a variety of positions for each network, it cannot be said that failures were the fault of cellsite placement. the London, Ontario, region is richly supplied with cellsites belonging to five separate networks.

It may be noted in passing that this experiment was also conducted in a radio-transparent aircraft with carbon-fibre composite construction. Failure to make a call from such an aircraft with any particular brand of cellphone spells automatic failure for the same cellphone from a metal-clad aircraft flying at the same altitude. A metal skin attenuates all cellphone signals to a significant degree. It may safely be concluded that the operational ceiling for cellphones in aluminum skin aircraft (most passenger liners, for example) would be significantly lower than the ones reported here.

It may therefore safely be concluded that cellphone calls from passenger aircraft are physically impossible above 8000 feet abga and statistically unlikely below it.

Iowanian
05-16-2006, 11:01 AM
kookooo Koookoo koookoo

Taco John
05-16-2006, 11:09 AM
I agree that it's a rather large pill to swallow...

But the evidence of demolitions at Ground Zero is pretty insurmountable, based on everything I've read, making the rest of it suspect. I still haven't gotten a decent explination on why WTC 7 fell... Nothing hit it...

It's a building built around a building... And the supposed first steel structure in the history of the world to suffer complete progressive collapse due to fire damage... and in short time, compared to buildings that have spent days in blazing fires and didn't suffer collapse.

Iowanian
05-16-2006, 11:12 AM
I think there is Zero chance that our own govt committed that attack. Nada, Zilch.

I think anyone who thinks they did, is nuckin futs.

patteeu
05-16-2006, 11:14 AM
I watched the last few minutes of the video TJ linked me to, and this was addressed in there. Basically it suggests that a valid cell phone connection on that plane would have had a 1% of making a connection. Dozens of calls were connected, a seemingly unrealistic number.

Whether the calls were made from cell phones or from airphones and whether the plane was at high altitude or at low altitude and whether the calls were extended conversations or abbreviated converstations plagued by drops as the plane moved from one cell to another, the fact remains that several people on the ground claim to have been contacted by their relatives by phone during the events of 9/11. Were the people they were talking to part of the conspiracy or are they making up the calls? I find all of this implausible.

Radar Chief
05-16-2006, 11:16 AM
Keep reading, the article you link to here points out that the study "document(ed) in-flight emissions of portable electronic devices". That's not the same as making a final usable phone connection. My guess is that they noted that 1-4 phones were left on during flight. I'm sure that's about right.

And your assumption would be incorrect.

And despite the ban on cell phone use during flights, the researchers discovered that on average one to four cell phone calls are made from every commercial flight in the northeast United States.

That’s “1-4 cell phone calls are made” mid-flight.
The article is ‘bout electronic interference, but I referenced it because it addresses the ability to make a cell phone call while flying. In other words, cell phones are banned from use during flights because their signal can interfere with the planes avionics, not cause they don’t work.

Also, the number I gave you was for flights at 32,000 feet. Not sure what the altitude was on this study, but it matters little given the nature of this study. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advancing this theory, just pointing out that your assertion is inaccurate and based upon a seemingly incomplete reading of your own article.

At least you’re try’n to get a handle on this, and I appreciate that.
Cell phone reception is more related to distance than ‘bout anything else. 32K ft. is just over 6 miles. 5280 ft/mile fyi.
While it will add to the distance from the cell phone user to the nearest cell tower, the altitude by itself doesn’t in anyway eliminate the possibility of cell phone reception.

Taco John
05-16-2006, 11:20 AM
Whether the calls were made from cell phones or from airphones and whether the plane was at high altitude or at low altitude and whether the calls were extended conversations or abbreviated converstations plagued by drops as the plane moved from one cell to another, the fact remains that several people on the ground claim to have been contacted by their relatives by phone during the events of 9/11. Were the people they were talking to part of the conspiracy or are they making up the calls? I find all of this implausible.



All of this is addressed at 1:08:46 in the video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=eyewitness&pl=true

Taco John
05-16-2006, 11:22 AM
That’s “1-4 cell phone calls are made” mid-flight.

You're jumping to a conclusion that isn't stated as clearly as you wish it was...

Radar Chief
05-16-2006, 11:29 AM
Your link doesn't say anything at which altitude these calls are made. They seem to indicate that it happens during take-off and landing,

You’re try’n hard to read what you want to believe into what I posted. The article I reference doesn’t say most were made “during take-off and landing” it references instances specifically for the interference aspect, not the possibility of reception.

which doesn't conflict with the science that says that once a plane has altitude, it gets progressively more difficult to get a cell phone connection...

This is correct. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible, but progressively more difficult as the distance increases.

From what you’ve quoted.

A metal skin attenuates all cellphone signals to a significant degree.

Only slightly more then the metal skin of your SUV does. And considering the relatively high RFI (that’s Radio Frequency Interference) environment of the average car I’d be will’n to say that it’s no less likely to happen from one vehicle (car) to the other (plane).

It may therefore safely be concluded that cellphone calls from passenger aircraft are physically impossible above 8000 feet abga and statistically unlikely below it.

8K ft is right ‘round 1.5 miles.
As I stated to jAZ, this will add distance from the cell user to the nearest tower but hardly makes it “impossible”.

patteeu
05-16-2006, 11:32 AM
All of this is addressed at 1:08:46 in the video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=eyewitness&pl=true

I watched it once, but I don't remember what it said. I'll have to try to remember to revisit it when I'm somewhere that has broadband again.

Radar Chief
05-16-2006, 11:33 AM
I agree that it's a rather large pill to swallow...


It’s a “hard pill to swallow” because it’s so obviously full of bullshit.
But it’s apparently work’n, they’ve got you utterly snowed. :shake:
I thought you a little more skeptical than to fall for blatent BS like this.

patteeu
05-16-2006, 11:34 AM
RadarChiefs's first name is Radar. I just thought I'd point that out.

I'm going to assume RC knows something about rf transmissions just like I'd assume Taco John knows a lot about meat wrapped in a tortilla and jAZ knows something about music with a lot of upbeats but isn't a good speller. ;)

beavis
05-16-2006, 11:34 AM
I think there is Zero chance that our own govt committed that attack. Nada, Zilch.

I think anyone who thinks they did, is nuckin futs.
TJ is pissing away what little credibility he had left with threads like this.

jAZ
05-16-2006, 11:38 AM
And your assumption would be incorrect.
I'm actually not assuming a single thing. They explicitly describe their methodology in the article. They monitor from within the plane the existance of any cell phone signals.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06060/662669.stm

During that period, the researchers monitored radio emissions from cell phones and other electronic devices on commercial flights throughout the Northeast. The equipment used to take the measurements, including a laptop computer, had been modified for safe in-flight use and fit in a nondescript carry-on bag.

Radar Chief
05-16-2006, 11:38 AM
You're jumping to a conclusion that isn't stated as clearly as you wish it was...

:rolleyes: I’m tell’n you this as a technician with considerable experience in the RF field.
But whatever. Don’t believe me, you’ve got kook conspiracy theorist sing’n the tune you wanna hear.

Taco John
05-16-2006, 11:39 AM
TJ is pissing away what little credibility he had left with threads like this.



If someone who ever treated me decently said this, I'd be concerned... But it's you.

jAZ
05-16-2006, 11:42 AM
I think there is Zero chance that our own govt committed that attack. Nada, Zilch.

I think anyone who thinks they did, is nuckin futs.
What do you think about the possibility that they looked the other way (either deliberately or through a failure to understand the threat) and ended up permitting 9/11 to happen without the coordinated and agressive effort necessary to prevent it. And if deliberate, then with the purpose of allowing a rather small domestic terrorist attack in order to prime the political pump for war with Iraq?

Radar Chief
05-16-2006, 11:44 AM
I'm actually not assuming a single thing. They explicitly describe their methodology in the article. They monitor from within the plane the existance of any cell phone signals.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06060/662669.stm

During that period, the researchers monitored radio emissions from cell phones and other electronic devices on commercial flights throughout the Northeast. The equipment used to take the measurements, including a laptop computer, had been modified for safe in-flight use and fit in a nondescript carry-on bag.

What you quoted is in reference to the RFI aspect. All electronics emit RFI. Period. Though they could be made to emit less using several different methods including shield grounding, passing input and output signals through ferrite beads, or other filtering processes.
I reference the article not for the RFI aspect but because it’s survey also states the average number of cell calls made per flight.

jAZ
05-16-2006, 11:44 AM
8K ft is right ‘round 1.5 miles.
As I stated to jAZ, this will add distance from the cell user to the nearest tower but hardly makes it “impossible”.
And as I said, the numbers provided with regard to flight 93 are that the flight was at 32,000 ft. And the number (1/100) was for 32,000ft. If we are going to play with specific numbers, play with the *actual* specific numbers.

Radar Chief
05-16-2006, 11:45 AM
RadarChiefs's first name is Radar. I just thought I'd point that out.

I'm going to assume RC knows something about rf transmissions just like I'd assume Taco John knows a lot about meat wrapped in a tortilla and jAZ knows something about music with a lot of upbeats but isn't a good speller. ;)

Thanks Pat, I thought that was be’n lost there for a minute. :thumb:

Taco John
05-16-2006, 11:46 AM
It’s a “hard pill to swallow” because it’s so obviously full of bullshit.
But it’s apparently work’n, they’ve got you utterly snowed. :shake:
I thought you a little more skeptical than to fall for blatent BS like this.


Like I said before... The evidence of secondary explosions at ground zero is what turns the worm for me. After that, everything becomes suspect:


Evidence of secondary explosions, exhibit A:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness

Once you've seen the video, which presents clear and lucid evidence that secondary charges existed, you are welcome to hear what the boots on the ground said about the secondary charges:

1) Go to this video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=eyewitness&pl=true

and

2) Forward to 39:36 and listen to the firefighters give their accounts of the secondary charges.


Finally, after seeing these videos and examining the evidence, ask yourself why FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10 (http://www.911forthetruth.com/pdfs/Rodriguezvs.Bush%20.pdf)) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order.

mlyonsd
05-16-2006, 11:47 AM
Thanks Pat, I thought that was be’n lost there for a minute. :thumb:

Drink of choice....grape Nehi.

jAZ
05-16-2006, 11:47 AM
What you quoted is in reference to the RFI aspect. All electronics emit RFI. Period. Though they could be made to emit less using several different methods including shield grounding, passing input and output signals through ferrite beads, or other filtering processes.
I reference the article not for the RFI aspect but because it’s survey also states the average number of cell calls made per flight.
You are reading the article completely wrong. You are *assuming* that the study involved counting the number of completed connections. But the details of the study are included and point out that they merely measured the RF signals present on the plane. That methodology will not result in information that would permit anyone to count the number of connections. Again, you are making the assumption that they were connected calls. The article is telling you that your assumption is baseless.

Radar Chief
05-16-2006, 11:48 AM
And as I said, the numbers provided with regard to flight 93 are that the flight was at 32,000 ft. And the number (1/100) was for 32,000ft. If we are going to play with specific numbers, play with the *actual* specific numbers.

:rolleyes: And here is my reply to that in post #87.

At least you’re try’n to get a handle on this, and I appreciate that.
Cell phone reception is more related to distance than ‘bout anything else. 32K ft. is just over 6 miles. 5280 ft/mile fyi.
While it will add to the distance from the cell phone user to the nearest cell tower, the altitude by itself doesn’t in anyway eliminate the possibility of cell phone reception.

Taco John
05-16-2006, 11:50 AM
Also the destruction of WTC 7 is bothersome for me... I guess in fairness I should mention it.

jAZ
05-16-2006, 11:50 AM
Whether the calls were made from cell phones or from airphones and whether the plane was at high altitude or at low altitude and whether the calls were extended conversations or abbreviated converstations plagued by drops as the plane moved from one cell to another, the fact remains that several people on the ground claim to have been contacted by their relatives by phone during the events of 9/11. Were the people they were talking to part of the conspiracy or are they making up the calls? I find all of this implausible.
The explanation of this part is rather implausible, IMO. It involves voice duplication software developed in the year or two before 9/11 and used in a somewhat public fashion. Software that requires input of the voice patterns of a person (using as few as a dozen words), then can create a spoken vocabulary from a computer in that person's voice.

Interesting software, regardless of how it fits into 9/11.

jAZ
05-16-2006, 11:53 AM
:rolleyes: And here is my reply to that in post #87.
I saw that, but why go back to trying to using 8000 when the issue in question is 32,000. It goes back to where all of this discussion started.

They reported that at 32,000 there was a 1/100 chance of making a connection. You aren't disputing that by saying "the altitude by itself doesn’t in anyway eliminate the possibility of cell phone reception". In fact, it seems as if you might agree that the number seems potentially reasonable. Something that you were disputing early on in this discussion.

Radar Chief
05-16-2006, 11:53 AM
You are reading the article completely wrong. You are *assuming* that the study involved counting the number of completed connections. But the details of the study are included and point out that they merely measured the RF signals present on the plane. That methodology will not result in information that would permit anyone to count the number of connections. Again, you are making the assumption that they were connected calls. The article is telling you that your assumption is baseless.

:rolleyes: :shake:
You do realize you’re make’n assumptions ‘bout what I’m “assume’n”.

Radar Chief
05-16-2006, 11:54 AM
I saw that, but why go back to trying to using 8000 when the issue in question is 32,000. It goes back to where all of this discussion started.

Cause that’s the number that Taco quoted and I was addressing him directly? :spock:

Taco John
05-16-2006, 11:55 AM
:rolleyes: :shake:
You do realize you’re make’n assumptions ‘bout what I’m “assume’n”.


Well then you're welcome to fill in the huge gap of information to clear the matter up...

Taco John
05-16-2006, 11:57 AM
Cause that’s the number that Taco quoted and I was addressing him directly? :spock:



Yes, but what is the cruising altitude of a commercial airliner?

jAZ
05-16-2006, 12:02 PM
:rolleyes: :shake:
You do realize you’re make’n assumptions ‘bout what I’m “assume’n”.
Don't play games. Either accept that you were wrong or explain what you meant to say in all of this effort to refute the "disinformation" within my original post.

Radar Chief
05-16-2006, 12:02 PM
I saw that, but why go back to trying to using 8000 when the issue in question is 32,000. It goes back to where all of this discussion started.

They reported that at 32,000 there was a 1/100 chance of making a connection. You aren't disputing that by saying "the altitude by itself doesn’t in anyway eliminate the possibility of cell phone reception". In fact, it seems as if you might agree that the number seems potentially reasonable. Something that you were disputing early on in this discussion.

I agree with the assertion that cell reception becomes increasingly more difficult in direct relation to the increase in distance.
Down to a 1% chance is possible, but considering the high population centers they were fly’n ‘round, and what I’d assume to be a relatively high number of cell towers in those areas, I doubt that it’d be that low.

jAZ
05-16-2006, 12:03 PM
Cause that’s the number that Taco quoted and I was addressing him directly? :spock:
Fair enough. I was just trying to keep the discussion on track. We aren't discussing a situation involving 8000ft.

jAZ
05-16-2006, 12:04 PM
I agree with the assertion that cell reception becomes increasingly more difficult in direct relation to the increase in distance.
Down to a 1% chance is possible...
So it might not be the "disinformation" that you asserted without qualification that it was.

Taco John
05-16-2006, 12:05 PM
From Drudge:

DoD to Release Video of 9/11 Plane Crash into Pentagon...
http://www.judicialwatch.org/5772.shtml


Apparently they are releasing some video today...

Radar Chief
05-16-2006, 12:05 PM
Don't play games.

You should try that yourself.

Either accept that you were wrong or explain what you meant to say in all of this effort to refute the "disinformation" within my original post.

I’ve already explained it a couple times now.
If you that married to this conspiracy theory its obvious no amount of information will change your mind.

Radar Chief
05-16-2006, 12:08 PM
So it might not be the "disinformation" that you asserted without qualification that it was.

And here I thought you were against “play’n games”. :shrug:
You and Taco want to assert that it’s impossible for those people on flight 93 to have had cell phone conversations with their loved ones. I’ve refuted that.
No one has yet produced any information that would lead anyone to the conclusion I’m incorrect.

jAZ
05-16-2006, 12:09 PM
You should try that yourself.



I’ve already explained it a couple times now.
If you that married to this conspiracy theory its obvious no amount of information will change your mind.
I don't believe the theory at all. I'm trying to keep the discussion accurate and honest. Your games about "assuming what I'm assuming" not withstanding.

Once confronted with your misinterpretation of the evidence you tried to use to counter the "disinformation" you admit might not be "disinformation", you resorted to playing games.

Either be specific and refute any false assumptions I'm making here about you... or accept that you interpreted your article incorrectly. You've already acknowledged the 1% number is possible. That's the hardest part, given that you were calling it "disinformation" at the beginning.

Taco John
05-16-2006, 12:12 PM
And here I thought you were against “play’n games”. :shrug:
You and Taco want to assert that it’s impossible for those people on flight 93 to have had cell phone conversations with their loved ones. I’ve refuted that.
No one has yet produced any information that would lead anyone to the conclusion I’m incorrect.



You did? Where? I didn't see anything you've written that would indicate that calls could be reliably made at cruising altitude. I welcome the information if you have it.

jAZ
05-16-2006, 12:13 PM
You and Taco want to assert that it’s impossible for those people on flight 93 to have had cell phone conversations with their loved ones.
That's a lie. I don't believe that it's impossible. You've picked an outcome you want me to believe, and you are arguing against that. Just stop.

I've said that the story points out that there is a 1% chance that a call would be completed. You agree that 1% *might* be accurate, but you think it should be higher than 1%. Neither of us has said it's 0%. But it's much easier to dispute 0%, so you pretend that's what I've said.

That's so complete dishonest, I don't really know what to say.

Iowanian
05-16-2006, 12:15 PM
I disbelieve the 1% story.

I've said before, I made a cell phone call from an airliner, I blieve in 1999. First time, wasn't dropped.

what a coincidence.

patteeu
05-16-2006, 12:45 PM
I don't believe the theory at all. I'm trying to keep the discussion accurate and honest. Your games about "assuming what I'm assuming" not withstanding.

Once confronted with your misinterpretation of the evidence you tried to use to counter the "disinformation" you admit might not be "disinformation", you resorted to playing games.

Either be specific and refute any false assumptions I'm making here about you... or accept that you interpreted your article incorrectly. You've already acknowledged the 1% number is possible. That's the hardest part, given that you were calling it "disinformation" at the beginning.

I don't think it's clear whether or not he misinterpreted the article. If the article means what you think it means, it was poorly written. It's not impossible to determine when a cell phone connection is made just by monitoring rf signals. You may be right and you may be wrong, but the more important thing is that calls were received on that day. Occum's Razor suggests that they were probably made that day too. It takes an extraordinary hypothesis of one kind or another (e.g. the callers were in on the conspiracy or the call recipients were in on the conspiracy or the government duplicated the voices of the callers by computer in an interactive exchange or ... etc.) to explain these calls away.

There might be more to the 9/11 story than is explained by the official explanations, but the conspiracy theories go way beyond my ability to believe in the improbable. I guess I'm the opposite of Taco. I see too many wildly improbable theories coming from the conspiracy folks and it taints everything else they say. Maybe there is some middle ground where the official explanation facilitates some small-potatoes coverup but I haven't seen anything that remotely approaches convincing evidence of the big coverup or the inside job.

jAZ
05-16-2006, 12:58 PM
I don't think it's clear whether or not he misinterpreted the article. If the article means what you think it means, it was poorly written. It's not impossible to determine when a cell phone connection is made just by monitoring rf signals. You may be right and you may be wrong, but the more important thing is that calls were received on that day. Occum's Razor suggests that they were probably made that day too. It takes an extraordinary hypothesis of one kind or another (e.g. the callers were in on the conspiracy or the call recipients were in on the conspiracy or the government duplicated the voices of the callers by computer in an interactive exchange or ... etc.) to explain these calls away.

There might be more to the 9/11 story than is explained by the official explanations, but the conspiracy theories go way beyond my ability to believe in the improbable. I guess I'm the opposite of Taco. I see too many wildly improbable theories coming from the conspiracy folks and it taints everything else they say. Maybe there is some middle ground where the official explanation facilitates some small-potatoes coverup but I haven't seen anything that remotely approaches convincing evidence of the big coverup or the inside job.
As I've said, I agree with the Occum's Razor theory as applied to most things including 9/11. But to be clear, it's not overly complex or overly hard for an administration to deliberately shift focus away from terrorism in an effort to look the other way and let probability work its "magic". There is a ton of factual evidence to support this being the case. Whether it was deliberate (an effort to allow an attack) or just horrible, horrible, horrible fuggin leadership, remains to be seen.

Taco John
05-16-2006, 01:02 PM
Nice rhetoric and all, being the opposite of me and all... But since you're so into improbably theories, maybe you can explain the improbable theory that fire is what caused WTC 7 to become the first steel structured building in the history of the world to suffer complete progressive collapse due to fire... People that want to cite Occam need to account for the fact that his razor cuts both ways here.

Like I say, I start at the center and work my way outward... The evidence of secondary charges, and the improbably demolition of WTC 7 come first. I just find everything else suspect after that. If people want to argue from the outside in, I'm more than willing to play devils advocate, if not just to demonstrate that the 9/11 commission failed to answer a lot of questions...

TenLap
05-16-2006, 01:09 PM
From Drudge:

DoD to Release Video of 9/11 Plane Crash into Pentagon...
http://www.judicialwatch.org/5772.shtml


Apparently they are releasing some video today...

Was this link dead for anyone else but me?

Taco John
05-16-2006, 01:13 PM
It's on the drudge report, so I'd guess it's getting hammered, and is probably on a smallish server that can't handle the amount of traffic it's receiving...

jAZ
05-16-2006, 01:15 PM
...the 9/11 commission failed to answer a lot of questions...
I think it's agreeable to almost everyone that this is true.

patteeu
05-16-2006, 01:17 PM
As I've said, I agree with the Occum's Razor theory as applied to most things including 9/11. But to be clear, it's not overly complex or overly hard for an administration to deliberately shift focus away from terrorism in an effort to look the other way and let probability work its "magic". There is a ton of factual evidence to support this being the case. Whether it was deliberate (an effort to allow an attack) or just horrible, horrible, horrible fuggin leadership, remains to be seen.

I don't agree that there is a ton of evidence to support the proposition that it was either deliberate or horrible leadership that led to 9/11. I don't agree with that at all.

But can we now agree that it is most likely that there were people on the missing/crashed planes who contacted loved ones on the ground by phone?

patteeu
05-16-2006, 01:24 PM
Nice rhetoric and all, being the opposite of me and all... But since you're so into improbably theories, maybe you can explain the improbable theory that fire is what caused WTC 7 to become the first steel structured building in the history of the world to suffer complete progressive collapse due to fire... People that want to cite Occam need to account for the fact that his razor cuts both ways here.

Like I say, I start at the center and work my way outward... The evidence of secondary charges, and the improbably demolition of WTC 7 come first. I just find everything else suspect after that. If people want to argue from the outside in, I'm more than willing to play devils advocate, if not just to demonstrate that the 9/11 commission failed to answer a lot of questions...

I watched your video and I didn't see compelling evidence of secondary charges.

As for WTC 7, I haven't heard a theory that I find more probable than the collateral damage and fire theory. That's not to say that collateral damage and fire are truth, it's that I haven't been convinced that there is a much more likely alternative theory. I do admit that I haven't studied the WTC 7 collapse very much, but I don't really think it would be fruitful to do so since my expertise in the area is too limited to judge the various theories (even though, as a former engineer, the concepts aren't completely foreign to me). IMO, most of us are limited to excluding the implausible and weighing the remaining claims on the basis of the credibility of those who make them.

Taco John
05-16-2006, 01:28 PM
But can we now agree that it is most likely that there were people on the missing/crashed planes who contacted loved ones on the ground by phone?


I would agree that by all appearances, that is what happened.

Can you agree that it's odd that someone would call their mom using their first and last name and ask her if she believed it's him?

(ie. "Mom, it's me, 'Michael Johnson,' do you believe me?")

jAZ
05-16-2006, 01:34 PM
But can we now agree that it is most likely that there were people on the missing/crashed planes who contacted loved ones on the ground by phone?
I've never disputed this. I was addressing questions and trying to keep the discussion focused on the facts. Radar Chief decided it needed to side track the discussion by asserting the 1% figure as "disinformation" only to retract that by calling it "possible".

I have no problem agreeing "that it is most likely that there were people on the missing/crashed planes who contacted loved ones on the ground by phone".

At the same time, will you admit that a handful of members of the Bush administration *could* have downgraded the focus on terrorism and as a result, permitted an evivronment to exist (deliberately or otherwise) that allowed 9/11 to occur.

mlyonsd
05-16-2006, 01:43 PM
At the same time, will you admit that a handful of members of the Bush administration *could* have downgraded the focus on terrorism and as a result, permitted an evivronment to exist (deliberately or otherwise) that allowed 9/11 to occur.

Or, it's possible the downgraded focus on terrorism occured long before Bush....like in June of 2000 when Clinton was still President and Atta entered the country.

jAZ
05-16-2006, 01:46 PM
Or, it's possible the downgraded focus on terrorism occured long before Bush....like in June of 2000 when Clinton was still President and Atta entered the country.
That's counter to the facts.

Taco John
05-16-2006, 01:50 PM
I watched your video and I didn't see compelling evidence of secondary charges.

As for WTC 7, I haven't heard a theory that I find more probable than the collateral damage and fire theory. That's not to say that collateral damage and fire are truth, it's that I haven't been convinced that there is a much more likely alternative theory. I do admit that I haven't studied the WTC 7 collapse very much, but I don't really think it would be fruitful to do so since my expertise in the area is too limited to judge the various theories (even though, as a former engineer, the concepts aren't completely foreign to me). IMO, most of us are limited to excluding the implausible and weighing the remaining claims on the basis of the credibility of those who make them.



It's hard for me to get into the discussion of what is and isn't with someone who admits that they aren't examining the evidence. For my part, I defer to the peer reviewed science on the subject, conducted by Steven E. Jones of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BYU.


http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

patteeu
05-16-2006, 02:07 PM
I would agree that by all appearances, that is what happened.

Can you agree that it's odd that someone would call their mom using their first and last name and ask her if she believed it's him?

(ie. "Mom, it's me, 'Michael Johnson,' do you believe me?")

Yes, but I think it would be more odd for someone trying to pass themselves off as Michael Johnson to ask an odd question like that. It could just be an effort to cut to the chase in a chaotic environment.

mlyonsd
05-16-2006, 02:12 PM
That's counter to the facts.

What I stated was fact. At least from the CIA. Or maybe you should tell me if this is a "believe" them or "not believe" them day?

patteeu
05-16-2006, 02:15 PM
I've never disputed this. I was addressing questions and trying to keep the discussion focused on the facts. Radar Chief decided it needed to side track the discussion by asserting the 1% figure as "disinformation" only to retract that by calling it "possible".

I have no problem agreeing "that it is most likely that there were people on the missing/crashed planes who contacted loved ones on the ground by phone".

Posts #78 and #79 puzzle me. Why does a dedicated conspiracy believer like Irish have to cling to these most implausible aspects of the big conpiracy? Why did you feel the need to claim that the number of calls claimed was "unrealistic" if you believe they did in fact occur?

At the same time, will you admit that a handful of members of the Bush administration *could* have downgraded the focus on terrorism and as a result, permitted an evivronment to exist (deliberately or otherwise) that allowed 9/11 to occur.

Of course they could have. "Deliberately or otherwise" is a pretty broad category and represents a range of behavior from reprehensible to completely understandable and acceptable.

patteeu
05-16-2006, 02:17 PM
That's counter to the facts.

No, he was right on the facts. Clinton was in office in June of 2000 when Atta entered the US.

patteeu
05-16-2006, 02:23 PM
It's hard for me to get into the discussion of what is and isn't with someone who admits that they aren't examining the evidence. For my part, I defer to the peer reviewed science on the subject, conducted by Steven E. Jones of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BYU.


http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

I didn't say I wasn't examining the evidence, I said I wasn't examining as much of it as you seem to have. I've asked for the best piece of evidence before and found what was offered to be lacking. I don't see any reason to go on an endless journey through all the conspiracy websites, books, videos, and radio programs when so much of it is unbelievable.

If this Steven E. Jones document is the most compelling piece of evidence of a conspiracy that you have, I'll take a look at it when I get a chance. In what context was it peer reviewed?

Taco John
05-16-2006, 02:25 PM
Contrary to popular belief, I don't *want* to believe that there were insiders involved. But the preponderance of evidence is there to come to this conclusion. Anyone who doubts it should do some research of their own, starting with the search terms "thermite WTC"

patteeu
05-16-2006, 02:36 PM
I don't think it's clear whether or not he misinterpreted the article. If the article means what you think it means, it was poorly written. It's not impossible to determine when a cell phone connection is made just by monitoring rf signals. You may be right and you may be wrong, but the more important thing is that calls were received on that day. Occum's Razor suggests that they were probably made that day too. It takes an extraordinary hypothesis of one kind or another (e.g. the callers were in on the conspiracy or the call recipients were in on the conspiracy or the government duplicated the voices of the callers by computer in an interactive exchange or ... etc.) to explain these calls away.

There might be more to the 9/11 story than is explained by the official explanations, but the conspiracy theories go way beyond my ability to believe in the improbable. I guess I'm the opposite of Taco. I see too many wildly improbable theories coming from the conspiracy folks and it taints everything else they say. Maybe there is some middle ground where the official explanation facilitates some small-potatoes coverup but I haven't seen anything that remotely approaches convincing evidence of the big coverup or the inside job.

Dale Mercer's negative rep comment associated with this post:

I am very offended at being compaired tu Pity U..................................................................................................m ost would be............................................................................................

ROFL

burt
05-16-2006, 03:07 PM
Dale Mercer's negative rep comment associated with this post:



ROFL

Okay, you own me....or I don't know how to quit you.....you pick, pitty u....

consider it carpet bombing....at least I am not a low life that reps from the confines of rep disabled.....isn't there a term for that???

What does the rest of CP think of this practice??

patteeu
05-16-2006, 03:15 PM
Okay, you own me....or I don't know how to quit you.....you pick, pitty u....

consider it carpet bombing....at least I am not a low life that reps from the confines of rep disabled.....isn't there a term for that???

What does the rest of CP think of this practice??

I think I'll rep you every time you rep me since you seem to care about it so much. But I'd also be willing to talk to you out in the open rather than hide in the shadows of rep comments.

All you need to do is start sending PMs on top of the rep comments and it would be hard for me to distinguish you from our most recently departed poster.

burt
05-16-2006, 03:50 PM
I think I'll rep you every time you rep me since you seem to care about it so much. But I'd also be willing to talk to you out in the open rather than hide in the shadows of rep comments.

All you need to do is start sending PMs on top of the rep comments and it would be hard for me to distinguish you from our most recently departed poster.

Gee, who is that?........

irishjayhawk
05-16-2006, 05:59 PM
Contrary to popular belief, I don't *want* to believe that there were insiders involved. But the preponderance of evidence is there to come to this conclusion. Anyone who doubts it should do some research of their own, starting with the search terms "thermite WTC"


Same here. And for what it's worth, I do believe the Holocust happened, we landed on the moon etc. I don't know much about the Kennedy assassination, so I can't really comment either for nor against.

So, I am not a "dedicated conspiracy theorist". I, like Taco, have problems with the facts of the "official story". Perhaps even more than that, the fact that questions like this aren't even being attempted to be answered.

I think it's extremely fishy that calls were connected in crystal clear tones at 32000ft and that people had to use thier first and last name when addressing a parent. Do I have an explanation? No.

Just because someone looks at the facts with a skeptical eye, doesn't mean they die by it. Just clearing that up.

irishjayhawk
05-16-2006, 06:17 PM
Just curious, what about this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yxxmtSMuGB4

Obviously, the order couldn't have been to shoot it down. Now, my disclaimer to this is:

Yes, this would prove that a plane did strike the Pentagon (debateable as to what kind/how big).

However, his orders couldn't have been to shoot it down, because they tracked it from 50 miles out.

Just curious to others thoughts.

patteeu
05-16-2006, 09:17 PM
I think it's extremely fishy that calls were connected in crystal clear tones at 32000ft and that people had to use thier first and last name when addressing a parent. Do I have an explanation? No.

If you had to take a guess, what would you guess?

WilliamTheIrish
05-16-2006, 10:32 PM
I'll only chime in this:

4 years ago when a jAZ post first mentioned his LIHOP theory I wanted to kick him in the junk.

Now, I cringe at the thought that what was once the remotest of possibilities (to me) is becoming less remote.

Taco John
05-16-2006, 10:49 PM
If you had to take a guess, what would you guess?



There is technology that exists to mimic voice patterns of people. I wouldn't count that out. I mean, if there is an internal component to all this, where is the line drawn on how far they would go?

I'm not concerned if people think I'm crazy for asking the questions. I wouldn't have to ask them if the 9/11 commission had been doing their job in the first place. It sucks that our congress folks have put patriotic Americans in this position because they didn't want to step on any political toes along the way.

Pussies.

irishjayhawk
05-16-2006, 11:44 PM
If you had to take a guess, what would you guess?

I'd have to think about it.

Speaking of thinking about it, what do you think of this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yxxmtSMuGB4

patteeu
05-17-2006, 06:38 AM
There is technology that exists to mimic voice patterns of people. I wouldn't count that out. I mean, if there is an internal component to all this, where is the line drawn on how far they would go?

I'm not concerned if people think I'm crazy for asking the questions. I wouldn't have to ask them if the 9/11 commission had been doing their job in the first place. It sucks that our congress folks have put patriotic Americans in this position because they didn't want to step on any political toes along the way.

Pussies.

Technology may exist to mimic voice patterns of people, but these were interactive calls. I don't know if they can do that at this point. Furthermore, many of these calls involved ordinary people whose voices are not well known. I think it's safe to count this possibility out.

patteeu
05-17-2006, 06:39 AM
I'd have to think about it.

Speaking of thinking about it, what do you think of this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yxxmtSMuGB4

I think it's probably video and it's a pain in the ass to watch video over a dialup line. I may be stopping by my parents' house in the next couple of days. They have broadband so I'll try to watch it there.

irishjayhawk
05-17-2006, 06:54 AM
Fair enough.

Radar Chief
05-17-2006, 07:32 AM
I don't believe the theory at all. I'm trying to keep the discussion accurate and honest. Your games about "assuming what I'm assuming" not withstanding.



It’s not a “misinterpretation” to accurately conclude that on average 1-4 cell calls are made from every flight pass’n through the same area that your “disinformation” claims to be nearly impossible.
With literally thousands of calls made from the air every day, I’m sure all of those calls are be’n made cause they can’t get reception.

Once confronted with your misinterpretation of the evidence you tried to use to counter the "disinformation" you admit might not be "disinformation", you resorted to playing games.

Either be specific and refute any false assumptions I'm making here about you... or accept that you interpreted your article incorrectly. You've already acknowledged the 1% number is possible. That's the hardest part, given that you were calling it "disinformation" at the beginning.

Confronted? All you’ve yet to do is spin desperately. Why so? You need this badly to believe a conspiracy theory?

Radar Chief
05-17-2006, 07:35 AM
You did? Where? I didn't see anything you've written that would indicate that calls could be reliably made at cruising altitude. I welcome the information if you have it.

1-4 calls are made from the air in the same area from every flight. That’s literally thousands of calls every day.
Just because you choose not to believe the obvious, doesn’t make it disappear.

Radar Chief
05-17-2006, 07:50 AM
That's a lie. I don't believe that it's impossible. You've picked an outcome you want me to believe, and you are arguing against that. Just stop.

I've said that the story points out that there is a 1% chance that a call would be completed. You agree that 1% *might* be accurate, but you think it should be higher than 1%. Neither of us has said it's 0%. But it's much easier to dispute 0%, so you pretend that's what I've said.

That's so complete dishonest, I don't really know what to say.

You mean like this is a “lie”?

You are reading the article completely wrong. You are *assuming* that the study involved counting the number of completed connections.

Or this?

And as I said, the numbers provided with regard to flight 93 are that the flight was at 32,000 ft. And the number (1/100) was for 32,000ft. If we are going to play with specific numbers, play with the *actual* specific numbers.

Though I’ll admit that this is more like spin than a “lie”, since you later admitted you couldn’t keep up with the conversation, but considering your loose definition of a "lie"... :hmmm:

But this one right here is a pretty blatant “lie”,

I'm actually not assuming a single thing.

Just after post’n this.

My guess is that they noted that 1-4 phones were left on during flight.

ROFL
If you really wanna play this accusation game we can do it all day long.
I’ve given you my opinion as a tech in the RF field, with +16 years experience if I can add without appear’n to brag ;), and I’ve show you a survey that states thousands of calls are made from the air every day.
I’m not sure theirs much else I could do, you obviously need to believe conspiracy theorists over the people with actual working knowledge. :shrug:

Radar Chief
05-17-2006, 08:02 AM
So it might not be the "disinformation" that you asserted without qualification that it was.

To take a step back for a minute.
Just like any other conspiracy theory, it contains just enough real information to con the gullible into believe’n the rest of their bullshit.
Example: just because we can all admit to seeing pictures showing unidentified flying objects doesn’t mean that it’s believable that the gubment has captured UFO’s, is hold’n them at Area 54 and “reverse engineering” them. ;)

irishjayhawk
05-17-2006, 10:35 AM
It's also very easy to believe anything and everything, without question, that the government/media/corporations etc put on TV, radio and the internet.

I mean, if the mainstream media reports it, then it must be true!

jAZ
05-19-2006, 01:23 AM
Some interesting analysis from a member of the actual "liberal media" on the phoneyness (is that a word?) of some of the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/


A couple of links referenced at the end of the above article.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

jAZ
05-19-2006, 01:24 AM
To take a step back for a minute.
Just like any other conspiracy theory, it contains just enough real information to con the gullible into believe’n the rest of their bullshit.
Example: just because we can all admit to seeing pictures showing unidentified flying objects doesn’t mean that it’s believable that the gubment has captured UFO’s, is hold’n them at Area 54 and “reverse engineering” them. ;)
It's ok to just say "I was wrong, sorry." There really is no need to fight a "battle" like this. You over reached, it happens.

jAZ
05-19-2006, 01:31 AM
I’m not sure theirs much else I could do, you obviously need to believe conspiracy theorists over the people with actual working knowledge. :shrug:
I'll trust the judement of anyone with an average (or above) level of reading comprehension... over someone who's allowed themselves to believe that their working knowledge of RF technologies in a general sense somehow trumps the facts detailed in the very article they try to use to support their pre-conceived opinions.

patteeu
05-19-2006, 06:38 AM
I'll trust the judement of anyone with an average (or above) level of reading comprehension... over someone who's allowed themselves to believe that their working knowledge of RF technologies in a general sense somehow trumps the facts detailed in the very article they try to use to support their pre-conceived opinions.

You're over-reaching when you say that the article backs your position on this. At best (from your POV), it brings into question the conclusion that Radar Chief drew from the plain language on which he based his interpretation, but it can also be consistent with his interpretation. And since he has the plain language on his side ...

This is where you make your mistake:

Keep reading, the article you link to here points out that the study "document(ed) in-flight emissions of portable electronic devices". That's not the same as making a final usable phone connection. My guess is that they noted that 1-4 phones were left on during flight. I'm sure that's about right.

It's an odd use of the language to say "cell phone calls are made" if they only mean that cell phone's were left on.

patteeu
05-19-2006, 06:59 AM
Some interesting analysis from a member of the actual "liberal media" on the phoneyness (is that a word?) of some of the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/


From the article:

It's not beyond reason that some aspects of the 2001 attacks deserve more scrutiny than the 9/11 Commission lavished on them. But those who most urgently wish us to believe so have done themselves no favors by expanding the breadth of their contentions beyond all plausibility.

So true.

Radar Chief
05-19-2006, 07:24 AM
You're over-reaching when you say that the article backs your position on this. At best (from your POV), it brings into question the conclusion that Radar Chief drew from the plain language on which he based his interpretation, but it can also be consistent with his interpretation. And since he has the plain language on his side ...

This is where you make your mistake:



It's an odd use of the language to say "cell phone calls are made" if they only mean that cell phone's were left on.


You must have “reading comprehension” problems. ;) ROFL

patteeu
05-19-2006, 07:27 AM
You must have “reading comprehension” problems. ;) ROFL

Yes, I must. :)

jAZ
05-19-2006, 10:40 AM
From the article:



So true.
I've been saying that for years. Hence, my posting the article.

jAZ
05-19-2006, 11:00 AM
You're over-reaching...
I invite you to address your "you are over reaching" commentary toward RC, for his over reaching "disinformation" statements and attempts to justify those statements with this article. Which is the entire point.
At best (from your POV), it brings into question the conclusion that Radar Chief drew from the plain language on which he based his interpretation...
Actually, that's my point exactly. It supports that completely.
And since he has the plain language on his side ...
Well, given that loosey-goosey standard, we *both* have "plain language" on our "side", though mine is very specific about what they were measuring (NOT what RC's "disinformation" comment presumes they must be measuring).
It's an odd use of the language to say "cell phone calls are made" if they only mean that cell phone's were left on.
Not in the least. Any broadcasting device like a modern cell phone makes constant attempts to call back to the towers so that it can gather digital information (ie, know of an inbound message/call, pending voice or text messages, strength of signal, etc). Each of those are calls to the tower have the same form as an outbound human directed attempted call. The first stage of the attempted human call is an automatic call by the device out to the nearest tower to establish a connection and pass through the requested phone number.

At any respect, the word "made" is not plain enough to mean "completed" (which would be required in order for this article to have any baring on RC's "disinformation" claim). And given the details of the study methods, we can be confident that the article was not measuring completed calls, but cell phone emissions.

This isn't rocket science, nor is it radar science. It's basic reading comprehension. As such, RC's professional education in the RF field has no baring on this discussion, other than to suggest he has no excuse for not knowing better.

Taco John
05-19-2006, 11:25 AM
I think the reason you're not "winning" this discussion, jaz, is that you're not using enough patronizing smilies to show that you know what you're talking about...

patteeu
05-19-2006, 11:26 AM
I invite you to address your "you are over reaching" commentary toward RC, for his over reaching "disinformation" statements and attempts to justify those statements with this article. Which is the entire point.

In post #124 I indicated that I don't think the article is clear, one way or the other. I think the plain language is on Radar Chief's side, but I think your interpretation is a possibility. The reason I'm pointing out that you are over-reaching is because you seem to be so convinced that your interpretation is the ONLY one possible. Radar Chief may feel the same way about his interpretation, but he isn't pressing it as hard as you are pressing yours. He isn't the one who started slinging the "dishonesty" accusations around.

Actually, that's my point exactly. It supports that completely.

No it doesn't. At least not completely. What you have yet to admit is that it might not support your point. That's my point.

Well, given that loosey-goosey standard, we *both* have "plain language" on our "side", though mine is very specific about what they were measuring (NOT what RC's "disinformation" comment presumes they must be measuring).

No, you don't. The plain language interpretation of "cell phone calls are made" does not include cell phones simply being left on as you are trying to claim. Not IMO at least. Don't give me anything about loosey-goosey standards either when you are trying to claim that the article articulated a specific methodology (when it didn't even come close to doing so).

Not in the least. Any broadcasting device like a modern cell phone makes constant attempts to call back to the towers so that it can gather digital information (ie, know of an inbound message/call, pending voice or text messages, strength of signal, etc). Each of those are calls to the tower have the same form as an outbound human directed attempted call. The first stage of the attempted human call is an automatic call by the device out to the nearest tower to establish a connection and pass through the requested phone number.

At any respect, the word "made" is not plain enough to mean "completed" (which would be required in order for this article to have any baring on RC's "disinformation" claim). And given the details of the study methods, we can be confident that the article was not measuring completed calls, but cell phone emissions.

This isn't rocket science, nor is it radar science. It's basic reading comprehension. As such, RC's professional education in the RF field has no baring on this discussion, other than to suggest he has no excuse for not knowing better.

I understand how cell phones work (at least at the level you are describing them). Calls made doesn't mean the same thing as emissions detected in normal language. I've admitted that your interpretation is a possibility, but I can't agree that it's the only possibility.

jAZ
05-19-2006, 11:40 AM
I understand how cell phones work (at least at the level you are describing them). Calls made doesn't mean the same thing as emissions detected in normal language. I've admitted that your interpretation is a possibility, but I can't agree that it's the only possibility.
Rather than drag out in intricate detail the same points that we've each made repeatedly... I'm going to leave it at "agree to disagree", and save us both a bunch of time.

Radar Chief
05-19-2006, 12:01 PM
I think the reason you're not "winning" this discussion, jaz, is that you're not using enough patronizing smilies to show that you know what you're talking about...

Maybe he should just accuse everyone else of “lying”, since this is all ‘bout “winning”. :shrug:

Radar Chief
05-19-2006, 12:02 PM
Rather than drag out in intricate detail the same points that we've each made repeatedly... I'm going to leave it at "agree to disagree", and save us both a bunch of time.


It's ok to just say "I was wrong, sorry." There really is no need to fight a "battle" like this. You over reached, it happens.

:LOL: :clap:

Baby Lee
07-11-2006, 09:26 AM
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=460062

Enroll early

go bowe
07-11-2006, 10:08 AM
* * *
I've admitted that your interpretation is a possibility, but I can't agree that it's the only possibility.that's because you're a closed-minded rwleftcashewtask...

everybody knows jaz has the most astonishing reading comprehension skills, mad skilz, mad i tells ya...

FringeNC
07-11-2006, 10:38 AM
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=460062

Enroll early

What that article conveniently neglects is that cocksucker converted to Islam a few years back. In the context of this story, I think that is relevant information.

FringeNC
07-11-2006, 10:59 AM
What that article conveniently neglects is that one who sucks the penis converted to Islam a few years back. In the context of this story, I think that is relevant information.

Responding to my own post, now I know why that information was not part of the artile. The author used to work for American Prospect.

steve_minor
07-11-2006, 01:30 PM
Poor Taco :shake:

I am so sick of Alex Jones....I have family that have swallowed his crap and gone way to far....

Taco...you have some much information, and I believe you have looked at all the facts from both sides like any educated person would. Go ahead and post some of the research you did against the insane idea that the Illlumanti (?what ever it is?) is not behind 9/11....my guess is you haven't done much... :(

I know a plane hit the pentagon for sure!!!! I know someone who cleaned it up.

Good Luck uncovering the truth...I don't know it 100%...only 3 people do...God, Jesus, Holy Spirit.

I hope you have done as much research in credible places to what would have happen to you if you had been in one of the towers :hmmm:

htismaqe
07-11-2006, 01:34 PM
www.prisonplanet.com!

Bootlegged
07-11-2006, 01:58 PM
www.prisonplanet.com!



Charlie Sheen Says 9/11 Movement "Juggernaut Of Truth"

Charlie Sheen Says Media Complicit In 9/11 Cover-Up

Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story

Charlie Sheen 'Challenge Me On the Facts'

Second Interview: Charlie Sheen: 'Challenge Me On the Facts'

First Interview: Alex Jones Interviews Charlie Sheen

Charlie Sheen Says Media Complicit In 9/11 Cover-Up

Charlie Sheen Courageously Challenges 9/11 Orthodoxy On National TV

-----------------------------------


Well, that settles it. The final word has been given by a Sheen. ROFL

|Zach|
02-11-2007, 08:00 PM
I never got into this thread much but I couldn't help but think about it when I ran across this today.

http://pressesc.com/01171208153_bbc_september_11_conspiracy

BBC explores 9/11 conspiracy

September 11 conspiracies will go mainstream on Sunday as BBC airs an hour long documentary that investigates the growing number of conspiracy theories surrounding the 9/11 attacks.

9/11: The Conspiracy Files, will try to answer the question that has been doing the rounds on the Internet ever since the hijacked planes crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center: "Is it an inside job?"

According to the BBC, investigators have travelled across the United States speaking to eyewitnesses trying to separate fact from fiction.

The programme produced by Guy Smith raises another important question: "why was America so unprepared when terror attack warnings had been received?"

According to a Scripps Howard poll, 36% of 1,010 Americans believe that the government is responsible for the attacks either by omission or by commission.

The official 9/11 commission report concluded that "there were specific points of vulnerability in the plot and opportunities to disrupt it.

"The outrage caused by September 11th allowed the present administration to instantly implement policies its members have long supported, but which were otherwise infeasible," according to the main conspiracy website, 911Truth.org, which receives thousands of visitors every day. "9/11 was exploited to launch an open-ended, perpetual "war on terror," actually a war against any and all enemies the US government may designate. The case of Iraq shows that the target countries of this war need have nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11."

Easy 6
02-11-2007, 08:11 PM
Through chaos, comes order.

Mr. Kotter
02-11-2007, 10:24 PM
I never got into this thread much but I couldn't help but think about it when I ran across this today....Ambiguity like this makes me wonder what's the point of this post? Seriously. I get that with more than a few posts from you; although PittGorilla is even worse.

I mean, what are you trying to say, man? I run across a lot of things in what I read that make me think of old threads here on the planet....seldom does it cause me to post an announcement to the world, that such a thought has crossed my mind.

Spit it out, man.....will you? :hmmm:

|Zach|
02-11-2007, 10:28 PM
Ambiguity like this makes me wonder what's the point of this post? Seriously. I get that with more than a few posts from you; although PittGorilla is even worse.

I mean, what are you trying to say, man? I run across a lot of things in what I read that make me think of old threads here on the planet....seldom does it cause me to post an announcement to the world, that such a thought has crossed my mind.

Spit it out, man.....will you? :hmmm:
You are the only one around here that always tries to say things without actually saying them. I think I have a decent track record of not shying away at all from controversial subjects. If I believe something and what to get that across I say it.

A highly respected news organization is taking time to look into this...seems like a pretty good thing to update in this thread that was pretty heavily debated.

Mr. Kotter
02-11-2007, 10:31 PM
....A highly respected news organization is taking time to look into this...seems like a pretty good thing to update in this thread that was pretty heavily debated.
If the documentary in any substantial way validates any of the conspiracy theories, you may have a point. I wouldn't hold my breath on that point though, if I were you.....:)

|Zach|
02-11-2007, 10:34 PM
If the documentary in any substantial way validates any of the conspiracy theories, you may have a point. I wouldn't hold my breath on that point though, if I were you.....:)
I make no claims as to anything being substantiated...its a source looking into it that doesn't wear a tinfoil hat though.

I think I am going to step away and let you argue with the Zach you want me to be or have in your head though.

I am tired of the logical leaps to this characterful.

Mr. Kotter
02-11-2007, 10:40 PM
I make no claims as to anything being substantiated...its a source looking into it that doesn't wear a tinfoil hat though.

I think I am going to step away and let you argue with the Zach you want me to be or have in your head though.

I am tired of the logical leaps to this characterful.I guess I'd get defensive too, if in knee jerk fashion....I posted an article with links to a story that's two months old:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/6160775.stm

...on top of the fact that I haven't yet seen the show (nor heard evidence) to see if the documentary added anything of substance to the silliness which is these conspiracy theories. Which, given the silence since the December story, suggests nothing earth-shattering to me.

It's okay though.

(FTR, what's "characterful?" :spock: ..... :hmmm:)

|Zach|
02-11-2007, 10:50 PM
I guess I'd get defensive too, if in knee jerk fashion....I posted an article with links to a story that's two months old:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/6160775.stm

...on top of the fact that I haven't yet seen the show (nor heard evidence) to see if the documentary added anything of substance to the silliness which is these conspiracy theories. Which, given the silence since the December story, suggests nothing earth-shattering to me.

It's okay though.

(FTR, what's "characterful?" :spock: ..... :hmmm:)
I meant character.

I saw the story today on Digg.com and posted it.

Nobody is defensive. It is just annoying when someone consistently takes something that is posted and twists it in their fantasy land to make an argument that they are interested in.

Just last night...

Zach: Obama's winning senate campaign was outspent 6 to 1.

Kotter: It is foolish to think that Illinois is a cross section that this country represents.

I enjoy talking and responding to people. When you create imaginary things to make it more fun attacking arguments nobody made it gets annoying.

And you are telling me to come out and spill it? You have made a career here saying things without saying them.

Mr. Kotter
02-11-2007, 11:08 PM
I meant character.

I saw the story today on Digg.com and posted it.

Nobody is defensive. It is just annoying when someone consistently takes something that is posted and twists it in their fantasy land to make an argument that they are interested in.

Just last night...

Zach: Obama's winning senate campaign was outspent 6 to 1.

Kotter: It is foolish to think that Illinois is a cross section that this country represents.

I enjoy talking and responding to people. When you create imaginary things to make it more fun attacking arguments nobody made it gets annoying.

And you are telling me to come out and spill it? You have made a career here saying things without saying them.

Your legendary ambiguity makes it easy to imagine disparate interpretations on what it is you are trying to say....

I do engage in innuendo and implication, on a regular basis. The difference between my innuendo and your ambiguity is that, 90% of the time whenever someone asks for a clarification, I give it.

|Zach|
02-11-2007, 11:14 PM
Your legendary ambiguity makes it easy to imagine disparate interpretations on what it is you are trying to say....

I do engage in innuendo and implication, on a regular basis. The difference between my innuendo and your ambiguity is that, 90% of the time whenever someone asks for a clarification, I give it.
Why would you need clarification from me?

You wrote up your conversation with me start to finish before I could do anything.

Mr. Kotter
02-11-2007, 11:21 PM
Why would you need clarification from me?

You wrote up your conversation with me start to finish before I could do anything.

Okay, Zach....let's look at my first post to you in this thread:

Ambiguity like this makes me wonder what's the point of this post? Seriously.....
Spit it out, man.....will you? :hmmm:

Okay, maybe that wasn't the most polite way to ask for a clarification....but in my FIRST post to you, I'm asking you for a clarification--even if it may seem indirect at first glance. :shrug:

Your defensiveness started in on your first response to me....before you even tried to clarify, which you did finally kinda do. Thanks, BTW.

|Zach|
02-11-2007, 11:40 PM
Okay, Zach....let's look at my first post to you in this thread:



Okay, maybe that wasn't the most polite way to ask for a clarification....but in my FIRST post to you, I'm asking you for a clarification--even if it may seem indirect at first glance. :shrug:

Your defensiveness started in on your first response to me....before you even tried to clarify, which you did finally kinda do. Thanks, BTW.
What had to be clarified? It was an interesting fact. What more could it have been?

How "more clear" could the fact that he was outspent 6 to 1 and still won be?

It isn't clear if put something into it that wasn't there....which is my point all along.

Jenson71
02-11-2007, 11:51 PM
I think the BBC show is about conspiracies, and one conspiracy they're going to showcase is 9/11. Maybe this is for all the people (about 12) that think America attacked itself, and they're excited about it because now they have more of an audience than just themselves (maybe the 12 are starting to turn on each other, more conspiracy on that in a different show). Nobody else cares.

Mr. Kotter
02-11-2007, 11:54 PM
What had to be clarified? It was an interesting fact. What more could it have been?

How "more clear" could the fact that he was outspent 6 to 1 and still won be?

It isn't clear if put something into it that wasn't there....which is my point all along.
When you make a statement like: Obama was outspent 6 to 1 and "still" won....there is an implication in the statement, relative to the rest of that thread, implying he can duplicate the feat in a national election. Maybe he can; maybe he can't. I was pointing out there is reason to be skeptical.

In this thread, you cite....a documentary investigating the 9/11 conspiracies, the implication (which I was correct in assuming) is that because BBC is involved....it somehow increases the credibility of the conspiracy theorists. Which apparently, it did not....given I haven't heard a peep about it since Christmas, except for groans and laughter of those who know better.

:)


I'd be curious....what was the verdict in the video? My guess, is they reluctantly conceded the lack of real evidence....but left open the door...for FUTURE investigation....:hmmm:



Has anyone actually seen this documentary??? :shrug:

|Zach|
02-11-2007, 11:59 PM
Thanks for proving my point. You had to put more into it than was there to make the post you made. Framing it how you want your version of Zach to post and not what I actually do.

Jenson71
02-11-2007, 11:59 PM
Nobody here has seen the show. It will be on BBC:Two on Feb. 18th.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6160775.stm

Jenson71
02-12-2007, 12:01 AM
I never got into this thread much but I couldn't help but think about it when I ran across this today.

Zach, does not seem to indicate here that because it's the BBC, it bring credibility to the conspiracies. Mr. Kotter, I think you've made your own conspiracy.

Calcountry
02-12-2007, 12:09 AM
Isn't that what we are doing? Speculating? You are more than welcome to sit back and toe the line. However, others are exercising their right to think.Yeah yeah, just like Clinton blew up the Murrah building in Oklahoma City. Remember what his populartity rating was before that, "rally round the flag" event was?

Whatever dude, Bush pulled the trigger, But was too cowardly to fly the planes himself, he is a pilot you know. He called OBL on his cell phone and ordered him to do it, that is why we haven't caught him yet.

Just exercising my right to think stupid shit.

Mr. Kotter
02-12-2007, 07:39 AM
Thanks for proving my point. You had to put more into it than was there to make the post you made. Framing it how you want your version of Zach to post and not what I actually do.

No. I was trying to spell it out....because you seemingly can't grasp a pretty simple concept. Must be tired, or something....

Radar Chief
02-12-2007, 08:01 AM
:rolleyes: (http://www.debunking911.com/index.html)

^ = link.

Taco John
02-12-2007, 10:06 AM
Your legendary ambiguity makes it easy to imagine disparate interpretations on what it is you are trying to say....

I do engage in innuendo and implication, on a regular basis. The difference between my innuendo and your ambiguity is that, 90% of the time whenever someone asks for a clarification, I give it.



Legendary ambiguity? I've never had a problem understanding Zach. Just because he's smarter than you doesn't mean that there is something wrong with his posting style, Kotter.

Mr. Kotter
02-12-2007, 10:21 AM
Legendary ambiguity? I've never had a problem understanding Zach. Just because he's smarter than you doesn't mean that there is something wrong with his posting style, Kotter.

To quote someone I read last week:

So, did you lube up prior to that hand job, or did you go in dry? :rolleyes:

Easy 6
02-12-2007, 10:50 AM
This is such a sensitive subject & i really try not to think about it much, because the implications of even a small portion of it being true are staggering.

But i can say that in 04, i had the pleasure of drinking a few beers with a retired FBI officer who occasionally teaches law enforcement classes that my mother coordinates. Of course i couldnt help but try to broach any number of controversial subjects.

While he did not in any way come out & say "Conspiracy", he did find certain aspects, in his words, "troubling". The one that stuck out was the fact that the structural engineers who were brought in to examine the wreckage were often stonewalled when it came time to view certain key pieces. Often, these pieces were shipped out before they had a chance to look at them, despite their strenuous opposition.

One has to wonder why these professionals were not afforded every opportunity to see any piece they chose, at any time they chose.

He also mentioned that it was very interesting just how many NYC police officers that he knew personally had serious misgivings about several aspects of the investigation. Not men prone to flights of fancy, but men trained to view things with a critical eye.

Its an exceedingly ugly thought & i try my very damn best to disbelieve anything of the sort, its NOT something i WANT to believe. But say what you will, there ARE some nagging questions that have yet to be answered & may never be answered.

God Bless America.

Taco John
02-12-2007, 11:08 AM
To quote someone I read last week:

So, did you lube up prior to that hand job, or did you go in dry? :rolleyes:



It has nothing to do with complimenting Zach. You're making things up. Saying he's got "legendary" ambiguity implies that there are others who are as dumb as you who don't understand what he posts. That isn't the case. You're the only one who ever even brings it up.

Me saying that Zach is smarter than you is hardly a compliment.

Mr. Kotter
02-12-2007, 11:19 AM
It has nothing to do with complimenting Zach. You're making things up. Saying he's got "legendary" ambiguity implies that there are others who are as dumb as you who don't understand what he posts. That isn't the case. You're the only one who ever even brings it up.

Me saying that Zach is smarter than you is hardly a compliment.

Uh-huh. Sure.

You're FOS either way, so it hardly matters. :rolleyes:

Chief Faithful
02-12-2007, 11:27 AM
Now that this mystery is solved can we get back to the business of trying to determine who shot JFK?

Radar Chief
02-12-2007, 11:49 AM
Now that this mystery is solved can we get back to the business of trying to determine who shot JFK?

Sure, Oswald did it and committed the act alone. Next? ;)

penchief
02-12-2007, 12:36 PM
This is such a sensitive subject & i really try not to think about it much, because the implications of even a small portion of it being true are staggering.

But i can say that in 04, i had the pleasure of drinking a few beers with a retired FBI officer who occasionally teaches law enforcement classes that my mother coordinates. Of course i couldnt help but try to broach any number of controversial subjects.

While he did not in any way come out & say "Conspiracy", he did find certain aspects, in his words, "troubling". The one that stuck out was the fact that the structural engineers who were brought in to examine the wreckage were often stonewalled when it came time to view certain key pieces. Often, these pieces were shipped out before they had a chance to look at them, despite their strenuous opposition.

One has to wonder why these professionals were not afforded every opportunity to see any piece they chose, at any time they chose.

He also mentioned that it was very interesting just how many NYC police officers that he knew personally had serious misgivings about several aspects of the investigation. Not men prone to flights of fancy, but men trained to view things with a critical eye.

Its an exceedingly ugly thought & i try my very damn best to disbelieve anything of the sort, its NOT something i WANT to believe. But say what you will, there ARE some nagging questions that have yet to be answered & may never be answered.

God Bless America.

That is interesting. And thanks for your eloquence in stating the case for critical thinking even when faced with somthing unthinkable.

Easy 6
02-12-2007, 12:38 PM
Sure, Oswald did it and committed the act alone. Next? ;)

Sure thing..and the CIA didnt use unwitting domestic & foreign citizens for mind control experimentation through the use of drugs & other means during the MK-ULTRA project. ;)

Easy 6
02-12-2007, 12:40 PM
That is interesting. And thanks for your eloquence in stating the case for critical thinking even when faced with somthing unthinkable.

My pleasure.

Baby Lee
02-12-2007, 12:48 PM
That is interesting. And thanks for your eloquence in stating the case for critical thinking even when faced with somthing unthinkable.
If he's thinking about it, how is it unthinkable? :p

This Man of La Mancha moment brought you by penchief. . .

pikesome
02-12-2007, 01:12 PM
Hasn't this issue been explained already?

http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/10/11/south-park-mystery-of-the-urinal-deuce/

Radar Chief
02-12-2007, 01:22 PM
Hasn't this issue been explained already?

http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/10/11/south-park-mystery-of-the-urinal-deuce/

Yea. What are you, retarded?

ROFL

|Zach|
02-12-2007, 02:33 PM
Me saying that Zach is smarter than you is hardly a compliment.
Son of a bitch.

penchief
02-12-2007, 02:53 PM
If he's thinking about it, how is it unthinkable? :p

This Man of La Mancha moment brought you by penchief. . .

Uh....you keep trying but you keep whiffing.

Why was the word 'unthinkable' even invented if it was unthinkable?

Obviously, the concept of 'unthinkable' applies to that which is thinkable but which we choose not to believe thinkable.

Critical thinking is necessary in order to render the unthinkable thinkable.

I know that you disapprove of the way I conduct myself here. But if you are going to continue taking pot shots at me from the peanut gallery, you might want to start consulting your dictionary first.

Chief Faithful
02-12-2007, 04:20 PM
Sure thing..and the CIA didnt use unwitting domestic & foreign citizens for mind control experimentation through the use of drugs & other means during the MK-ULTRA project. ;)

Dang!

Is it possible Taco was one of those domestic & foreign citizens? That would explain this thread.