9/11 prediction

[Flat_Eric]

mark wrote:

>>


Now you're just being silly. That must be the most idiotic and simplistic account of 9/11 I've ever read.



>>>>


Allegations, allegations, allegations ... none of which have a shred of evidence to back them up.

Plus it's commonly known that the French and Americans don't see eye to eye on many things.

Funny how the CTs enthusiastically lap up any and all manner of unsubstantiated stories that get tossed around when they fit in with their own beliefs - yet choose to discount, for example, hundreds of eyewitness accounts that confirm that a plane hit the Pentagon.



>>>


That's the first I've heard about that and can't really comment. But my initial reaction would be "so what?". Bin Laden has a huge extended family, loads of siblings and half-siblings, many of whom have been in the West for years pursuing their various business interests (no secret there) and disowned young Osama as the black sheep of the family years ago.

So if I have a brother who goes out and murders someone, does that make me a murderer too, or his accomplice? Thought not.



>>


Another CT that was debunked years ago. Complete and utter tosh of the first order. So I suppose that means you believe that the calls were all faked (despite having been confirmed by grieving relatives, or I suppose you think that the relatives must have been "in on it" as well). So before you get all arsey about me labelling you a CT, if that's not what you're saying then what exactly is your point, because what other explanation could there possibly be?


Are there still questions to be answered? Sure. I've never said that I believe the Government to be whiter than white or the "official" account complete (see my earlier posts).

But just as you say you get tired of me labelling everyone a CT, I get equally tired of the same old logic-defying crap (much of which can be explained away with just a little research and - more to the point - common sense) being put forward ad nauseum by people who think that they're "oh so in the know".

[mark]

Flat_Eric wrote:

> mark wrote:
>
> cave learn to fly air liners.... (snipped for brevity>>>
>
>
> Now you're just being silly. That must be the most idiotic and
> simplistic account of 9/11 I've ever read.

How about, 19 highly skilled terrorists, dedicated extremists & incredible pilots....

both are equally silly in my humble opinion.

> CIA at an American hospital in Dubai 2 months before the
> attacks .....>>>>>
>
>
> Allegations, allegations, allegations ... none of which have a
> shred of evidence to back them up.

yea, let's just ignore them. Numerous sources have reported the same thing, yet it gets glossed over kinda easily you have to agree.


> fact that Bush senior on 9-11 was meeting Bin Laden's brother
> at a washington hotel for a Carlyle Group conference (reported
> on CBC and the london observer).>>>>
>

> So if I have a brother who goes out and murders someone, does
> that make me a murderer too, or his accomplice? Thought not.

ofcourse not, and please don't try and say that's what I was enfering which seems so called non-CTs do quite a lot it seems. But the fact is, this is just another strange co-incidence that has yet to be investigated.

By definition, if you subscribe to the official story then you yourself are a CT, because it is one.

> few realise that the technology to make sure phone calls from
> cell phones was only introduced in 2004.>>>
>
>
> Another CT that was debunked years ago.

I'd like you to explain how it was debunked? American Airlines confirmed this technology will only be available from 2006. Yet on 9-11 Tom Burnett made a 13 minute cell phone(ie, not a plane phone) call to his wife from above 29, 000 feet(FAA). That's just one of many cell phone calls made.

No-one is denying this particular phone call was made(this guy actually made 4 calls). His wife talks about it. So either the FAA are lying and the plane was flying super low, or it was indeed possible to make phone calls from such high altitude. If it was possible why are airlines currently installing technology to make it possible?

> Complete and utter tosh
> of the first order.

Debunk it then? and back it up with evidence.

>So I suppose that means you believe that
> the calls were all faked (despite having been confirmed by
> grieving relatives, or I suppose you think that the relatives
> must have been "in on it" as well).

Look Erik, you're doing it again. Saying I must believe in some other wild alternative explanation. This is simply not true. Do I think all the families were in on it? No I do not, not at all.

> Are there still questions to be answered? Sure. I've never said
> that I believe the Government to be whiter than white or the
> "official" account complete (see my earlier posts).
>
> But just as you say you get tired of me labelling everyone a
> CT, I get equally tired of the same old logic-defying crap

Most of your so called explanations are themselves theories. And to answer a question by simply saying 'this has been debunked years ago' is poor game. If it has been debunked then this is one debunking I cannot find.

The 9-11 Commission didn't debunk it and the myth busting sites ignore it. Give me a an explanation and back it up with evidence please.

[Flat_Eric]

mark wrote:

>>>


OK. Try this one for the mobile phones:

http://www.911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html



And this one about the Bush Snr. / Bin Laden brother "meeting":

http://www.911myths.com/html/bin_ladin_ ... enior.html



And just for good measure, here's one about the fighter intercepts:

http://www.911myths.com/html/intercept_time.html

Oh and by the way, they weren't flying around for a couple of hours, as you claim. The first plane hit the North Tower within about half an hour after it was hijacked.


>>

What's silly about that?

Highly skilled terrorists: Yes
Dedicated extremists: Yes
Incredible pilots: They didn't need to be "incredible pilots". They just needed to be able to control the plane in the air sufficiently to point it where they wanted it to go. Which they'd learned at flight school.

And your constant references to the "official" version being a CT once again prove my point about the logic used to justify CTs, namely that just because you can't prove 100% that every element of the official version is true and the account full, this means that the CTs (no matter how whacko) must be equally valid.

[mark]

Flat_Eric wrote:

> mark wrote:
>
> >>>
>
>
> OK. Try this one for the mobile phones:
>
> http://www.911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html

from the page you sent me

"So it may work at 30,000 feet, although only momentarily? Apparently the New York Times agrees:"

This page does not explain a 13 minute cell phone call at above 29k feet. It seems the best they do on that page is to say that older analogue phones have twice the signal strength according to 'industry experts' and a UK prisoner *tried* to send a text message at 31000 feet.


> And just for good measure, here's one about the fighter
> intercepts:
>
> http://www.911myths.com/html/intercept_time.html

The point is, for every so called debunked myth link you send me, I could paste you a link back which claims to debunk those debunkings and we could go back and forth. I guess it boils down to which experts you believe and which theory has the most evidence.

From the phone call thing, there is far more evidence to suggest a cell phone call lasting 13 minutes at above 30k feet is not possible than there is that it is possible. This is hard to deny, even for you.

However, whether the fact a call is made is proof alone, is another matter. But there's no doubt it is rather interesting.


> Oh and by the way, they weren't flying around for a couple of
> hours, as you claim. The first plane hit the North Tower within
> about half an hour after it was hijacked.

It depends how you calculate it I guess, if you take each plane a seperate instance it's about a couple hours

> extremists & incredible pilots .... both are equally silly in
> my humble opinion.>>>
>
> What's silly about that?
>
> Highly skilled terrorists: Yes
> Dedicated extremists: Yes
> Incredible pilots: They didn't need to be "incredible pilots".
> They just needed to be able to control the plane in the air
> sufficiently to point it where they wanted it to go. Which
> they'd learned at flight school.

Look at the approach to the pentagon in the Report, then hear what experienced pilots have to say about it, then hear what the guys Flight Instructor has to say about his flying skills.

No doubt hitting the towers would(I assume) not be that difficult but when you look at the pentagon attack it's a totally different story. This guy made a 270 degree turn descending at 400-500 miles an hour according to the report.

For a guy who apparently couldn't even fly a cessna he really knew how to handle that air liner. Again, it might have happened. I dunno but this is just another one of those things of which there are so many.

> And your constant references to the "official" version being a
> CT once again prove my point about the logic used to justify
> CTs, namely that just because you can't prove 100% that every
> element of the official version is true and the account full,
> this means that the CTs (no matter how whacko) must be equally
> valid.

No no, Erik you have it all wrong and misunderstand what I mean. The definition of a conspiracy theory is merely a group of individuals conspiring together in secret. Which, is exactly what the official story is. Plain and Simple.

[Robches]

"I take it you're referring to the 'Gulf Of Tonkin Incident'. The (North) Vietnamese themselves publically admitted years later that their gunboats attacked the US vessels. IIRC it was when General Giap met up with Robert McNamara some time in the '90s."

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident certainly happened. On the afternoon of 2 August 1964 the USS Maddox was attacked by 3 North Vietnamese PT boats off Hon Me island.

On the night of 4 August, during a storm, the Maddox's sonar operators thought they heard the sounds of 5 PT boats launching torpedoes. They were probably confused by the sound echoes of the storm.

The first attack did take place. However:

The night before, the CIA had inserted South Vietnamese commandos to attack the naval base at Loc Chao. It was PT boats from this base which attacked the Maddox the next day;

The Maddox was deliberately sailing within the 12 mile limit North Vietnam claimed as it territorial waters, though outside the 3 mile limit.

If the US wanted to provoke an attack, they could not have done a better job. They have form. President Roosevelt, who needed Japan to attack the USA first to get into the war, authorised what were called "pop up cruises." These consisted of sending a cruiser into the waters Japan claimed, in the hope the Japanese would attack, which is pretty much what the Maddox was doing. FDR wrote that he would be willing to accept 5-800 dead, ie the crew of a cruiser. In the event, the Japs did not take the bait, but they did attack Pearl Harbor. There is no real doubt FDR knew an attack was coming, but he let it happen because it suited his purposes. The deaths of 3000 US citizens on 7 December 1941 was a price he was prepared to pay.

That, I think, is the real question about 9/11: was it price the US government was willing to pay? The CIA stymied the FBI's investigations of Al Quaeda all along the way. Did they really want the FBI to break up the terror ring before they had their provocation?

You have got to remember that our rulers could not care less about any of us. We exist to pay taxes to keep them in pensions. If a few of the herd have to be sacrificed for the greater good, they really do not lose any sleep over it.

[Robches]

>So why do we pay our taxes to be killed by our leaders...oh, yeah, because most of us are too stupid to think for ourselves and look up theories on t'internet and find out the real "FACTS", which are only for the honoured few

So the CIA did not sponsor an attack on North Vietnam on 1 August 1964, the day before the Gulf of Tonkin Incident? Maybe the Phoenix Program never happened? Maybe they did not sponsor the overthrow of the governments of Iran in 1953 and Chile in 1973? Maybe they are such moral people, with such a great regard for the sanctity of human life, that they would baulk at losing a few thousand Americans as the price for getting the war they wanted?

[Sam Slater]

or

4) Most people don't care as long as Eastenders is still on at 8 o'clock.