Ed Moving On is coming.

[LashL]

LashL,

This is my response to your Barbara Olson post. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2011806&postcount=195

Your work here was very complete and accurate. As I mentioned before I had problems confirming evidence with Mr. Vialls myself on some critical claims he made. My error was in not specifying which part of the article I was referring to. My intended reference was to the parts about the phone usage and credit card issue and the pilot(s) being at the back of the plane.

<snip>The one part of the article you gave possible credence to was the credit card issue.

Here is a quote from an article on 9-30-01 indicating a charge for set up. AA was a partner in this program if you read the linked article.

"Following a sharp decrease in business after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, GTE Airfone is temporarily discounting its air to ground phone service.

The discount is already in effect, and per-minute calling rates for direct-dial domestic voice calls made from airlines using Airfone are now 99 cents. The one-time initial charge for such calls also has dropped to 99 cents. The standard rate was $3.99 for the connection fee and $3.99 per minute."

http://www.m-travel.com/news/2001/09/airfone_drops_p.html

Thanks for your response, Russell.

I linked to that very same article, actually, in my revised version which I didn't post so as not to make more work for you. At first, to show that the author of the article you initially linked to even managed to get the cost of the phone calls wrong, and then decided that that particular point wasn't important.

However, in doing that bit of research, I also found this - which I am surprised you did not mention since it is immediately following the sentence regarding the GTE partners that you referenced, in the same paragraph even, and because it is directly relevant to the last sentence of your current post:

"In addition, there will be no charge for any domestic call that was placed on the Airfone system on Sept. 11."


The Vialls article you initially linked to said this:

Any American official wishing to challenge this has only to subpoena the telephone company and Justice Department records. There will be no charge originating from American Airlines 77 to the US Solicitor General.

Now you have said this:

If somebody wants to pursue the phone records or credit card statements the burden of proof is now on them.

To which, I say this:

I accept that there will be no charge originating from American Airlines Flight 77 to the U.S. Solicitor General. I also accept that there will be no charges originating from any use of any GTE/Verizon Airfone on September 11, 2001 because, "In addition, there will be no charge for any domestic call that was placed on the Airfone system on Sept. 11."

For the same reason, there will be no credit card statements reflecting charges from Verizon for calls made on September 11.

Also, the Verizon phone records were examined, if I'm not mistaken, by investigators, and were used at the Moussaoui trial and have subsequently been released to the public here:

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200018.html

Documented irreconcilable statements indicate confusion at the least.

There is nothing unusual, let alone suspicious, about there being differing minor details in the accounts given by Mr. Olson. They are hardly "documented irreconcilable statements". As always, various press agencies get things wrong, or misinterpret them, particularly in the early hours and days following a large calamitous event, and people often get things confused in their minds when dealing with, recollecting, or discussing highly calamitous events. As you can see from, for instance, the Larry King interview, King assumes that the pilot and crew were at the back of the plane, but Mr. Olson never said that his wife said that at all. Moreover, he clearly states that he didn't ask. People make a lot of assumptions based on minor things. CTers especially do so a lot, and turn any tiny anomoly into a major, earth-shattering conspiracy.

Nonetheless, thank you for your response.

 

[Gravy]

I would propose that respect is subjective in general. But VERY specifically I propose you DO NOT have the ability to see inside me. If you do, then perhaps the Randi challenge is for you.

11 years of trusting fellow firefighters with my life and looking into the eyes of a person whose name I did not even know at times, through a steamed up face piece in the middle of the night on the opposite side of a blackened doorway pumping smoke while the popping and breaking of glass is the only sound you can hear besides your own escalated breathing, and seeing a pair of eyes look back with certainty that we are both coming out or staying in together is something you should probably refrain from speaking about unless you yourself have been a firefighter (maybe you were/are - I don't know).

Russell, my comments are based on what you've written here. If you have reasons to second-guess what the FDNY says about building 7, present them, and please be specific.

So what is the name for an argument where you force somebody into a false choice and insinuate disrespect as the reason for one of the false choices and wisdom as the reward for the other?

Are you referring to this comment of mine?

I repeat: you cannot support the FDNY and the demolition theory. The two are mutually exclusive.

If so, then explain how that is a false choice. If you cannot explain how it is a false choice, then which side do you choose, based on your review of the available evidence? I side with the accounts of the FDNY. You?

In regards to WTC7, bizarre is my choice of words. If you are satisfied that this is a normal event then that is your choice.

I rely on what the experts on the scene say. Not a single one of the accounts I have read indicates that the collapse of the severely damaged inferno of a building was unexpected. Not one. Can you provide such an account from anyone who was there?

I shouldn't have to repeat this again, since I printed it multiple times in my WTC 7 paper and elsewhere, but I will keep repeating it until someone proves it wrong:

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt. [Fire Engineering magazine, 10/2002]

In another interview, Chief Nigro says,

The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [Of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely. http://tinyurl.com/g8c6y

Russell, do you accept Daniel Nigro's statements as honest? As you have said, the FDNY is the best when it comes to determining the safety of skyscrapers. Do you agree that it was Nigro who made the decision to withdraw his men because of the danger presented by the damaged and burning building?

If this were normal I presume the careers of Controlled Demolition Inc. employees might be in question. Do a little damage to a building, set a fire and soon enough it will be essentially in its own footprint. All those weeks of preparation, detonation cord, engineering etc. can just be done away with for a back hoe, some diesel fuel and a pack of matches.

That's very amusing. Actually, it's not amusing at all if you have thought about it and actually believe it. Here's why:

​

In regards to the final NIST report I'll just wait to see what the FBI leaves in it.

Do you have evidence that the FBI is vetting NIST's work on WTC 7?

"This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."

The scientific method at work. We like that around here.

A day or two ago you said you needed some more time to think about the Silverstein quote. In reflection, I let you off easy there. You've had plenty of time to think about that. So, here's my question for the third time:

"...and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse”

Was Silverstein saying,

A) “We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to demolish my building.”

or was he saying,

B) “We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to withdraw firefighters to prevent further loss of life”?

This is not a trick question and should not require further deliberation. A or B? Thanks.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

To all JREF Forum Members: We expect all forum members to abide by the rules as set forth in the Membership Agreement regardless of which "side" of an argument you may be on. We do not want the Conspiracy Theory subforum to turn into another quagmire of nasty, incivil behaviour (i.e. Politics, Current Events and Social Issues). Please argue your point without arguing the person. Thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Childlike Empress]

Russell,

i am very impressed by your postings in this thread, You are a far more calm, articulate in the english language and knowledgeable due to your first-hand-experiences person than i am. I followed this thread with great interest and hoped that you would be able to get through to these people.

Unfortunately you failed as i did in my attempts here.

You faced dogmatics, not sceptics. The problem is that a part of their BS* is that the government and in general the ruling forces of our society are idiots. All that happpens is coincidence or incompetence. They really don't see the forest for the trees but most of them are well-intended.

I think this is the real frontier we are facing - "infowars" is a damned good description of it.

Thank you for your efforts and even if we reach no one of the residents here, we will reach some fencesitters, i hope.

Truely yours, CE.

*Belief system

 

[Gravy]

Regarding the Barbara Olson calls, I see in LashL and Russell's posts citations of mass-media stories, but I didn't see any mention of the FBI's report "American Airlines Airphone Usage," as mentioned in the notes on page 455 of the Commission report. That might be a subject for an FOIA request for someone who was interested, if it hasn't been done already. This doesn't appear to include phone company records from Ted's side, only from AA's.

57. The records available for the phone calls from American 77 do not allow for a determination of which of four "connected calls to unknown numbers" represent the two between Barbara and Ted Olson, although the FBI and DOJ believe that all four represent communications between Barbara Olson and her husband's office (all family members of the Flight 77 passengers and crew were canvassed to see if they had received any phone calls from the hijacked flight, and only Renee May's parents and Ted Olson indicated that they had received such calls).

The four calls were at 9:15:34 for 1 minute, 42 seconds; 9:20:15 for 4 minutes, 34 seconds; 9:25:48 for 2 minutes, 34 seconds; and 9:30:56 for 4 minutes, 20 seconds. FBI report, "American Airlines Airphone Usage," Sept. 20, 2001; FBI report of investigation, interview of Theodore Olson, Sept. 11, 2001; FBI report of investigation, interview of Helen Voss, Sept. 14, 2001; AAL response to the Commission's supplemental document request, Jan. 20, 2004.

58. FBI report, "American Airlines Airphone Usage," Sept. 20, 2001; FBI report of investigation, interview of Theodore Olson, Sept. 11, 2001.

 

[Gravy]

Russell,

i am very impressed by your postings in this thread, You are a far more calm, articulate in the english language and knowledgeable due to your first-hand-experiences person than i am. I followed this thread with great interest and hoped that you would be able to get through to these people.

Unfortunately you failed as i did in my attempts here.

You faced dogmatics, not sceptics. The problem is that a part of their BS* is that the government and in general the ruling forces of our society are idiots. All that happpens is coincidence or incompetence. They really don't see the forest for the trees but most of them are well-intended.

I think this is the real frontier we are facing - "infowars" is a damned good description of it.

Thank you for your efforts and even if we reach no one of the residents here, we will reach some fencesitters, i hope.

Truely yours, CE.

*Belief system

CE: would you care to point out the dogmatism in my posts, and to answer the same questions I've posed to Russell?

 

[Childlike Empress]

The dogmatism? You are obsessed, Gravy. Take a step back and look at yourself. You surely are one of the well-intended persons but you also are one who can't see the forest for the trees. No pun intended.

Think about it - i am a "critical thinker" by now.

 

[T.A.M.]

CE:

That is pure opinion. From my perspective, Gravy is extremely dedicated to bringing the FACTS to the masses, and to make public what REAL EXPERTS in the given fields have to say. That is,
unlike most CTers, who cherry pick their quotes, or take a bunch of coincidences and jump to "inside job" without any solid FACTS or PROOF, just "coincidences". Trust me, most people have a degree of suspicion about the USG, and that is healthy, and to be expected, but most of them also have a greater sense of logic and "common sense", and they also trust those who have indepth knowledge in a given field, not some philosophy proff talking about demolition, or a twenty-something filmaking wannabe talking about off loading passegers from a plane to their execution in a hanger near by.

You are right, it is infowars, and I have NO DOUBT who is gonna win that war...and it isnt gonna be the CTers.

TAM

 

[Gravy]

The dogmatism? You are obsessed, Gravy. Take a step back and look at yourself. You surely are one of the well-intended persons but you also are one who can't see the forest for the trees. No pun intended.

Think about it - i am a "critical thinker" by now.

I asked you to back your claim with a specific example, and you gave me another opinion. If you've learned nothing else by posting here, you should know that behavior doesn't fly, Childlike.

 

[Childlike Empress]

A specific example, Gravy? For what? Most of you people here are still applying to a black and white view - everyone who doesn't believe in the official story is a kook (i am interested in the origins of this term, btw), a delusional "CT" or a complete wacko. T.A.M. just proved it again - after all personal experiences between us he really tells me to trust people who have "indepth knowledge in a given field" - a reference to: 911 Conspiracy == Controlled Demoliton. I know that i might be wrong (eta: in not believing in CD). Do you?

 

[Gravy]

A specific example, Gravy? For what? Most of you people here are still applying to a black and white view - everyone who doesn't believe in the official story is a kook (i am interested in the origins of this term, btw), a delusional "CT" or a complete wacko. T.A.M. just proved it again - after all personal experiences between us he really tells me to trust people who have "indepth knowledge in a given field" - a reference to: 911 Conspiracy == Controlled Demoliton. I know that i might be wrong. Do you?

What I've done here is provide links to hundreds of reports of eyewitnesses to the damage, fires, expected collapse, and collapse of WTC 7. You can read these accounts in the paper that's linked in my signature. Because none of those accounts support the controlled demolition theory, I've asked Russell to explain his position. Is there something wrong with that?

To promote the controlled demolition theory is to make very, very serious accusations. Accusations of that nature must be supported with evidence, not opinion. Agreed?

 

[T.A.M.]

I know, nothing is 100% or 0%. However, the chances of the "explanation of 9/11 attacks" that I believe in being wrong is much less than the CTers version of events, in particular with reference to the Controlled Demolition theory, being incorrect.

TAM

 

[Childlike Empress]

To promote the controlled demolition theory is to make very, very serious accusations. Accusations of that nature must be supported with evidence, not opinion. Agreed?

Absolutely and i announce that as anyone can see, i added "(eta: in not believing in CD)" in just the minute Gravy posted his message. But you should have understood it without clarification, Gravy. Proved my point again .

 

[LashL]

Russell,

Just one more thing that I wanted to come back to, and that is the fire shutters that you mentioned earlier.

As I mentioned earlier, my partner is a fire captain with many years of experience, and I've just finished talking to him about this. He says that he has never - ever - seen or heard of fire shutters being installed in elevator hoistways.

So, my question is this: In your experience as a firefighter in Seattle, have you ever heard of or seen fire shutters in hoistways?

 

[Oliver]

Unfortunately you failed as i did in my attempts here.

Which thread was that, Childlike?

 

[Gravy]

Oh, I didn't even notice that Russell said goodbye. Russell, I hope you'll reconsider. I've asked you to confront the evidence, not anyone's faith. The evidence is not going away, and you, at some point, have to reconcile your views with it. If you cannot or will not, then it is you who is guilty of having a faith-based position.

My questions may make you uncomfortable. That's not my problem. But if you care about the truth, as you say you do, you'll answer them honestly.

But out of 650 some posts not one of you have provided proof by your own "standards" of a non conspiracy. Not one.

You have it entirely backwards. The burden of proof is on you to show that there was a conspiracy, not on us to prove a negative. We have, however, disproven many specific claims of yours: think about what you said about fire operations in the towers.

The fact that you will not confront the evidence speaks volumes. I hope you change your mind. You're always welcome to post here.

Best wishes,
Mark

 

[Oliver]

@Russel and Gravy:

You should open a new thread concerning the open issues between both of you. I have to agree with Russel that this thread shows it´s not possible within it - especially because "side-attacks".

Nevertheless i would appriciate a civilized discussion between both of you and anyone else who is willing to discuss the issue instead attacking each other.

Cheers,
Oliver

 

[bob_kark]

A) “We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to demolish my building.”

We must destroy it before it is able to kill again!

 

[Childlike Empress]

You have it entirely backwards.

The burden of proof, for the reason to invade several countries, don't apply to international law, declare a "global war on terrorism" and nullify habeas corpus, - "al-quaida" did 911 -, is
on behalf of your government,
for Bob's sake.

 

[Calcas]

Wow.

I love reading this ****. Better than the latest Grishom novel...

But seriously, props to Gravy, TAM, and the rest for *trying* to show these guys the light.

BTW, MAJOR props to a forum like this that will ALLOW contrary points of view. The Truther forums seem to ban anyone that doesn't drink their kool-aid...