Muslim researcher explains how 9/11 was made

mehmetin said:
The question is "Why the hijacks were successive?". The succession of the hijacks is a fact gathered from the actual "take off-deviation-impact" times. Here is the graphic [qimg]http://www.peace911.org/Timeline911.jpg[/qimg].

The red bars are the flight times during which the planes were hijacked. As you can see these times follows each other, making the hijacks successive.

Creating such successive hijacks repeating themselves in all four planes is impossible to be made by four independent teams inside each plane who can not contact each other. Such four different teams have no reason to create any succession between the planes, and it’s almost impossible for them to produce such succession.

That’s what I mean. You can find more detailed explanation in my power point at www.peace911.org , slides 7.1 to 14.

By reverse, if one top secret American/Mossad team made such attacks by using technology; they are obliged to make the hijacks successively as it happened. This is the first undebunkable evidence that proves one team controlled the planes. If you have another explanation, I listen you.
Click to expand...

Mehmetin,

Please describe the timelines for 4 hijacking events that would disprove your theory of a single team behind all 4 events.
 
mehmetin said:
My words here up proves that you are lying. Be careful, in my words here up, tehre is no accusation of lying! There is scientific mathematical calculations proving that antennas are not made to communicate with high altitude planes. Istead of accusing me, you should just try to prove why my explanation is wrong. You are welcome for that.
Click to expand...
Your math showed cell phones could work up to 45,000 feet, good job with the math, but you have no clue what it means, you are talking to an engineer, I have a masters degree - I don't trust the math, so I tried using a cell phone flying, it worked, and it means cell phones can work flying.

I am an engineer and a pilot and you are telling the lies, you are a liar. I have technical papers which show it is not impossible for cell phones to work in flight, but they are not practical, planes fly at 550 mph.

I don't have to prove you are wrong, you have to prove you are right. You presented no technical papers on the topic. All the technical papers on cell phone technology do not rule out working in-flight. You presented zero sources, I presented a real life experience, more than once I have used cell phones in flight, I am a pilot, I have proof from my own use it works, and I did it with existing technology of 2001.

I have technical papers to support cell phones are not impossible to work in-flight. You spew nonsense, no sources. I looked up the source for my position years ago, but your claims are so idiotic there is no need to look up anything since you deny 911 was done by 19 terrorists.

You have to be a really lacking knowledge to say cell phones can't work inflight, and I used them in-flight, makes your claims false.

On 911 they used seat phones because cell phones are not reliable in-flight, the calls made on 911 from cell phones connected in some cases but were not very long. Are you saying the phone calls were fake? Then you are a liar.

Flight 11 terrorists called Flight 175 terrorists on the ground from the planes. Who cares, the terrorists you say never existed, then you make up nonsensical hogwash.

Publish your tech papers from the manufactures of cell systems showing it impossible to use cell phones in-flight - after you do real research you will find cell phones working in-flight is not impossible. But you don't seem to do rational research, so you will not figure this out; you will persist at pushing your failed opinion, which is a lie.
 
mehmetin said:
That’s your asserts. Nothing proves them, and that’s meaningless.
...
Autopilot can not push the body of a pilot who died on the flight control stick. But a worm gear based actuator can push the body.
Click to expand...
.
So can the murderer that killed the pilot.
...
Muslims will not shout “Allahu Akbar” in such case. But Mossad agents who made the attacks will use such sentences to presents things as Muslims made.
Click to expand...
.
"911 Commission Report", page 14.--- Appended hereunto..
.
Dumbesilleh.
There were no people involved in the hijackings, and those people talked on the Cockpit Voice Recorder.. and, invoked a diety totally foreign to their own when in the final seconds of their life.
They really got into the role. Not!
.
...I am still waiting the explanation: HOW and WHY 4 different teams made successive hijacks?
Click to expand...
.
They did it with advance planning. It's mentioned in the 911 Commission Report, who did what and when, in the pre-attack planning.
Interested "researchers" would have read that report.
The "why" was OBL's anger at the presence of US troops in Arabia.
Shurely your "intensive research"...( I crack me up) has found this tidbit.
.
Invincible ignorance is usually a theological term, but it is applicable to you here.
.
Bush got that question in 2006! He went out silent about that question. And nobody answered to that question with logical explanation based on strong evidence.
Click to expand...
.
There's been no indication from you that logic makes it through your anti-Semitic condition.
.
And the Tomahawk autopilot tied up passengers to their seats and a stewardess .
"Rescue workers at the World Trade Center site began to discover body fragments from Flight 11 victims within days of the attack. Some workers found bodies strapped to airplane seats and discovered the body of a flight attendant with her hands bound, suggesting the hijackers may have used plastic handcuffs."
...
No doubt that worm-gear was a multi-tasker.
 

Attachments

  • 911Report-page14-Allah.jpg
    911Report-page14-Allah.jpg
    127.8 KB · Views: 3
Last edited:
mehmetin said:
That's a lie. The technology does not make that possible today. Typical confusion and disinformation. Agagin everybody should make his own opinion. In other words, disinfo agents are wery well working and they succeeded to create huge confusion about the subject.
Click to expand...

The idea that the calls is based on the claim that mobiles don’t work at altitude (see here). There’s anecdotal evidence that they do, though, and other stories that suggest otherwise. Here’s an account from a passenger of Delta Flight 1989, for instance, which was suspected of being hijacked for a while on 9/11:

...we were forced to make an emergency landing in Cleveland because there were reports that a bomb or hijacking was taking place on our plane. The pilot had radioed that there was suspicious activity in the cabin since one of the passengers was speaking urgently on his cellphone and ignored repeated flight attendant requests to stop using his cell phone while in flight. Also, there was an irregularity in the passenger manifest because there were two people [with the same middle eastern name] who were listed but only one aboard.
http://256.com/gray/thoughts/2001/20010912/1989_9_11_travel.html

If true, then this suggests the passenger was able to make or receive lengthy and/or repeated calls at cruising altitude. So why not the 9/11 planes? And let’s not forget that also had Airfones, which are designed to work at altitude.

It’s far from proven that mobiles cannot have worked, then, and the idea of creating some massive operation to fake the calls seems a little bizarre. How on earth are you going to guarantee that you'll fool the family members in every case, for 50 or 100 calls? Especially when only a small number carried useful hijacking information? Remember, it only takes one family member to voice suspicions, and your whole plan could be blown open.

One supposed answer to this is that the conspirators used “voice morphing technology” to make themselves sound like the passengers:

These voices were the result of the technological wonder called voice morphing in which the sound of anybody's voice can be duplicated in real time. If the full range of the subject's voice has been recorded, which usually can happen in a 10 minute phone conversation, and then fed into the computer software, anybody speaking the subject's language can very convincingly sound like the subject person on the phone to his or her family, friends, coworkers, etc. etc.. In practical terms, problems with voice morphing will arise when gaps in the impersonator's knowledge become apparent to his or her interlocutor.
http://911lies.org/cell_calls_911_faked_voice_morphing.html

The claim appears to be based around this 1999 story:

"Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government." So begins a statement being delivered by Gen. Carl W. Steiner, former Commander-in-chief, U.S. Special Operations Command.

At least the voice sounds amazingly like him.

But it is not Steiner. It is the result of voice "morphing" technology developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner's voice, scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile. Steiner was so impressed, he asked for a copy of the tape.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

If correct, then note that the story says the technology requires a “10-minute digital recording”. It doesn’t say that a phone conversation is enough.

Also, we’re told that the system works in “near real time”, in other words there’s a time lapse between the person speaking, and the system morphing their voice into someone else. How long? It doesn’t say, unfortunately, but it’s unsafe to assume that this system is capable of carrying out real-time conversations.

But these aren’t the only arguments against this idea. Some of the passengers weren't supposed to be travelling on the planes they eventually took:

"Jeremy Glick was supposed to have been on Flight 93 a day earlier, but missed the Monday flight after getting stuck in traffic on his way to Newark Airport... Another passenger, Lauren Grandcolas was on her way home to Marin County... Originally scheduled on a later flight, she had been pleasantly surprised to easily get a standby seat on Flight 93 at the airport. “I can’t wait to see you,” she told her husband Jack in a message she left on the couple’s answering machine before dawn in California, telling him she would be home a few hours early".
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3067652/

And they’re not the only ones. In fact, so many people changed their plans within around 24 hours to take this flight, that has been marked up as an anomaly in itself. A Team8Plus page (http://www.team8plus.org/content.php?article.8) points out this also applies to Jeremy Glick (missed his flight the day before), Mark Bingham (took an extra day to recover from a birthday celebration), Honor Elizabeth Wainio (changed to a direct flight at the last minute) and possibly Edward Felt (last-minute business trip) amongst those who made phone calls, and others who didn’t.

Now that does seem like a lot of last-minute changes, although without having any typical figures for comparison it’s hard to say for sure. But with regards to faking the calls, this situation surely poses a problem: how are the conspirators going to research everyone who made a call, and grab a “ten minute digital recording”, with 2 or 3 to 24 hours notice?

And as an example of the research required (although in this case not just in a few hours), consider the call by Linda Grolund, who reportedly called her sister to pass on the combination of the safe containing her will (which suggests no-one else knew it, because otherwise why bother?):

Linda Gronlund, called her sister, Elsa Strong.

Elsa Strong says, "She said, 'Hi, Else, this is Lin. I just wanted to tell you how much I love you.' And she said, 'Please tell Mom and Dad how much I love them.' And then she got real calm and said, 'Now my will is in my safe and my safe is in my closet. and this is the combination.' And she just told me the combination of her safe.
http://billstclair.com/911timeline/2002/msnbc090302.html
 
mehmetin said:
They are not in the plot. But most of the professionals in that area do not need to know such details. Only antenna producer engineers should be aware of that, plus some initial network designers, some standards writers, ... All those people are not obliged to investigate nor to speak out about 9/11.

Just have a look to some antenna specifications and you'll find that they produce horizontally guided waves.
Click to expand...

So if antenna producer engineers (sic) initial network designers and/or standards writers told you that you were wrong, would you accept their professional opinion?
 
I don't feel like dredging through previous pages of muck here, so: Please tell me he's only referring to the actuall cell phone calls, and not all the calls made from the jets. Because as has been pointed out time and time again, a majority of the calls placed were actually from the GTE Airfones, and those are designed to work from altitude.

Of course, either he'll point at DRG's supposed "airfones uninstalled" argument or he'll change the topic to something else - truthers all have the same playbook, it's just a matter of which page they're reading at the moment. But regardless, for this specific subtopic, I do hope that all that sturm und drang is restricted to the subset of calls actually made from individual passenger's personal cell phones, and not from the seatback ones. Because if not, well... some more research is necessary on his part.
 
mehmetin said:
The database is not on the internet. Only professionals can access to it. But I know from stong information, data is deleted.
Click to expand...


Surely you can risk a little breach for such an important topic. Surely you also realize that no one can possibly take you seriously, let alone verify your "research" without such information.

mehmetin said:
I won't give that information, it's personnal.
Click to expand...


Maintenance records aren't personal. They can't even be all that confidential if they're in an "international database" that's accessible to "professionals". You're just offering up a flimsy excuse to keep your opposition from examining your "evidence".
 
Last edited:
ElMondoHummus said:
I don't feel like dredging through previous pages of muck here, so: Please tell me he's only referring to the actuall cell phone calls, and not all the calls made from the jets. Because as has been pointed out time and time again, a majority of the calls placed were actually from the GTE Airfones, and those are designed to work from altitude.

Of course, either he'll point at DRG's supposed "airfones uninstalled" argument or he'll change the topic to something else - truthers all have the same playbook, it's just a matter of which page they're reading at the moment. But regardless, for this specific subtopic, I do hope that all that sturm und drang is restricted to the subset of calls actually made from individual passenger's personal cell phones, and not from the seatback ones. Because if not, well... some more research is necessary on his part.
Click to expand...

No such luck ElMondo:

mehmetin said:
Evet canım!

I showed you how big are the vertical propagation of the waves of GSM antennas. They are not propagated at all. In the best case, we have only 10° upper the horizontal line. That means no vertical propagation is possible. That means no cellular phone calls are possible from 35000ft kind altitude. So, all cellular phone calls are FAKE.

At least one is well known and this is enough to tell all phone calls are faked. Actually to make such attacks, one can only show the phone calls as evidence. As those are fake, that means the official story has no evidence to back it up.
Click to expand...

My bolding.
 
Last edited:
mehmetin said:
You are wrong. My arguments were not defeated at all. The main question that starts everything is "How and Why 4 different teams made successive hijacks?"

If you are able to answer tha tquestion or you know anybody who is able to do it, you are welcome. I jsut need strong scientific and logical explanation. No probabilistic null answers. Such coincidence in 4 planes could not be a probability event, it's probability is zero.
Click to expand...

Well if they didn't all hit at the same time they had to be successive.
 
slyjoe said:
No such luck ElMondo:
mehmetin said:
At least one is well known and this is enough to tell all phone calls are faked.
Click to expand...
My bolding.
Click to expand...
Good God...
Anyway, regarding his claim:
facepalmsmiley.gif
 
mehmetin said:
The question is "Why the hijacks were successive?". The succession of the hijacks is a fact gathered from the actual "take off-deviation-impact" times. Here is the graphic http://www.peace911.org/Timeline911.jpg

The red bars are the flight times during which the planes were hijacked. As you can see these times follows each other, making the hijacks successive.

Creating such successive hijacks repeating themselves in all four planes is impossible to be made by four independent teams inside each plane who can not contact each other. Such four different teams have no reason to create any succession between the planes, and it’s almost impossible for them to produce such succession.

That’s what I mean. You can find more detailed explanation in my power point at www.peace911.org , slides 7.1 to 14.

By reverse, if one top secret American/Mossad team made such attacks by using technology; they are obliged to make the hijacks successively as it happened. This is the first undebunkable evidence that proves one team controlled the planes. If you have another explanation, I listen you.
Click to expand...

You're still not making any sense. Simple question: why do you feel this is significant? The plane that took off first was hijacked first. The plane that took off second was hijacked second and so on. Why do you find that weird? Why would that be impossible?
 
mehmetin said:
Yes, I am ready. Feel free to do it. That will make larger sale of my book and bring the strikes into justice. YESSSS! ;)
Click to expand...

Is writing utter tripe for credulous readers halal earnings?

ETA: I can only comment on the proposed work with any degree of certainty.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
You wrote a book named "Zionist terror ring"? I can't seem to find a publisher or an actual book by that name.
Click to expand...

The book is only in Turkish now. I knwo that European and USA will not easily publish it; they will not so easily publish the truth about 9/11. Whatever it could be, the truth about 9/11 is in my book and on my web site in summarized manner.
 
beachnut said:
Your math showed cell phones could work up to 45,000 feet, good job with the math, but you have no clue what it means, you are talking to an engineer, I have a masters degree - I don't trust the math, so I tried using a cell phone flying, it worked, and it means cell phones can work flying.

I am an engineer and a pilot and you are telling the lies, you are a liar. I have technical papers which show it is not impossible for cell phones to work in flight, but they are not practical, planes fly at 550 mph.
Click to expand...

The antennas upward emission direction is about 4°, let's get some margin and let's consider 10°. The accessible distance is about 10km. The maximum reachable altitude is 10000*sinus(10°)=10000*0.137=1370m. Let's consider the maximum altitude at that area of 1500(I did not verified), the maximum reachable altitude becomes 1500+1370=2870m, let's sya 3000m. This is too much smaller than 10000m usual altitude of the civil aircrafts.

The strongest evidence of the official stry is the phone caals, and they are all faked. The official story has no evidence backing it.
 
I Ratant said:
.
...I am still waiting the explanation: HOW and WHY 4 different teams made successive hijacks?

They did it with advance planning. It's mentioned in the 911 Commission Report, who did what and when, in the pre-attack planning.
Interested "researchers" would have read that report.
The "why" was OBL's anger at the presence of US troops in Arabia.
Shurely your "intensive research"...( I crack me up) has found this tidbit.
Click to expand...

Advanced planning is not possible, because they can not plan the delays at take off. And thera was a 41 minutes delayed take off that changed nothing to the successive aspect of the hijacks.

The commission report does not explain that succession. They just covered it up. Sure, evidence that they can not explain will be covered up. The commission report is full of huge lies.
 
TheAntiV said:
The idea that the calls is based on the claim that mobiles don’t work at altitude (see here). There’s anecdotal evidence that they do, though, and other stories that suggest otherwise. Here’s an account from a passenger of Delta Flight 1989, for instance, which was suspected of being hijacked for a while on 9/11:

...we were forced to make an emergency landing in Cleveland because there were reports that a bomb or hijacking was taking place on our plane. The pilot had radioed that there was suspicious activity in the cabin since one of the passengers was speaking urgently on his cellphone and ignored repeated flight attendant requests to stop using his cell phone while in flight. Also, there was an irregularity in the passenger manifest because there were two people [with the same middle eastern name] who were listed but only one aboard.
http://256.com/gray/thoughts/2001/20010912/1989_9_11_travel.html

If true, then this suggests the passenger was able to make or receive lengthy and/or repeated calls at cruising altitude. So why not the 9/11 planes? And let’s not forget that also had Airfones, which are designed to work at altitude.
Click to expand...

Nothing proves that that passenger was speaking on the phone. He may be listening something, or encoding something in his mobile phone.

Technical calculations prove that cell phones do not work on planes. That’s definitely proved. The official story’s last and strongest evidence is FAKED.
 
slyjoe said:
So if antenna producer engineers (sic) initial network designers and/or standards writers told you that you were wrong, would you accept their professional opinion?
Click to expand...

No! I need more explanations such as why it's possible, why did they produce antennas that emit in the air while nobody can use them? Why did they consume energy for useless signals? ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom