Muslim researcher explains how 9/11 was made

Cl1mh4224rd said:
But cell phones have worked at that altitude. You've had a number of people telling you that they have personally experienced working cell phones at high altitude. There's also plenty of evidence, mostly anecdotal, that cell phones work at high altitude.

On what basis do you refuse all of this evidence?
Click to expand...

Not to mention that most of the calls were made with GTE Airfones. Which are not mobile phones. Not at all.

Mehmetin,
Do you understand that most of the phone calls were made with airphones, not mobile phones?
 
carlitos said:
Not to mention that most of the calls were made with GTE Airfones. Which are not mobile phones. Not at all.

Mehmetin,
Do you understand that most of the phone calls were made with airphones, not mobile phones?
Click to expand...

The voices in his head say "all faked by da jews".

I can't imagine why they would need to fake any calls..........unless real ones where made giving the game away that it was jews and not muslims but in the mad turks view nobody was actually physically hijacking those planes. It was all done from he ground. Gas did away with the passengers and pilots. Why the need to fake phone calls? Why?

We have a 'no hijacker'. Worse than a no planer?
 
Last edited:
mehmetin said:
The faith principle of Muslims tells: When confronted to evil doing, Muslim tries to stop it immediately, if he can not stop it, he tries to speak to the authors, if that’s impossible, he leaves the area and do not give his support to evil doing, this is the lowest faith level for Muslims.

With such principles, you can not make strong evil things by Muslims; the required high number of people could not be reached.
Click to expand...

Bollocks,have you actually read the Koran?
 
Whilst I have no 767 experience, information I have seen does indicate that the control cable runs are quite short.
To further disavow any suggestion that there was anything "crimped" to the flight control cables I do have over 5000 hours split between two aircraft which had the classic cables to remotely located hydraulic packs set up.
I can say that anything "crimped" onto the cables would have been immediately felt by the pilots during controls checks prior to take off. I have personally felt control restrictions and odd feelings which when examined have turned out to be small flat spots on one of the cable guide rollers which are generally less than one inch in diameter,flatspots practically undectable by sight which have felt like great bumps through the control column.

Professional Aircrew are very conscious of the way an aircraft "feels" as well as how it sounds and looks . Anything "crimped" on any control surface cable no matter where it was located would have been felt immediately and the aircraft would not have become airborne without extensive checks which would, of course, revealed the mythical "Tomahawk Control system"
 
When working in the Simulator Lab at Lockheed's Rye Canyon Research Facility, we were doing a simulation of the P3 Orion.
The chief project test pilot, John Christiansen complained that the simulator didn't fly/feel like the real thing.
I showed him the systems responses to control inputs matched the data the controls group had given us.
The attitude in the Simulator Lab was that pilots don't know what they're talking about, when they disagree with what we have done which matches the data.
John took me flying in the P3C prototype, and I got to fly the thing around.
My previous experience was a flight or two in an Aeronca Champ. :)
My oh MY!
Did I find out why pilots LOVED that airplane!
Just as John said, it took little more than light pressures on the control wheel to manuver the airplane.
A 4-motored bomber, which flew so effortlessly!
When I first took control, I felt there was -something- active in the control system, besides my inputs, and said to John "The autopilot is on."
He turned it off.
The -something- went away. :)
And I had -never- flown that airplane or activated the actual control system ever until I got into the copilot seat that day.
When I got back to Rye Canyon, I twiddled the parameters in the simulator to make the simulator feel the way I had felt the real thing, and John was pleased with the results.
Pilots know what their airplanes have to feel like, and scabbing anything as idiotic as the Tomahawk control system into a plane which already has a perfectly usable autopilot shows an extreme lack of connection with reality, and no engineering knowledge at all, and is idiotic... as I already have said.
 
Interesting stuff , not to derail the thread to much but the P3C is one of the two aircraft types , the other is the C130 .
 
mehmetin said:
USA army private network was used to communicate with the automatic tomahawk systems installed in te planes. Same network that is used to control the drones that kills civilians in Afghanistan. Don't tell me it doesn ot exist, it existed since decades; remember first gulf war in 1991., teh network was used there.
Click to expand...

The Tomahawk is a Naval Weapon fired from surface ships and submarines (no connection to the Army) and in 2001 had no remote capabilities regarding targeting (ie flying a course).

So not only do you have the wrong service using the missile but but you clearly don't know the difference between a cruise missile and a guided one.
 
mehmetin said:
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.
Click to expand...

SO you're willing to tell that to the relatives of those who made the calls and tell them that they were faked? Truther's really do have no shame. How about posting some of those "technical calculations?"
 
mehmetin said:
Sideroxylon, do never more tell that I am dishonest. What inaccuracies are you speaking about?

What evidence I refused? The phone calls? They are definitely faked.

In reverse, the dishonest people are you: who of you really studied the succession of the hijacks? Who tried to explain their consequences? None of the official story supporter explained such aspects.
Click to expand...



From Wikipedia on "Intellectual dishonesty":

Intellectual dishonesty is dishonesty in performing intellectual activities like thought or communication. Examples are:

* the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading
* the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position
* the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.
Click to expand...

You may well protest about accusations of the first category and only you can know what is going on in your head. However, this whole thread to date and your website are a testimony to the second and third. I think you should read back through this thread and then feel horribly ashamed of yourself.

ETA: I really do not understand your fixation with the timing of the hijacks (and I am evidently not Robinson Crusoe in that). I believe one early poster referred to it as a Texas sharpshooter fallacyWP and that seems to sum it up.
 
Last edited:
I Ratant said:
Muslims apparently can't do anything, especially the Arab kind, I guess the boy is saying.
I do recall that during Desert Storm, the international press corps covering the action from Arabia had a poll going, the winner of which would be the first guy that could prove he'd seen an Arab lifting anything heavier than money. :)
Bernard Lewis, in "What Went Wrong","The Clash between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East" observes:
"The proud heirs of ancient civilizations had got used to hiring Western firms to carry out tasks that their own contractors and technicians were apparently not capable of doing." (pg 152)
(Saudi Arabia is full of guest workers, to keep the systems that power the country working.)
Click to expand...

To some people's way of thinking, work is for slaves. Men trade or raid.

The hijackers were raiding an enemy camp for revenge.

End of that discussion, right?
 
Jackanory said:
Absolute bollox.

Drink, drugs, women, murder, capitalism, telling lies etc etc etc. I have seen your Muslims at close quarters committing all the above. Just another badge or banner to hide behind. No better than anyone else yet put themselves on a pedestal of righteousness because of a book. A book that they can’t decide what really means and a book whose meaning they hide behind. lol. Drug dealers and warlords are very common amongst Muslims. No different than any other society yet mightier than though. lol. Your tourist resorts are full of your bar working lecherous hypocrite Muslim men. lol.
19 of them went to the extreme and murdered thousands. They are now in hell. No virgins in hell. lol.
Click to expand...

I don't know how to feel about this. I've trained with judo teams from Saudi Arabia and Syria. They were all policemen and soldiers and were quite tough. I have coaches that trained Saudi Arabian police back in the 1980s.

On the other hand, I am told that when companies here doing business in the Middle East have guests from these places, the first thing their visitors ask for is girls.
 
mehmetin said:
And in fact, people who want to use Islam for bad doing will always remain alone. The faith principle of Muslims tells: When confronted to evil doing, Muslim tries to stop it immediately, if he can not stop it, he tries to speak to the authors, if that’s impossible, he leaves the area and do not give his support to evil doing, this is the lowest faith level for Muslims.

With such principles, you can not make strong evil things by Muslims; the required high number of people could not be reached.
Click to expand...
Explain the rivalry between Shiites and Sunnis then.
 
carlitos said:
Not to mention that most of the calls were made with GTE Airfones. Which are not mobile phones. Not at all.

Mehmetin,
Do you understand that most of the phone calls were made with airphones, not mobile phones?
Click to expand...

I answered that question too many times. Here are two of them, I also answered to you, the only argument one told is "may be the falimy mixed the recognise of the number, may be only in the last one they recognised". But that's also not logical, such thing one can not forget.

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...m/forums/showpost.php?p=6884038&postcount=203

Tom Burnett used cell phone to call his wife and the plane was at high altitude. If you are a little bit sincere, a little bit not credulous to the official story, you must accept that definitely.
 
Shadow the Poodle said:
Whilst I have no 767 experience, information I have seen does indicate that the control cable runs are quite short.
To further disavow any suggestion that there was anything "crimped" to the flight control cables I do have over 5000 hours split between two aircraft which had the classic cables to remotely located hydraulic packs set up.
I can say that anything "crimped" onto the cables would have been immediately felt by the pilots during controls checks prior to take off. I have personally felt control restrictions and odd feelings which when examined have turned out to be small flat spots on one of the cable guide rollers which are generally less than one inch in diameter,flatspots practically undectable by sight which have felt like great bumps through the control column.

Professional Aircrew are very conscious of the way an aircraft "feels" as well as how it sounds and looks . Anything "crimped" on any control surface cable no matter where it was located would have been felt immediately and the aircraft would not have become airborne without extensive checks which would, of course, revealed the mythical "Tomahawk Control system"
Click to expand...

The automatic tomahawk control system do not crimp on the cable before the system is activated. So the plane flyies and acts totally as usual up to the activation of the control system. After that moment, the human pilots are dead quickly within seconds and the control system replaces the human pilots.
 
mehmetin said:
The automatic tomahawk control system do not crimp on the cable before the system is activated. So the plane flyies and acts totally as usual up to the activation of the control system. After that moment, the human pilots are dead quickly within seconds and the control system replaces the human pilots.
Click to expand...

This contraption of yours keeps getting bigger and more complicated doesn't it? Have you ever considered doing some engineering work for Rube Goldberg?

:rolleyes:
 
carlitos said:
Not to mention that most of the calls were made with GTE Airfones. Which are not mobile phones. Not at all.

Mehmetin,
Do you understand that most of the phone calls were made with airphones, not mobile phones?
Click to expand...
He already "covered" the airphones (I asked about Betty Ong). Those calls were all fake, his proof is they have to be everyone on the plane was gassed.
 
mehmetin said:
It seems that you'll never debunk my work. After all that time, I leave a possibility! I don't think you'll be able, but I keep a chance for you.
Click to expand...

Your work is entirely debunked. It seems that you'll never accept that, but that's a separate issue.
 
mehmetin said:
The automatic tomahawk control system do not crimp on the cable before the system is activated. So the plane flyies and acts totally as usual up to the activation of the control system. After that moment, the human pilots are dead quickly within seconds and the control system replaces the human pilots.
Click to expand...

Evidence/fact free debunkerbating seems to be all you have left in your arsenal of stupid. Cool stuff.

Off for an afternoon of skydiving from 15,000ft. Care to give me your mobile number so that I can fake some calls to you. lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom