Flight 93

[beachnut]

... your photo does not show conditions that are consistent with a jetliner crash. ...

The photo does show conditions consistent with ejected parts from a 600 mph impact, your inability to process evidence and do rational research has left you lacking, and makes you conclusion a failure.
You are wrong, the photo is exactly consistent with a airliner crash at 600 mph into the ground. I have investigate aircraft accidents and was trained to investigate accidents, and you don't know what you are talking about. How much effort does it take to ignore evidence and remain in ignorance?

Please tell me where you were trained as an aircraft accident investigator to pronounce the parts in the photo are not from Flight 93 which crashed right behind ejected parts from the ground impact. Do you have any training? It appears you lack any skill in research and investigation, you don't know a fuselage from a horse-trailer. Not doing too good on 911 do you have other skills to fall back on?

How is the Navy? How long have you been in the Navy? Do you think you will post on topic?

What happen, did you buy an delusional DVD on 911? How did you not figure out 911 8 years ago?

You are posting in the wrong thread, this is about the idiotic lie of a shoot down of Flight 93, and the idiotic delusion that parts were planted. Since your moronic delusion is no plane at all, you need to start your own thread and stop the delusional SPAM in this thread. Where do you get your failed ideas on 911 from? Home? Work? School? An idiot at the corner?

 

[twinstead]

It's stuffy in my house today, but who needs a fan with all jammonius' hand waving?

 

[jammonius]

The cell phone calls

AW,

Thanks for taking up my suggestion of going down the cell phone route. You have selected as your source for this crucial issue wtc7lies, a respectable enough, website, one supposes, where it is said to have been put together by the ""The Obi-wan Kenobi of debunkers" or, alternatively, the "The Yoda of 9/11 reality."

OK, one can here anticipate that you will accuse me of moving the goal posts or of demanding perfection by pointing out that your source is just a set of volunteers, collecting and then giving a predetermined perspective on the information, so collected.

You next assert, in apparent disregard of your own disdain for perfection in explanation, that the AK Dewdney study has been debunked, therefore it is not good enough.

That is the kind of claim, AW, that does fall within the scope and the meaning of the 'perfection" fallacy. The reason for that is quite simple, say what you will about the AK Dewdney study, the fact remains that in the yar 2001, cell phone technology was not thought of as being capable of connection when one was in the air.

I can here use my own anecdotal experience and say that I never was able to get a signal on a jetliner in that time period and was never able to make a call. Mind you, I am not here putting this anecdote forward as proof of the claim cell phone calls could not have been made, but I am putting it forward, in conjunction with the perfection fallacy, to say that it is a stretch for you to claim, in advance, that the AK Dewdney study has been debunked.

Your assertion in that respect is false. The AK Dewdney study has some merit and can be relied on to cast doubt on the cell phone claim.

I however, choose to place primary reliance on two types of evidence and information in dealing with the cell phone claim:

1--the military exercise part of the equation; and

2--governmental deception in evidence tampering and withholding.


1--For me, the importance of the military exercises, including the Vigilant Guardian exercise, is demonstrated by the fact that even high ranking military personnel, in communicating via phone, radio or whatever, openly and candidly admitted they did not know if the persons they were speaking with were communicating real conditions or exercise conditions. You can here take a look at the reported statements of Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins, by way of illustration.

Thus, we have, right at the outset, this key issue that must be properly understood: Any transmission that is said to involve either a telephone communication or a radio transmission, let alone a recording of one and still less a transcript of one, in the context of 9/11, is tainted by the fact that military war games were going on involving simulated hijackings and involving the transmission of phony conversations.

That is a fact, AW. False communications were taking place.

A second example here requires us to use the FL 11 situation. There, the air traffic controllers were said to be listening to hijackers say things like the famous and the 9/11 iconic declaration: "We have some planes." Like the FL93 conversations, that one is iconic and is a linchpin of the 9/11 common version of events.

But, what is less well known is this fact: The air controllers DID NOT know where the conversations were coming from and are not in a position to say that it was coming from FL 11.

And, therein lies the key to any of the cell phone calls: There is no way to know where they were coming from. Once again, the key to the cell phone issue comes right smack back down to the real nitty gritty of 9/11:

The emotional need to believe the common myth. The cell phones are probably the Ace of Spades of 9/11 because they involve people who are victims, people who are heroes and people who appear to be traceable, by and loarge.

That is powerful stuff. The only problem is, the cell phone calls are a huge assumption and the rules of reason still apply, irrespective of the gigantic emotional tug that the cell phones entail.

Look, let's be candid here. Questioning the cell phones can be interpreted as calling Todd Beamer a liar. I am doing no such thing, posters, so before you go there, just know that if you do that, you are only jerking off emotionally.

I am here pointing to the very severe form of psyop that has been perpetrated upon us. Using people in this way and, perhaps, killing them to boot and making believe they were on phantom jetliners, to boot.

The cell phone calls still have to be understood in context of the rest of the story. And, the rest of it does not support jetliner hijackings or crashes.

2--The FAA openly hid information and destroyed tapes, such that if there were contradictions between what the FAA knew and what the story of the cell phones seek to impart, that evidence is gone. The same is true for other types of govenmental deception that includes acknowledgment that the military exercises have not ever been properly explained.

We only know that there were a lot of them taking place on 9/11, up to 25 and that they involved simulation of hijackings of jetliners and crashing them into buildings. They also involved fake conversations that we know of for certain. What we don't know is the extent of the deception.

Another aspect here is that psyops involving false communications have some limits. False or what are also referred to as "cover stories" can only be released abroad, if I understand the restriction on them correctly. Some aspects of the cell phone story were only introduced via UK media.

Virtually all sourcing for the cell phone story is merely newspapers of some kind. And, while you claim there were 37 cell phone calls from FL 93, the Moussaoui prosecution was only prepared to come forward with claims about 2 of them.

The flight path data for the 4 9/11 flights that you rely on comes from sources that could have been a part of the simulated exercises for all we know. What we know for certain is that such simulations were taking place. Thus, in the absence of a full and transparent investigation, there can be no confidence that what is claimed about the cell phones or the flight paths, upon which the success of the cell phones depends, is accurate or true.

The only thing we know for certain is that when the 9/11 Commission tried to find out what happened, it encountered deception such that the commission's report is not considered by those who prepared it, including most recently, John Farmer, have warned us that the truth of 9/11 hasn't been told.

Finally, the claim tht the "FBI" returned 95% of the jetliner to UA has not ever been documented with any photographic or other evidence. Where is the wreckage of Flight 93, pray tell? Has obe-wan or yoda provided a source for that quintessentially important photographic evidence?

No, AW, your cell phone information is not a slam dunk at all and is not persuasive in terms of reason. The cell phone aspect of the 9/11 myth is, however, one of the most emotionally compelling portions of the myth. I will grant you that much.

 

[BigAl]

AW,

bin Laden publicly declared war on the US in 1991 and was killing Americans prior to 9/11/2001.

 

[twinstead]

No, AW, your cell phone information is not a slam dunk at all and is not persuasive in terms of reason. The cell phone aspect of the 9/11 myth is, however, one of the most emotionally compelling portions of the myth. I will grant you that much.

Nothing alone is a slam dunk. ALL the evidence together, in spite of your hand waving, IS a slam dunk. According to you, every single accident investigation in the history of avionics is suspect.

Face it. All you have is rhetoric. You'd make a perfect sleazy lawyer trying to get an obviously guilty criminal off the hook.

 

[TJM]

the fact remains that in the yar 2001, cell phone technology was not thought of as being capable of connection when one was in the air.

You fail again.Here's another item for you to handwave away.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Answers in Bold:

chewy,

I respect that you live nearby to Shanksville. All I'm saying is that while you live nearby, you were not a witness to anything. And, to the extent that you reported what you heard, your exact statement is inconsistent with a jetliner crash. You said you heard a jet and then you heard nothing else. You did not hear a crash. Of course, if you live 20 miles away, and in the PA mountains somewhere, then it may be unlikely you could have heard a crash.

I'm a witness reguardless what you say. You just can't stand that a witness will stand up to Truthers who are 100% wrong all the time.

Whatever, the fact is you are not a witness.

I am, deal with it!

Going to the site a week later and being kept back 300 yards obviously meant you didn't see anything that you could swear to either. You live nearby, but you are not a witness.

I had binoculars & saw Wallace Miller & the FBI there. I am a witness, you aren't a witness to anything.

By the way, do you have the ability to show this post to Wallace Miller? Please let him know that I would like to speak with him.

You're too lazy to find his e-mail address.

Here is what he is said to have said at the time:

"Wallace Miller, the coroner of Somerset County, is one of the first people to arrive at the Flight 93 crash scene. However, he is surprised by the absence of human remains there. He later says, “If you didn’t know, you would have thought no one was on the plane. You would have thought they dropped them off somewhere.”[Longman, 2002, pp. 217]

There was hardly anything left to the people on the plane after impacting hard soil. He did an amazing job using DNA to ID the victims.

I am not making this up, chewy, that is what he said.

And you're taking his words out of context. You aren't showing anyone here anything.

The statements by and about Wallace Miller continue with this:


"The only recognizable body part he sees is a piece of spinal cord with five vertebrae attached. He will later tell Australian newspaper The Age, “I’ve seen a lot of highway fatalities where there’s fragmentation. The interesting thing about this particular case is that I haven’t, to this day, 11 months later, seen any single drop of blood. Not a drop.” [Age (Melbourne), 9/9/2002] Dave Fox, a former firefighter, also arrives early at the crash scene, but sees just three chunks of human tissue. He says, “You knew there were people there, but you couldn’t see them.” [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 9/11/2002] Yet, in the following weeks, hundreds of searchers are able to find about 1,500 scorched human tissue samples, weighing less than 600 pounds—approximately eight percent of the total body mass on Flight 93. Months after 9/11, more remains are found in a secluded cabin, several hundred yards from the crash site. [Washington Post, 5/12/2002]"

What do you think what would happen to your body after it gets sliced & diced by sharp aluminum?

Once again, chewy, a meeting with coroner Miller would be a good thing I think. Is he still coroner, close on to 10 years later? Have you already met with him?

Wallace Miller contradicts your own words. He found body parts & IDed them. You have no credibility nor evidence! My challenge still stands, present your evidence or get out of this thread, troll.

If Jammonius keeps up his antics I will report him to Darat & let Darat take care of him.

I'm not here to play any games, Jammonius!

 

[aggle-rithm]

I am here pointing to the very severe form of psyop that has been perpetrated upon us. Using people in this way and, perhaps, killing them to boot and making believe they were on phantom jetliners, to boot.

Now, we're getting somewhere!

Please tell us who (specifically) perpetrated the psyop, what (specifically) they did, how (specifically) they did it.

I won't even ask you to provide evidence. Just tell us how it all fits together. The "common myth", as you call it, has this very important property. It is possible to state simply and clearly what it is.

Can your theory say the same?

Stop--don't answer that. I'll answer for you. Tell me if I get it wrong.

You HAVE NO THEORY. You have nothing. You either lack the wit to think the problem through, or the courage to come right out and say what you believe.

Am I right? I'm right, aren't I?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Finally, the claim tht the "FBI" returned 95% of the jetliner to UA has not ever been documented with any photographic or other evidence. Where is the wreckage of Flight 93, pray tell? Has obe-wan or yoda provided a source for that quintessentially important photographic evidence?

Why does it have to be documented to YOUR satisfaction? What decisions do you make or actions you take that you need direct access to this information?

Being a skeptic doesn't mean you automatically doubt everything, and it certainly doesn't mean you doubt only claims that endanger your cherished beliefs, as you clearly do. It means that you doubt unusual claims until evidence is provided to support them.

If someone makes a reasonable claim, such as that the wreckage of a plane crash has been recovered, then it is ridiculous to doubt that claim unless you have compelling evidence to the contrary. To have a pathological need to ask for proof of any claim, indiscriminately, is a massive waste of time and energy. Kind of like reading your posts.

 

[beachnut]

a giant pack of lies! Where did you find them?

... I can here use my own anecdotal experience and say that I never was able to get a signal on a jetliner in that time period and was never able to make a call. Mind you, I am not here putting this anecdote forward as proof of the claim cell phone calls could not have been made, but I am putting it forward, in conjunction with the perfection fallacy, to say that it is a stretch for you to claim, in advance, that the AK Dewdney study has been debunked. ...

I am a pilot, cell phones can work in flight; I have used them and they worked in 2001 but you can't go back and figure this one out.
The people on 911 mainly used the phones on the seat backs, have you ever flown? The crew has phones to talk to their company; you don't have a clue so you spew lies out of ignorance.

Is your goal to be wrong on every aspect of 911?

... 1--the military exercise part of the equation; and
2--governmental deception in evidence tampering and withholding.

1--For me, the importance of the military exercises, including the Vigilant Guardian exercise, is demonstrated by the fact that even high ranking military personnel, in communicating via phone, radio or whatever, openly and candidly admitted ...
...

The exercise on 911 helped the military response. ...Nothing you posted on this subject has anything to do with 911. Your source failed to understand the military and reality. I was on active duty on 911, and your post is total nonsense taken from idiot web sites on 911.

Is your goal to repeat moronic lies without a conscience?

... A second example here requires us to use the FL 11 situation. There, the air traffic controllers were said to be listening to hijackers say things like the famous and the 9/11 iconic declaration: "We have some planes." Like the FL93 conversations, that one is iconic and is a linchpin of the 9/11 common version of events.

But, what is less well known is this fact: The air controllers DID NOT know where the conversations were coming from and are not in a position to say that it was coming from FL 11. ...

That pretty much exposed your ignorance of ATC and flying.
"we have some planes" was clearly one of the terrorists who keyed the wrong button and talked to ATC instead of the Passengers on his flight.
How do I know this is true? Because the FAA has a tape and the only plane that failed to check in was 11, and therefore it was 11 and the terrorists who the crew who called their company confirmed.

Did you make up this false idea on your own?

... And, therein lies the key to any of the cell phone calls: There is no way to know where they were coming from. Once again, the key to the cell phone issue comes right smack back down to the real nitty gritty of 9/11: ...

What?
Is this more stupidity you dredged up from some idiot on the Internet? The people who called other people prove who called who and where they were. You can know were each plane was during each call because of RADAR taped for later use.
If I was on Flight 93 and call my wife during the flight, that placed me on Flight 93 and my wife is the evidence of the call as are the SEAT-BACK PHONE RECORDS, and the RADAR tapes show the location of the plane at the time of the call.

You are SMACKED DOWN due to lack of knowledge.

... The emotional need to believe the common myth. ... the cell phone calls are a huge assumption and the rules of reason still apply, irrespective of the gigantic emotional tug that the cell phones entail.

Pure poppy. How many were seat-back phones? How many calls were from the seat-back phones?

... Look, let's be candid here. Questioning the cell phones can be interpreted as calling Todd Beamer a liar. I am doing no such thing, posters, so before you go there, just know that if you do that, you are only jerking off emotionally. ... .

Yes, you are calling the FAA, NORAD, Pilots who flew on 911, Todd, Todd's mom, FBI, the ATC controllers and more liars. You do this with failed ideas.

And you tell us we are jer..... Real cool as you spew lies freely you are the one who is...

... I am here pointing to the very severe form of psyop that has been perpetrated upon us. Using people in this way and, perhaps, killing them to boot and making believe they were on phantom jetliners, to boot. ...

No, you are here spewing idiotic lies you picked up from idiots who post them on the Internet. You have googled your way to exposing you have no knowledge on flying, RADAR, ATC, radios, FAA procedures, physics, Cell phones, Seat-Back phones, and more.
19 terrorists did 911 and you have had 8 years to figure it out and you failed.
You are here apologizing for terrorists and posting real dumb lies.
You are the one spewing lies and doing the psyop based on hearsay, lies, and your lack of knowledge.

You believe in no planes, phantom planes. You have idiotic delusions, where did you find them? Why are you repeating failed ideas from years ago?

... The cell phone calls still have to be understood in context of the rest of the story. And, the rest of it does not support jetliner hijackings or crashes.

2--The FAA openly hid information and destroyed tapes, such that if there ...

The flight path data for the 4 9/11 flights that you rely on comes from sources...

The terrorist took the planes and used as kinetic energy weapons; here is where your lack of physics is killing your chance to understand most of 911. Your lack of knowledge is responsible for you posting dirt dumb lies you found on the internet.

The FAA did not hide information; that is a lie.

The flight path data is from multiple RADAR systems, you should study up before making up lies. You call the FAA and the military liars on the RADAR data; I was on active duty on 911 and you blame me for the deaths; how cool you are.

... Finally, the claim tht the "FBI" returned 95% of the jetliner to UA has not ever been documented with any photographic or other evidence. Where is the wreckage of Flight 93, pray tell?...

Prove it! You can't prove any of your ideas.

... cell phone information is not a slam dunk at all and is not persuasive in terms of reason. The cell phone aspect of the 9/11 myth is, however, one of the most emotionally compelling portions of the myth. I will grant you that much.

How many calls were from Seat-Back Phones?

I know cell phones can work in flight 2001 and before because I am a pilot and I used cell phones in-flight. I have seen people use cell phones in-flight on commercial airlines so your cell phone theory is bogus.

If you check the technical literature, the cell phone technical information does not preclude cell phones from working in-flight.

Again, how many of the calls were Seat-Back Phone calls? The seat-back phones on the aircraft used on 911?

You failed this time, but if you study up on the FAA, flight procedures, FBI, RADAR, ATC procedures, cell phones, seat phones, physics, aircraft accidents, and more you may understand 911 eventually. The best you can do is call a fuselage a horse trailer now, so study and gain knowledge. Why do you apologize for terrorists, the murderers who did 911 all by themselves?
8 years of failure.

 

[twinstead]

I think somebody, like most truthers, thinks he is more important than he really is.

 

[jammonius]

beachnut,

In the main, your post is too emotional for me to respond to. Plus, I was responding to AW who, I assume, will post up a further reply concerning the substance of the value of the cell phone evidence, its weaknesses, contradictions and the evidence of deception associated with it.

That said, there a few elements of your post that I can engage with you on, namely, the ones that are not emotionally driven.

I, therefore, respond as follows, as best I can to certain parts of your last post, in the hope of advancing the substance of the thread:

I am a pilot, cell phones can work in flight; ...

What kind of planes are you licensed to fly? Are you a commercial pilot? If so, are you as nonplussed as Capt. Sullenberger is about what is happening to pilots' pay?

As we know, Sully, the veteran pilot who pulled off the ditching safely has told Congress his pay has been cut by a whopping 40%. What is happening to your profession, beachnut, if you are a commercial pilot?

Also, if you are a puddle jumper pilot (no disrespect intended, puddle jumper is a nickname for small, single engine planes, right?), do you think you could get behind the wheel of a Boeing 767-57 and fly it at maximum speed at 1000ft above ground and hit the WTC? I understand most experienced 767 pilots who have commented on the skill level they saw on teevee, assuming what they saw was real, have indicated they could not do that; let alone do the manuver that the Pentagon pilot is said to have pulled off. Any comment beachnut?

The exercise on 911 helped the military response.

Yours is a very radical declaration, given the fact that in the common myth, 3 of 4 hijacked jetliners hit their mythical targets, including the Pentagon, no less, and one had to be diverted, not by military action, but by brave passengers. That is what the common myth holds. Thus, the common myth postulatess a complete, total and near onto absolute military failure.

Earth to beachnut: How in the heck did "(t)he exercise on 911 help...the military response" pray tell?

"we have some planes" was clearly one of the terrorists who keyed the wrong button and talked to ATC instead of the Passengers on his flight.
How do I know this is true? Because the FAA has a tape and the only plane that failed to check in was 11, and therefore it was 11 and the terrorists who the crew who called their company confirmed.

Oh, the FAA has a tape that it did not destroy, alter or try to withhold? Please source your quoted claims; thanks. Unfortunately for the public, the FAA's actions are so tainted as to render meaningless any attempt to rely on what the FAA says for purposes of proving the common myth.

The FAA did not hide information; that is a lie.

I provided quoted material and sources for the FAA assertions that I made. Merely calling them a "lie" does not refute them. I think your reply is of the emotional variety, but, if you want to source your "lie" declaration, in order to take it out of the emotional realm and to put it into the factual realm, this is your opportunity to do so.

The flight path data is from multiple RADAR systems,

Source your claim and also relate the claim to something of substance. What issue are you addressing, what point are you seeking to advance. You need to calm down a bit, perhaps?

How many calls were from Seat-Back Phones?

Why are you engaging in rhetoric here? If the number of calls made from alleged Seat-back phones is important to you, then you source, post up and allow your claim to be scrutinized.

I know cell phones can work in flight 2001 and before because I am a pilot and I used cell phones in-flight. I have seen people use cell phones in-flight on commercial airlines so your cell phone theory is bogus.

Once again, what kind of pilot are you? I did not place principal reliance on the AK Dewdney study, but I did say that it had not been debunked and is a source. There is controversy, continuing to this day, as to whether or not cell phones could have worked.

Do you here assert that you can claim otherwise with 100% certainty; if so, please prove your claim with something other than your own unilateral declaration, if you can.

If you check the technical literature, the cell phone technical information does not preclude cell phones from working in-flight.

Your summary statement, as quoted above, is inherently ambiguous. The language "does not preclude..." is not definitive and does not provide proof that cell phones could have worked on 9/11, let alone constitute a declaration that they did work. beachnut, you need to calm down and look at this matter reasonably.

You failed this time, but if you study up on the FAA, flight procedures, FBI, RADAR, ATC procedures, cell phones, seat phones, physics, aircraft accidents, and more you may understand 911 eventually. The best you can do is call a fuselage a horse trailer now, so study and gain knowledge. Why do you apologize for terrorists, the murderers who did 911 all by themselves?
8 years of failure.

Thank you for sharing your opinion. You are entitled to it and you are entitled to express your emotional feelings. Furthermore, the entire psyop appartus has been set up so as to encourage Americans to be angry with "terrorists" so your emotional expression is entirely understandable. I have said this many times, now. However, feelings are not facts.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Has anyone considered the possibility that flight 93 was "dustified?"

 

[BigAl]

beachnut,

In the main, your post is too emotional for me to respond to. Plus, I was responding to AW who, I assume, will post up a further reply concerning the substance of the value of the cell phone evidence, its weaknesses, contradictions and the evidence of deception associated with it.

How many people have to tell you that many of the calls were made from in-flight (seatback) phones that are supposed to work in-flight?

How many people have to tell you that cell phones generally work from airplanes in flight.

19 Islamist Arabs lead by bin Laden hijacked 4 planes on 9/11 and crashed them into 3 buildings and a corn field. The amount of eyewitnesses, evidence and forensic analysis that shows this to be a fact is huge. The fact that you are ignorant of any of it is your problem, not ours.

bin Laden declared war on the U.S in 1991 and directed several attacks that killed Americans and other Westerners prior to 9/11.

 

[I Ratant]

"Wallace Miller, the coroner of Somerset County, is one of the first people to arrive at the Flight 93 crash scene. However, he is surprised by the absence of human remains there. He later says, “If you didn’t know, you would have thought no one was on the plane. You would have thought they dropped them off somewhere.”[Longman, 2002, pp. 217]

There was hardly anything left to the people on the plane after impacting hard soil. He did an amazing job using DNA to ID the victims."
.
When the Lockheed Electra lost its wings over Tell City IN, the crater was so deep, that the Lockheed engineers requested that the debris not be disturbed, as everyone on board would be compressed and mashed beyond recovery/identification.
Finding hamburger is common at airplane crash sites. Small bits and pieces.
The body can't withstand all that metal disintegrating around and through it.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

"Wallace Miller, the coroner of Somerset County, is one of the first people to arrive at the Flight 93 crash scene. However, he is surprised by the absence of human remains there. He later says, “If you didn’t know, you would have thought no one was on the plane. You would have thought they dropped them off somewhere.”[Longman, 2002, pp. 217]

There was hardly anything left to the people on the plane after impacting hard soil. He did an amazing job using DNA to ID the victims."
.
When the Lockheed Electra lost its wings over Tell City IN, the crater was so deep, that the Lockheed engineers requested that the debris not be disturbed, as everyone on board would be compressed and mashed beyond recovery/identification.
Finding hamburger is common at airplane crash sites. Small bits and pieces.
The body can't withstand all that metal disintegrating around and through it.

That's why I like teeth because there's DNA trapped inside the teeth. That's why alot of crime scene investigators always look for the teeth for clues.

 

[A W Smith]

AW,

Thanks for taking up my suggestion of going down the cell phone route. You have selected as your source for this crucial issue wtc7lies, a respectable enough, website, one supposes, where it is said to have been put together by the ""The Obi-wan Kenobi of debunkers" or, alternatively, the "The Yoda of 9/11 reality."

OK, one can here anticipate that you will accuse me of moving the goal posts or of demanding perfection by pointing out that your source is just a set of volunteers, collecting and then giving a predetermined perspective on the information, so collected.

poisoning the well logical fallacy noted. Does not matter that Mark Roberts is a "volunteer", Dispute the evidence I posted including the charts, graphs, testimony of the operators or concede. Simple as that.

You next assert, in apparent disregard of your own disdain for perfection in explanation, that the AK Dewdney study has been debunked, therefore it is not good enough.

That is the kind of claim, AW, that does fall within the scope and the meaning of the 'perfection" fallacy. The reason for that is quite simple, say what you will about the AK Dewdney study, the fact remains that in the yar 2001, cell phone technology was not thought of as being capable of connection when one was in the air.

Signal strength was stronger for cell phones in 2001 than it is now. Had you bothered to follow the links to other postings which I hyperlinked to, You would have known that. Also did Dewdcney fly directly over the area in question where the two cell phone calls were transmitrted from? or some area of Canada in a light propeller plane with engines fired by magnetos?

I can here use my own anecdotal experience and say that I never was able to get a signal on a jetliner in that time period and was never able to make a call. Mind you, I am not here putting this anecdote forward as proof of the claim cell phone calls could not have been made, but I am putting it forward, in conjunction with the perfection fallacy, to say that it is a stretch for you to claim, in advance, that the AK Dewdney study has been debunked.

Did you try at 5000 or less feet altitude? Did you notice on the phone call chart and accompanying altitude/time line graph the complete absence of cell phone calls on flight 93 during the minutes of desperation when the plane was at altitude? What would that mean jammonius? Do you suppose they preferred the seat back phones over their cells during a hijacking? Or do you suppose they couldn't get a signal either?

Your assertion in that respect is false. The AK Dewdney study has some merit and can be relied on to cast doubt on the cell phone claim.

no it cannot, And note the highlighted words. go back and read some of my posts to you. Because that's all you have. "Cast doubt" is not evidence of a conspiracy.

I however, choose to place primary reliance on two types of evidence and information in dealing with the cell phone claim:

1--the military exercise part of the equation; and

2--governmental deception in evidence tampering and withholding.

you have no evidence whatsoever of either, just presupposition of a conspiracy which has absolutely no evidence of existence.

1--For me, the importance of the military exercises, including the Vigilant Guardian exercise, is demonstrated by the fact that even high ranking military personnel, in communicating via phone, radio or whatever, openly and candidly admitted they did not know if the persons they were speaking with were communicating real conditions or exercise conditions. You can here take a look at the reported statements of Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins, by way of illustration.

Fog of war in the seconds after they became aware of hijackings, nothing more. After that they knew it wasn't an exercise. This does nothing to cast doubt on the phone calls or radio communications. Point to any exercise where "fake phone calls" were used. You cant.

Thus, we have, right at the outset, this key issue that must be properly understood: Any transmission that is said to involve either a telephone communication or a radio transmission, let alone a recording of one and still less a transcript of one, in the context of 9/11, is tainted by the fact that military war games were going on involving simulated hijackings and involving the transmission of phony conversations.

That is a fact, AW. False communications were taking place.

presupposition again. If not an outright blatant lie on your part. Not a fact. No false communications were taking place. In fact Vigilant guardian had not even got off the ground.

A second example here requires us to use the FL 11 situation. There, the air traffic controllers were said to be listening to hijackers say things like the famous and the 9/11 iconic declaration: "We have some planes." Like the FL93 conversations, that one is iconic and is a linchpin of the 9/11 common version of events.

But, what is less well known is this fact: The air controllers DID NOT know where the conversations were coming from and are not in a position to say that it was coming from FL 11.

And, therein lies the key to any of the cell phone calls: There is no way to know where they were coming from. Once again, the key to the cell phone issue comes right smack back down to the real nitty gritty of 9/11:

Again there were only two cell phone calls. Do you even know how cell phones work? Of course they knew where they came from. they can triangulate to the towers that picked up the calls. Add to that Linda Gronlund's communication of her safe combination to her sister Elsa Strong.

The emotional need to believe the common myth. The cell phones are probably the Ace of Spades of 9/11 because they involve people who are victims, people who are heroes and people who appear to be traceable, by and loarge.

That is powerful stuff. The only problem is, the cell phone calls are a huge assumption and the rules of reason still apply, irrespective of the gigantic emotional tug that the cell phones entail.

Look, let's be candid here. Questioning the cell phones can be interpreted as calling Todd Beamer a liar. I am doing no such thing, posters, so before you go there, just know that if you do that, you are only jerking off emotionally.

I am here pointing to the very severe form of psyop that has been perpetrated upon us. Using people in this way and, perhaps, killing them to boot and making believe they were on phantom jetliners, to boot.

Again presupposition due to the fact you have no evidence whatsoever of a "psyop". You accuse us of using a call to emotion in an attempt to handwave the calls. Are the charts and graphs I posted too emotive to you? Are are you becoming emotionally distressed as you watch your conspiracy claims go down in flames every time I post. Project much?

The cell phone calls still have to be understood in context of the rest of the story. And, the rest of it does not support jetliner hijackings or crashes.

The rest of the evidence (something you don't have for your conspiracy claims)certainly does support the FACT that flight 93 was hijacked 4 AQ terrorists that day. And crashed near shanksville pa.

2--The FAA openly hid information and destroyed tapes, such that if there were contradictions between what the FAA knew and what the story of the cell phones seek to impart, that evidence is gone. The same is true for other types of govenmental deception that includes acknowledgment that the military exercises have not ever been properly explained.

They were covering their butt. nothing more. As far as ATC tapes being destroyed. They were transcribed before destruction. Most unions typically do not allow their members being video or tape recorded during interviews. It is a privacy matter. Had they been taped, recorded and released to the public I have no doubt they would be harassed by the "truth movement" much like the family of Barry Jennings is. And much like you would like to harass Edward Felt.

We only know that there were a lot of them taking place on 9/11, up to 25 and that they involved simulation of hijackings of jetliners and crashing them into buildings. They also involved fake conversations that we know of for certain. What we don't know is the extent of the deception.

Another aspect here is that psyops involving false communications have some limits. False or what are also referred to as "cover stories" can only be released abroad, if I understand the restriction on them correctly. Some aspects of the cell phone story were only introduced via UK media.

Virtually all sourcing for the cell phone story is merely newspapers of some kind. And, while you claim there were 37 cell phone calls from FL 93, the Moussaoui prosecution was only prepared to come forward with claims about 2 of them.

Again I have to point out to you. That only two of them were cell phone calls. The rest were seat back phones.

The flight path data for the 4 9/11 flights that you rely on comes from sources that could have been a part of the simulated exercises for all we know. What we know for certain is that such simulations were taking place. Thus, in the absence of a full and transparent investigation, there can be no confidence that what is claimed about the cell phones or the flight paths, upon which the success of the cell phones depends, is accurate or true.

Again you attempt to interject doubt. You have no evidence of this. As I will tell you repeatedly. Those exercises never got off the ground. You keep trying to use doubt to hand wave off all the evidence that flight 93 was hijacked and crashed with all aboard near shanksvilel pa.

The only thing we know for certain is that when the 9/11 Commission tried to find out what happened, it encountered deception such that the commission's report is not considered by those who prepared it, including most recently, John Farmer, have warned us that the truth of 9/11 hasn't been told.

Finally, the claim tht the "FBI" returned 95% of the jetliner to UA has not ever been documented with any photographic or other evidence. Where is the wreckage of Flight 93, pray tell? Has obe-wan or yoda provided a source for that quintessentially important photographic evidence?

No, AW, your cell phone information is not a slam dunk at all and is not persuasive in terms of reason. The cell phone aspect of the 9/11 myth is, however, one of the most emotionally compelling portions of the myth. I will grant you that much.

Another call to emotion to hand wave off the cell and seat back phone calls. Its getting quite cool and drafty in here with all your hand waving. Because that's all you got, Incredulity, Presupposition, Ignorance, Call to perfection. When we show you that we have the evidence. you struggle to evade or work yourself around it. At this point there is nothing more I can do to cure your ailment. As I am not a professional. I will not ask you why you have these feelings. My only advice is to seek professional help.

 

[aggle-rithm]

beachnut,

In the main, your post is too emotional for me to respond to. Plus, I was responding to AW who, I assume, will post up a further reply concerning the substance of the value of the cell phone evidence, its weaknesses, contradictions and the evidence of deception associated with it.

That said, there a few elements of your post that I can engage with you on, namely, the ones that are not emotionally driven.

I, therefore, respond as follows, as best I can to certain parts of your last post, in the hope of advancing the substance of the thread:



What kind of planes are you licensed to fly? Are you a commercial pilot? If so, are you as nonplussed as Capt. Sullenberger is about what is happening to pilots' pay?

As we know, Sully, the veteran pilot who pulled off the ditching safely has told Congress his pay has been cut by a whopping 40%. What is happening to your profession, beachnut, if you are a commercial pilot?

Also, if you are a puddle jumper pilot (no disrespect intended, puddle jumper is a nickname for small, single engine planes, right?), do you think you could get behind the wheel of a Boeing 767-57 and fly it at maximum speed at 1000ft above ground and hit the WTC? I understand most experienced 767 pilots who have commented on the skill level they saw on teevee, assuming what they saw was real, have indicated they could not do that; let alone do the manuver that the Pentagon pilot is said to have pulled off. Any comment beachnut?




Yours is a very radical declaration, given the fact that in the common myth, 3 of 4 hijacked jetliners hit their mythical targets, including the Pentagon, no less, and one had to be diverted, not by military action, but by brave passengers. That is what the common myth holds. Thus, the common myth postulatess a complete, total and near onto absolute military failure.

Earth to beachnut: How in the heck did "(t)he exercise on 911 help...the military response" pray tell?



Oh, the FAA has a tape that it did not destroy, alter or try to withhold? Please source your quoted claims; thanks. Unfortunately for the public, the FAA's actions are so tainted as to render meaningless any attempt to rely on what the FAA says for purposes of proving the common myth.




I provided quoted material and sources for the FAA assertions that I made. Merely calling them a "lie" does not refute them. I think your reply is of the emotional variety, but, if you want to source your "lie" declaration, in order to take it out of the emotional realm and to put it into the factual realm, this is your opportunity to do so.



Source your claim and also relate the claim to something of substance. What issue are you addressing, what point are you seeking to advance. You need to calm down a bit, perhaps?



Why are you engaging in rhetoric here? If the number of calls made from alleged Seat-back phones is important to you, then you source, post up and allow your claim to be scrutinized.



Once again, what kind of pilot are you? I did not place principal reliance on the AK Dewdney study, but I did say that it had not been debunked and is a source. There is controversy, continuing to this day, as to whether or not cell phones could have worked.

Do you here assert that you can claim otherwise with 100% certainty; if so, please prove your claim with something other than your own unilateral declaration, if you can.



Your summary statement, as quoted above, is inherently ambiguous. The language "does not preclude..." is not definitive and does not provide proof that cell phones could have worked on 9/11, let alone constitute a declaration that they did work. beachnut, you need to calm down and look at this matter reasonably.



Thank you for sharing your opinion. You are entitled to it and you are entitled to express your emotional feelings. Furthermore, the entire psyop appartus has been set up so as to encourage Americans to be angry with "terrorists" so your emotional expression is entirely understandable. I have said this many times, now. However, feelings are not facts.

Wow...all this, and you still are unable to tell us what you believe happened on 9/11.

You believe that only an experienced pilot can circle back and fly a plane into a building. You believe that the FAA has altered and destroyed important evidence. You believe cell phone calls could not be made from the air in 2001. You believe that a "psyop apparatus" exists.

That's what YOU believe. Why should we believe it?

And, how do all these beliefs fit into a coherent narrative about 9/11?

They don't, do they?

That's OK. I hadn't gotten my hopes up.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Who does Jammonius thinks he is? He's no Jedi with all that hand waving.

 

[twinstead]

Well, now I'm getting concerned. Jammonius' hand waving at first was a nice cool breeze in my stuffy house. Now the boy is starting to take some of the wall paper off and just knocked my precious little Chiwiener puppy into the kitchen counter.

Bad boy, Jammonius. Bad.