Loose Change - Part III

[Blackadder_no]

Thanks.

Anyone got some good VISUAL evidence I can use to debunk all ten points?

For the cell phone claim, show a picture of an Airfone, along with an advertisement for it (United Airlines has a page about their Airfones).

Also, there's a page at ieee.org with the phrase: "Surprisingly, tests have shown that mobile phones actually work very well in the air."

Would love to post links, but still a number of posts short.

 

[T.A.M.]

MarkyX

You need to go for the jugular man. You've gotta lot of good stuff in there man, but if you wan't to really get to mainstream america, and reveal the truthers for wwhat they are, then use lines like this:

Fade Up:

America, there are people amongst you...

Fade out:

Fade in:

People who claim to be seeking the truth...

Fade out:

Fade in:

But the truth they seek is a mockery to those who died when tragedy struck

Fade out, as screams from the 9/11 crash observers are heard.

Fade out that audio, then fade in the Avery comments...

Just some thoughts...

 

[T.A.M.]

It would be great to haev a big bloated still of Fetzer with his grimace on, and then play some of his most outlandish, hateful audio underneath, and the same for Alex Jones...

 

[T.A.M.]

Here is a good link to grab some audio

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8926416/

It is the 9/11 tapes....

 

[tacodaemon]

As has also been mentioned, flight attendants will tell you how often they have to deal with passengers' cellphones going off midflight. Marky, maybe you should go to this flight attendants' webforum and ask for their opinions on the subject... then you can screenshot some replies and stick them into your video.

 

[MarkyX]

As has also been mentioned, flight attendants will tell you how often they have to deal with passengers' cellphones going off midflight. Marky, maybe you should go to this flight attendants' webforum and ask for their opinions on the subject... then you can screenshot some replies and stick them into your video.

Eek, that's really questionable tactics right there. They can say I faked it or laugh at the idea that I am using a message board as my source.

 

[MarkyX]

It would be great to haev a big bloated still of Fetzer with his grimace on, and then play some of his most outlandish, hateful audio underneath, and the same for Alex Jones...

Got links and the timemark? I can't listen to endless hours of audio just so I can catch a a few minutes of dialog.

 

[T.A.M.]

I am listening to hours of the 911 LA conference now. I am also going to record the "Good Bits" as I find them. I'll let you know.

 

[T.A.M.]

so much bulls&*t, so little time. I'll listen to more over the weekend. Given how much crap he says, I am sure to be able to pull enough out for a great video...lol

 

[Hutch]

Uh, that would be 1940, not 1941 on both dates.

Sorry, had to nitpick

Nit away. I always get 1940 and 1941 mixed up.

Press on.

 

[gumboot]

OK, back to Loose Change....

I thought I had heard about everything, but this one is a new take on it...

Ugh.... bukkaked by stupid should be our new catch phrase...

the national groundstop didnt occur til 9:26, so its conceivable for the flight to still take off before the order got filtered to the base.

Wrong. The National Ground-stop was ordered by Mineta, Secretary of Transport, at 0945. The FAA implemented a few of their own restrictions at 0926.

our valiant c-130 pilots got in their flight gear at andrews and scrambled their C130... propeller driven.. cargo craft.... slowly.. into the sky. it lumbered along like a sailboat in a harbor.....

First. They weren't "scrambled". AA77 wasn't picked up by Dulles until 0932. The C-130 took off at 0925. They were already airbourne.

Second, they've ovbiously not spent much time around C-130's. I have. For about 5 years I lived on RNZAF Base Auckland, which includes 40 Squadron - flying C-130H's. Those things can move. In the Persian Gulf War a C-130H did a barrel role to avoid being hit by a SAM.

Did you know that DC-St Paul takes you RIGHT OVER SHANKSVILLE? at least close enough to see the smoke plume, identify it as crash site, meaning 5-10 miles.

Of course that couldn't POSSIBLY be the reason the C-130 ended up over both crash sites, could it? There must be something sneaky going on.

Why is it that they think evidence supporting a PERFECTLY LOGICAL explanation is somehow further evidence of conspiracy?

Just look at it this way, what are the odds that a C-130 was able to get into the air from Andrews AFB before any jetfighters or attack helicopters AND it witness TWO of the 9/11 crashes?

First let's take a look at Andrews AFB. What combat units are there?

Well, there's two:

121st Fighter Squadron of the 113th Fighter Wing, District of Columbia Air National Guard

and

Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 321 (VMFA-321), Marine Air Guard

So, no attack helicopters, for starters.

So, truely, how did a C-130H get airbourne before squadrons of F-16 fighters and F/A-18 fighters?

Simple. The C-130H took off at 0925, before there was a threat to Washington DC.

The two reserve squadrons were not on duty, however the pilots of those squadrons, on their own initiative, left their regular day jobs, went to the air base, and loaded up their fighters ONCE THEY KNEW ABOUT A THREAT.

At the least, the fact that a C-130, (again max airspeed 345 flying downhill) was able to intercept not ONE but ALMOST TWO of the errant commercial jets that day should prompt a review of the air defense intercept system: forget the F-16s, Rummy. Just scramble the hercules -- just ONE hercules got in front ONE hijacked jets, NEARLY caugtht the other, and that's on a "routine flight home back to Waffle House".

That would be maximum airspeed 379 MPH... and it didn't intercept either aircraft... it was asked to "look around for" AA77. The aircraft happened to by nearby, as as the pilot's testimony indicates, they weren't able to maintain position with AA77 right up to the crash - AA77 pulled ahead because it's faster.

As for UA93 - they arrived AFTER the crash. Not much of an intercept... I mean look at it: speed of interceptor: 336 MPH (cruise). speed of target: 0 MPH (crashed).

-Andrew

 

[gumboot]

Nit away. I always get 1940 and 1941 mixed up.

Press on.

Understandable. They're like... right next to each other...

-Andrew

 

[Kent1]

For the cell phone claim, show a picture of an Airfone, along with an advertisement for it (United Airlines has a page about their Airfones).

Also, there's a page at ieee.org with the phrase: "Surprisingly, tests have shown that mobile phones actually work very well in the air."

Would love to post links, but still a number of posts short.

I have a scanned page, from the AA magazine on In-flight satellite calls.
It talks about credit card instructions and how to make collect calls.
If you want a copy PM me.

Another video I would love to see again is the interviews with the Al-Shehri hijacker family members from Dateline NBC on Sep 25th 2002. What makes it especially interesting is that many CT'ers seem to believe that the brothers are still alive.

 

[kevin]

Uh, that would be 1940, not 1941 on both dates.

Sorry, had to nitpick

Doesn't matter. World War II never happened. Countries could not collapse faster than free fall!

 

[kevin]

I have a scanned page, from the AA magazine on In-flight satellite calls.
It talks about credit card instructions and how to make collect calls.
If you want a copy PM me.

Another video I would love to see again is the interviews with the Al-Shehri hijacker family members from Dateline NBC on Sep 25th 2002.

Anybody been on a plane when someone, who left their phone on, rang? I've left mine on a couple of times but nobody ever called me (no one ever calls me, sniff, sniff.)

 

[Kent1]

Double post..

 

[Kent1]

Anybody been on a plane when someone, who left their phone on, rang? I've left mine on a couple of times but nobody ever called me (no one ever calls me, sniff, sniff.)

A lot of it depends on the type of phone and area. Interestingly enough older cell phones work better, and can work above 35,000 feet

http://www.slate.com/id/1008297/

I should add Mike has a great page on this
http://www.911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html

 

[kevin]

Wrong. The National Ground-stop was ordered by Mineta, Secretary of Transport, at 0945. The FAA implemented a few of their own restrictions at 0926.

I think American Airlines instituted a grounding of it's own planes earlier than the official stop. I remember reading that in one of the reports. Probably the FEMA one.

Man for some reason the whole day just flooded back on me. I flew on the 10th, one day trip there and back to Denver for a meeting. I had the 11th off to get my house appraised so I slept in. When I woke up I heard NPR talking about an explosion at a building and I thought they were doing a retrospective on Oklahoma City. Then they mentioned the world trade center and I thought they were doing a retrospective on the 1993 wtc bombing. I think it took me 10 minutes of half-asleep listening to realize it was a new situation.

I had 2 brothers in New York and checked with my father if he'd heard from them (no, but later both checked in -- one those brothers also owns a house in New Orleans that didn't get flooded. Pretty damn lucky guy!)

I flew again on the 17th (same damn meeting). First time I ever made it to the airport a full 2 hours before take off (took me 10-15 minutes to get through security, 9 minutes longer than the week before). I flew United I think there were 4 of us on the plane. I think one of the attendants knew some of the attendants on the United flight.

 

[gumboot]

I think American Airlines instituted a grounding of it's own planes earlier than the official stop. I remember reading that in one of the reports. Probably the FEMA one.

Yup, there were gradual restrictions - starting, IIRC, with Newark and Logan Airports (where UA175, UA93 and AA11 took off from).

-Andrew

 

[JamesB]

Ugh.... bukkaked by stupid should be our new catch phrase...




Wrong. The National Ground-stop was ordered by Mineta, Secretary of Transport, at 0945. The FAA implemented a few of their own restrictions at 0926.




First. They weren't "scrambled". AA77 wasn't picked up by Dulles until 0932. The C-130 took off at 0925. They were already airbourne.

Second, they've ovbiously not spent much time around C-130's. I have. For about 5 years I lived on RNZAF Base Auckland, which includes 40 Squadron - flying C-130H's. Those things can move. In the Persian Gulf War a C-130H did a barrel role to avoid being hit by a SAM.




Of course that couldn't POSSIBLY be the reason the C-130 ended up over both crash sites, could it? There must be something sneaky going on.

Why is it that they think evidence supporting a PERFECTLY LOGICAL explanation is somehow further evidence of conspiracy?




First let's take a look at Andrews AFB. What combat units are there?

Well, there's two:

121st Fighter Squadron of the 113th Fighter Wing, District of Columbia Air National Guard

and

Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 321 (VMFA-321), Marine Air Guard

So, no attack helicopters, for starters.

So, truely, how did a C-130H get airbourne before squadrons of F-16 fighters and F/A-18 fighters?

Simple. The C-130H took off at 0925, before there was a threat to Washington DC.

The two reserve squadrons were not on duty, however the pilots of those squadrons, on their own initiative, left their regular day jobs, went to the air base, and loaded up their fighters ONCE THEY KNEW ABOUT A THREAT.





That would be maximum airspeed 379 MPH... and it didn't intercept either aircraft... it was asked to "look around for" AA77. The aircraft happened to by nearby, as as the pilot's testimony indicates, they weren't able to maintain position with AA77 right up to the crash - AA77 pulled ahead because it's faster.

As for UA93 - they arrived AFTER the crash. Not much of an intercept... I mean look at it: speed of interceptor: 336 MPH (cruise). speed of target: 0 MPH (crashed).

-Andrew

What the hell would you do with an attack helicoptor? Strafe the Pentagon?