Loose Change - Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gord_in_Toronto said:
Or you could accept the opinion of your president at the time:

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome. Chapter 19, "A World Transformed", 1998, George H. Bush, Senior

A wise son listens to his father.
Click to expand...

Important points bolded. Bush Snr talks about starting with the UN mandate and then extending it as the US saw fit. This would mean ad hoc planning, which isn't a good idea when it's unecessary and people's lives are on the line.

This is different from planning to remove Saddam from the start, and planning properly for it.
 
Not sure if anyone already did this, but I took the DFDR data from the NTSB info Mike got via FOIA, used the Altitude curves, to determine at what altitude the "Cellphone" calls were made for AA77 and UA93. I only did it for those calls that were not made by airfone, based on the Moussaoui trial evidence, which shows the rest of the calls coming from a particular row, different from the passengers assigned row, and hence, by inference, had to be sent by airfone (how else could they determine what "row" the call came from)...here it is:


Flight AA77
--------------

Caller time duration
-------- ------- ----------
Renee May 9:12:18 158seconds (Altitude=22,500 to 25,000 Feet)
Unknown 9:15:34 102seconds (Altitude=22,500 to 25,000 Feet)
Unknown 9:20:15 274seconds (Altitude=22,500 to 25,000 Feet)
Unknown 9:25:48 159seconds (Altitude=13,000 Feet)
Unknown 9:30:56 260seconds (Altitude=7,000 Feet)


Flight UA93
--------------

Caller time duration
-------- ------- ----------
Edward Felt 9:58:00 unknown (dialed 911) (Altitude=5,500 Feet)


So it seems for at least half these calls, the altitude was under 13,000 Feet, and for the remaining 3, all on AA77, they were not at "Cruising Altitude", but rather, somewhere between 22,500 and 25,000 feet.
 
gumboot said:
which of the following do you agree with?

1) You should be allowed to smoke in public
2) You should be able to pour hazardous waste into public drinking water
3) You should be able to dispense mustard gas in public
4) You should be able to punch people
5) You should be able to kill people
Click to expand...


With regard to 4) and possibly 5), is the person in question called Killtown?
 
which of the following do you agree with?

1) You should be allowed to smoke in public
2) You should be able to pour hazardous waste into public drinking water
3) You should be able to dispense mustard gas in public
4) You should be able to punch people
5) You should be able to kill people
Click to expand...

Sematics, I know! You are able to do the above mentioned. You are not allowed to by law 2-5. Cool?
 
T.A.M. said:
That Killtown Jail/banning thread was like...like...I am having a hard time finding the words to describe it.

It was amazing. I have never seen a group turn on one of its most dedicated like that...I mean that would be like people here forcing Gravy or Gumboot our of here...

I feel guilty for enjoying it. For the first time, I actually feel bad for Killtown.

is the moon full. Am I in an alternate dimension...
Click to expand...

Killtown chalenged the mods, but I know what you mean. I don't think he saw it coming.
 
The hypocracy in that just kills me.

They proclaim that they are all about challenging the govt. Challenging the Authority....yet when one of there own does it...god help him.
 
T.A.M. said:
The hypocracy in that just kills me.

They proclaim that they are all about challenging the govt. Challenging the Authority....yet when one of there own does it...god help him.
Click to expand...

All cults do it. It's hard to keep other prophets from talking to god when you are doing it. Joe Smith wound up banning most of the BoM witnesses. As soon as KT set up his own site he was doomed.
 
MarkyX:

Love the new video. Especially love the "Bars" when you stop the video. If you haven't done so already, feel free to use my calculations above on the altitudes of AA77 and UA93 at the time the "Cellphone" calls were made.

DHR:
so funny, the exact opposite occurs over here at the Debunkers corner. the more sites we create, the more they are embraced, and told to other people.
 
DHR said:
All cults do it. It's hard to keep other prophets from talking to god when you are doing it. Joe Smith wound up banning most of the BoM witnesses. As soon as KT set up his own site he was doomed.
Click to expand...

KT doesnt even have his own site, part of his anonymity, he goes through blogger, geocities, or other peoples sites, never his own
 
T.A.M. said:
Not sure if anyone already did this, but I took the DFDR data from the NTSB info Mike got via FOIA, used the Altitude curves, to determine at what altitude the "Cellphone" calls were made for AA77 and UA93. I only did it for those calls that were not made by airfone, based on the Moussaoui trial evidence, which shows the rest of the calls coming from a particular row, different from the passengers assigned row, and hence, by inference, had to be sent by airfone (how else could they determine what "row" the call came from)...here it is:


Flight AA77
--------------

Caller time duration
-------- ------- ----------
Renee May 9:12:18 158seconds (Altitude=22,500 to 25,000 Feet)
Unknown 9:15:34 102seconds (Altitude=22,500 to 25,000 Feet)
Unknown 9:20:15 274seconds (Altitude=22,500 to 25,000 Feet)
Unknown 9:25:48 159seconds (Altitude=13,000 Feet)
Unknown 9:30:56 260seconds (Altitude=7,000 Feet)


Flight UA93
--------------

Caller time duration
-------- ------- ----------
Edward Felt 9:58:00 unknown (dialed 911) (Altitude=5,500 Feet)


So it seems for at least half these calls, the altitude was under 13,000 Feet, and for the remaining 3, all on AA77, they were not at "Cruising Altitude", but rather, somewhere between 22,500 and 25,000 feet.
Click to expand...

How did you decide the first calls where made from cells? The Ed Felt call is obvious, since he called from the lavatory, but there seems to be some confusion on the others.
 
Okay, nobody liked my audio-doesn't-sync-with-the-video post, but that was just for fun anyway. I thot maybe folks would like my turning LC into a conspiracy theory. I guess I'm no good as a CT-nut. Well, that's a relief, but it would be fun to be able to fake it.

Back to the LC2E video: I can't put a time-stamp on it like I could the Where Are The 200 Passengers references (oh yeah, they got smooshed by all the gold bullion-i love it).

BUT, the narrator, whats-his-face, kept talking about the fire bringing down the towers (leaving out WTC7 for the moment). As I watched that, I kept shrieking (yes, I talk to my computer, don't you?) "Remember the part where TWO FREAKIN' JETS HIT THE DAMN' TOWERS?"

(i don't think that's a rule 8 thing...i thot those were mostly vulgarities...i hope not)

Anyway. They always harp on just the fires. Not the gi-normus projectiles that sliced thru the buildings. And we saw them a heckuva lot clearer than we did the fires.

Have to go back and look at my questions again regarding LC2E, but I think I've exhausted those that have any real viability. I mean, I was just being silly about some of my others. Inspired by Something No Doubt.
 
Last edited:
My decision on those calls, was through lack of proof of airfone usage. All other flights, in the Moussaoui trail flash animation of their evidence, show the phone calls of each person with their seating assignments different than the seat row the calls were placed from.

By inference, I deducted that in order for officials to know the seat row the call was placed from, that they must have called from the airfone in that row.

Edward Felts, in the same evidence, indicates, as he did in his call, that he was calling from the lavatory.

For flight AA77, there were no "Seat Row" references for the phone calls, so I assumed, that they were all by cellphone. they may not have been, but if not, if by airfone, then why not put that into the evidence as they did for the other flights.
 
As well, I only used calls that were connected. There were several "call attempts" that I left out.
 
Jennie C.;

Welcome to the JREF "Loose Change" Skeptics forum. Whether you are a Debunker or a CTer, your opinions will be allowed here, if not accepted.

Your last post was amusing (honestly, no sarcasm), but I failed to see a question in it. When you come up with one, let it rip, I am sure you'll get all the answers you could ask for...and more.
 
T.A.M. said:
My decision on those calls, was through lack of proof of airfone usage. All other flights, in the Moussaoui trail flash animation of their evidence, show the phone calls of each person with their seating assignments different than the seat row the calls were placed from.

By inference, I deducted that in order for officials to know the seat row the call was placed from, that they must have called from the airfone in that row.

Edward Felts, in the same evidence, indicates, as he did in his call, that he was calling from the lavatory.

For flight AA77, there were no "Seat Row" references for the phone calls, so I assumed, that they were all by cellphone. they may not have been, but if not, if by airfone, then why not put that into the evidence as they did for the other flights.
Click to expand...

The two AA flights don't list the seat numbers though, even for the calls we know were made on airfones such as Barbara Olson and the flight attendents. The evidence indicates only a few calls were cell phones, but I am still not convinced which ones, other than Felts. One article on the Moussaoui trial mentioned 2 cell phone calls, 35 airfone. Good work overall though, that pretty much backs up our previous hypothesizing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom