Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Research _ Questions: The Passengers, Cell Phone Calls, And Plane Swapping.

Posted by: EagleEye Jan 14 2014, 11:20 PM

Hi all,

I've recently come across what i think is the best researched and the hardest hitting of the 9/11 documentaries, which includes a number of clips from P4T's vids and which references the material here.

Here it is

"September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" - Full version (1/3)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk

In it, towards the end of that segment they discuss the numerous cell phone calls that the public record tried to cover up, unsuccessfully, as you'll see in the video - where they tried to alter the narrative, to say that they were all via air phones, when that was clearly not the case.

Since there can be no cell phone coverage, in 2001 and not even now, in 2014 - at the altitudes and aircraft speeds referenced (for contiguous coverage from tower to tower) - then the calls can only have been made, from the ground.


In Operation Northwoods the passengers disembarked from the swapped plane at an army base i believe.

QUESTION #1)

Would there have been adequate time, giving the timing of those calls, which must have been made from the ground at a stationary location - for the original flights to have radar swapped with modified drone aircraft, and then landed, in order for those calls to have been made from passengers aboard the originating flights - or -

QUESTION #2)

must those passengers have remained grounded the whole time, where the swap took place at the level of the airport tarmac... and could THAT be done and if so, how?


You'll note in those calls, that the recipient indicated very clear and crisp reception with no background noise - and the "narrative" offered in the calls themselves seemed contrived and almost acted out.

This raises a very horrible image of innocent people reading scripts under duress, or a false pretense -but the last lady at the very end of the video, I tell you when you listen to it, it will give you chills...

The way she delivered it... and then at the end when she fumbles with the phone before saying goodbye, her voice cracking in emotion only at the end of her "delivery" - the whisper... oh God.

Please help me to understand this element, if the people were "handled" before they even took off, or only after they landed - because those calls could not have been made from altitude at 500mph. That's a fact.

Thank you.


EageEye

Posted by: EagleEye Jan 15 2014, 12:18 AM

I described the last call referenced in the documentary incorrectly

i said

[The way she delivered it... and then at the end when she fumbles with the phone before saying goodbye, her voice cracking in emotion only at the end of her "delivery" - the whisper... oh God. ]

well..just listen to it, i meant after she said good-bye her voice cracking only at the very end, in the goodbye, with the delivery of the 'bad news' about being on a hijacked plane as if she didn't have a concern in the world, and then the fumbling and... the whisper... "it's a frame"..

Those sons of bitches had these people calling from their cell phones, on the ground and saying their good byes, while also reporting certain bits of information, delivered in almost every case in a very contrived manner - to help build "the narrative".

That's infuriating!


Those calls were not "faked". They were made - from the ground.

Posted by: MikeR Jan 15 2014, 12:27 AM

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 15 2014, 03:20 PM) *
Hi all,

I've recently come across what i think is the best researched and the hardest hitting of the 9/11 documentaries, which includes a number of clips from P4T's vids and which references the material here.

Here it is

"September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" - Full version (1/3)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk

Please help me to understand this element, if the people were "handled" before they even took off, or only after they landed - because those calls could not have been made from altitude at 500mph. That's a fact.

Thank you.
EageEye


You can understand ANY element of 9/11 when and ONLY when you are finally able
to get your head round one simple fact: ALL 4 PLANES WERE FAKED

Before I get screamed off the topic, if not off the forum, please note I did NOT say FAKE. I said FAKED.

To illustrate: the Pentagon plane WAS no doubt a real airplane, but it was not flying Route AA77
... the official website recorded the fact Route AA77 was canceled on 9/11/2001...
so the Pentagon plane was a decoy... I bet a few pilot readers will have strong views
on whether the pilot of the Airforce Transport plane was a crack ace fighter pilot
or a cracked trainee with more balls than brain....but it must take courage to skim
the roof of the most heavily-guarded building in the world, especially with
the Military Magician scrutinizing you... although you didn't know till later that
the MM was totally distracted with complete dismay that the Navy Seals'
dynamite charges failed dismally and left the building totally intact


AA11 was also officially CANCELED ... as recorded on the BTS website
UA175 officially left the tarmac.... but never landed
UA93 likewise, officially never landed....
that is government info. I could NOT make up such info even if I tried

Yes, your cell phone calls were also ALL FAKED.

But not necessarily FAKE blink.gif

Posted by: EagleEye Jan 15 2014, 12:57 AM

QUOTE (MikeR @ Jan 14 2014, 08:27 PM) *
You can understand ANY element of 9/11 when and ONLY when you are finally able
to get your head round one simple fact: ALL 4 PLANES WERE FAKED

Before I get screamed off the topic, if not off the forum, please note I did NOT say FAKE. I said FAKED.

To illustrate: the Pentagon plane WAS no doubt a real airplane, but it was not flying Route AA77
... the official website recorded the fact Route AA77 was canceled on 9/11/2001...
so the Pentagon plane was a decoy... I bet a few pilot readers will have strong views
on whether the pilot of the Airforce Transport plane was a crack ace fighter pilot
or a cracked trainee with more balls than brain....but it must take courage to skim
the roof of the most heavily-guarded building in the world, especially with
the Military Magician scrutinizing you... although you didn't know till later that
the MM was totally distracted with complete dismay that the Navy Seals'
dynamite charges failed dismally and left the building totally intact


AA11 was also officially CANCELED ... as recorded on the BTS website
UA175 officially left the tarmac.... but never landed
UA93 likewise, officially never landed....
that is government info. I could NOT make up such info even if I tried

Yes, your cell phone calls were also ALL FAKED.

But not necessarily FAKE blink.gif



Just be careful not to the confuse the issue, or do what i call "feeding the honey pot" wherein the gaps and impossibilities reside, that was woven right into the OP by anticipation ie: conspiracy theories, which try to full the honey pot of impossibility with plausibility, and a whole bifurcation of possible explanations and interpretations.

There were passengers, they disappeared, presumably killed in one way or another.

They made many calls from cell phones that they could not have made, and were thus situated on the ground in a quiet place, to make their call and recite the scripts given them, presumably either under duress, or false pretense or both, that last lady referenced, clearly understanding the nature of her predicament.

Posted by: mainer Jan 15 2014, 09:19 AM

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 14 2014, 11:57 PM) *
Just be careful not to the confuse the issue, or do what i call "feeding the honey pot" wherein the gaps and impossibilities reside, that was woven right into the OP by anticipation ie: conspiracy theories, which try to full the honey pot of impossibility with plausibility, and a whole bifurcation of possible explanations and interpretations.

There were passengers, they disappeared, presumably killed in one way or another.

They made many calls from cell phones that they could not have made, and were thus situated on the ground in a quiet place, to make their call and recite the scripts given them, presumably either under duress, or false pretense or both, that last lady referenced, clearly understanding the nature of her predicament.


FWIW, it isn't necessary for them to have called from anywhere. The technology for voice morphing and caller-id spoofing was well established at that time. I think the idea that calls could be made under duress without any stress showing in their voices (lack of stress was one red flag) is not possible.

It also isn't necessary to assume that (all) the planes were faked, given the navigation environment and remote control work that had been successfully done on such planes prior to that time.

Posted by: EagleEye Jan 15 2014, 12:34 PM

QUOTE (mainer @ Jan 15 2014, 05:19 AM) *
FWIW, it isn't necessary for them to have called from anywhere. The technology for voice morphing and caller-id spoofing was well established at that time. I think the idea that calls could be made under duress without any stress showing in their voices (lack of stress was one red flag) is not possible.

It also isn't necessary to assume that (all) the planes were faked, given the navigation environment and remote control work that had been successfully done on such planes prior to that time.


I'm presuming that that the wheels off time is a known, for the original aircraft.

I should have pointed out for the call i referenced, with the lady whispering at the end of the call after fumbling with the phone, "it's a frame"... that that recording is available because it was a voicemail message left on an answering machine, and indeed it's very revealing for those with discernment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk

No voicemorphing is needed.

It's clear that the calls were made, and that they were made, almost all of them if not all of them from cell phones allegedly from high altitude at high speed, which was utterly impossible - therefore the calls were made from the GROUND.

Furthermore if the people were under duress and/or operating under a false premise and pretense (who knows what they were told or led to believe), then the lack of apparent stress could be explained, which makes less sense if they really were on a hijacked aircraft.

The calls also had a "canned" and scripted quality to them, as if the people making the calls were reading from a script, plus the info being offered in those calls indicates that they were offering information designed to help generate the appropriate narrative in each case ie: number of hijackers, etc. or with flight attendant Betty Ong "i see buildings, i see water"..

My question involves when these people these alleged passengers might have been herded, on the ground wherefrom the calls were obviously made, whether after disembarking, or after landing, OR, from the ground having never actually taken off on any plane, and I was curious about the timeframe windows involved, based on when the calls were made, and the timing of the filghts, post-tackoff whether there would have been sufficient time to do a plane-swap and then land and disembark, or, if the people were handled/herded and whisked away to a ground-based location before even taking off.

The calls were made from their cell phones and it was them, but they were reading bits of info from a script, all of them to a one it would seem.

Watch the end of the 1/3 of the documentary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk

To say instead that the calls were faked using voice morphing technology, although perhaps possible, is what i call "feeding the honey pot" because of it's unnecessary and incredulous nature.

The calls were made, they were made from the ground.

I'm just wondering how that would fit into the timelines for the various "flights" - because we have 175 in the air, apparently, and although i need to watch the video again i believe at least one of the alleged cell phone calls were made from a "passenger" on 175.

The last one in the video - after saying goodbye with her voice cracking in tears, authentically, prior to which she indicated no stress whatsoever - she whispered into the phone "it's a frame"..

In the way they were delivering the script, they seemed to be trying hard to make it seem fake. In other words they were not enthusiastic actors, and again who knows what the false pretense they were given might have been - they might even have been assured that they would see their loved ones again, but that last lady she knew better, understood her situation - you have to listen to it to know what i'm talking about.

Posted by: EagleEye Jan 15 2014, 02:30 PM

I do realize it's been 12 years now, but this cell phone issue, as highlighted in that documentary, is very troubling to me because of the implications involved in regards to innocent people forced to make these calls, from the ground, to their loved ones, reading from scripts to help generate the tear-jerking evocative narrative - which is even more tear jerking within the context of the reality of it.

They were probably told that it was part of an exercise of some kind - but the last lady, will have to watch it again and provide here name and the timeslot in the video, but she apparently knew the score and intentionally offered her delivery in a certain way to help make it clear that the situation wasn't really in accordance with what she was saying or she really would sound panicked.

As to their "handlers" I imagine stone-faced CIA military types, offering these people false precepts as to their situation and/or threats, to them, to the others also caught in the "sting" or "frame" and/or their family members, whatever was used to get them to cooperate and deliver their allotted scripts - which they delivered roboticly, like bad actors, which seems to me to demonstrate that they were begrudgingly cooperative.

How sad - how infuriating!

Posted by: realitycheck77 Jan 15 2014, 04:17 PM

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 15 2014, 01:30 PM) *
I do realize it's been 12 years now, but this cell phone issue, as highlighted in that documentary, is very troubling to me because of the implications involved in regards to innocent people forced to make these calls, from the ground, to their loved ones, reading from scripts to help generate the tear-jerking evocative narrative - which is even more tear jerking within the context of the reality of it.

They were probably told that it was part of an exercise of some kind - but the last lady, will have to watch it again and provide here name and the timeslot in the video, but she apparently knew the score and intentionally offered her delivery in a certain way to help make it clear that the situation wasn't really in accordance with what she was saying or she really would sound panicked.

As to their "handlers" I imagine stone-faced CIA military types, offering these people false precepts as to their situation and/or threats, to them, to the others also caught in the "sting" or "frame" and/or their family members, whatever was used to get them to cooperate and deliver their allotted scripts - which they delivered roboticly, like bad actors, which seems to me to demonstrate that they were begrudgingly cooperative.

How sad - how infuriating!


Could you tell me what is so unbelievable about the idea of a group of people buying tickets on a number of planes departing around the same time one morning and hijacking them?

Posted by: EagleEye Jan 15 2014, 05:27 PM

QUOTE (realitycheck77 @ Jan 15 2014, 12:17 PM) *
Could you tell me what is so unbelievable about the idea of a group of people buying tickets on a number of planes departing around the same time one morning and hijacking them?


I guess you haven't been paying attention..

Try watching the documentary first, and then comment.

The apparently simplest explanation according to a faulty interpretation of Occam's Razor isn't necessarily true when the principal must be applied to all available information and phenomenon under observation.

Posted by: signalfire Jan 15 2014, 05:55 PM

It's been a few months since I read it, but Elias Davidsson's new book 'Hijacking America's Mind on 9/11' covers this in depth.

If I remember correctly, he surmises that the phone calls were all made by people who thought they were playing a part in a military exercise; remember that MANY of the missing passengers were either associated with the military, the Pentagon or the aerospace industry, and would have not thought their requested participation in such an exercise was anomalous prior to 9-11's events.

Certainly the lack of true panic in most of the voices as you would expect, and the downright normalcy being conveyed by some of the flight attendants as they seemed to have all the time in the world to report that 'people have been stabbed' from the back of the plane when they should have been busy with their safety and first aid duties or planning a defense rather than on line for long minutes with headquarters, is suspect.

It's neither here nor there, but I read a fascinating blog entry months ago (wish I'd saved the link) of a man who said his wife was a remote viewer and she was asked to remote view or psychically tie in to the missing passengers not long after 9-11.

She reported back that they were taken off the planes and herded into private areas in the terminals and had their throats slit by people in Mossad or Seal Team style commando gear.

Posted by: CharlesGWright Jan 15 2014, 06:03 PM

QUOTE (signalfire @ Jan 15 2014, 04:55 PM) *
It's neither here nor there, but I read a fascinating blog entry months ago (wish I'd saved the link) of a man who said his wife was a remote viewer and she was asked to remote view or psychically tie in to the missing passengers not long after 9-11.

She reported back that they were taken off the planes and herded into private areas in the terminals and had their throats slit by people in Mossad or Seal Team style commando gear.



REMOTE VIEWING
That is exactly what I was wondering about.
There has got to be a wealth of intel from this source.


Posted by: signalfire Jan 15 2014, 06:38 PM

You'd need to put an RV group on it and then many people wouldn't believe the results anyways. It's like lights in the sky; you can get a blurry picture and everybody says 'so what', or a stunningly detailed picture of a full-blown UFO or alien ship, and people will say, 'it's a fake'.

RV is at best conjecture, no matter how well done the experiment or viewing is.

The idea that the passengers were removed from what were to be remote-controlled flights and thought that they were participating in one of the several military exercises planned that day, and were later eliminated, sure rings true in my mind though.

I keep asking myself, if I was going to pull off this game plan, how would I do it? And the military exercise is an obvious one, planning on eliminating any loose lips, and loose ends, rather immediately.

If you still have questions about what took down the buildings, I would highly recommend reading Jeff Prager's e-magazine available for free on line; he makes a very good case for mini nukes.

http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/jeff-prager-9-11-america-nuked-free-downloadable-ebook

Posted by: EagleEye Jan 15 2014, 06:41 PM

QUOTE (signalfire @ Jan 15 2014, 01:55 PM) *
It's been a few months since I read it, but Elias Davidsson's new book 'Hijacking America's Mind on 9/11' covers this in depth.

If I remember correctly, he surmises that the phone calls were all made by people who thought they were playing a part in a military exercise; remember that MANY of the missing passengers were either associated with the military, the Pentagon or the aerospace industry, and would have not thought their requested participation in such an exercise was anomalous prior to 9-11's events.

Certainly the lack of true panic in most of the voices as you would expect, and the downright normalcy being conveyed by some of the flight attendants as they seemed to have all the time in the world to report that 'people have been stabbed' from the back of the plane when they should have been busy with their safety and first aid duties or planning a defense rather than on line for long minutes with headquarters, is suspect.

It's neither here nor there, but I read a fascinating blog entry months ago (wish I'd saved the link) of a man who said his wife was a remote viewer and she was asked to remote view or psychically tie in to the missing passengers not long after 9-11.

She reported back that they were taken off the planes and herded into private areas in the terminals and had their throats slit by people in Mossad or Seal Team style commando gear.


Good post. Insightful, although it doesn't answer the question, except in terms of the Remote Viewing angle, in regards to whether they were on a plane that radar swapped and then landed.

I was really curious about the timelines and the potential windows of time within which that could take place, but the sense i have, just using intuition, is that the cell phone callers almost certainly remained on the ground.

The lady at the end who whispered at the end of the call, in leaving her voicemail on her hubby's answering machine, "it's a frame" - note how she read the script as if it was nothing, like giving a weather report or something totally mundane, but then broke when saying her last good bye (and then the whisper). She also emphasized HOPE when saying she hoped to see him again, but she seemed to know what was up.

In her case it seemed to me that she was trying to be overly nonchalant about it, to create doubt as to it's reality, and it's much the same with the others as well, as if they maybe had an awareness of their predicament and wished to give such a bad acting performance that it could not be used effectively and seal their fate. Then again you may be right that they just thought they were playing a role in an exercise, but i'm not so sure that they were not under duress of some kind.

In regards to meeting their end, something tells me that instead of anything bloody, they were probably administered a lethal injection and "put to sleep".

I doubt they were given safe passage into a new life under new identities because that could leave too many loose ends, although there are questions regarding Ted Olsen's wife Barbara, and Lisa Beamer's expenditure on a multi-million dollar mansion which she should not have been able to afford even with insurance payments for her husband's passing.

Seems to me that there was so much complexity, and so many potential loose ends, that we might get more than a few deathbed confessions or severe leaks in regards to 9/11 before the day is through..

Posted by: realitycheck77 Jan 15 2014, 06:42 PM

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 15 2014, 04:27 PM) *
I guess you haven't been paying attention..

Try watching the documentary first, and then comment.

The apparently simplest explanation according to a faulty interpretation of Occam's Razor isn't necessarily true when the principal must be applied to all available information and phenomenon under observation.
`

The question was do you find it hard to believe that a group of people could get on a number of different planes departing at around the same time and hijack them. This doesn't involve you or me watching or not watching a documentary, or Occam's anything. It involves asking a simple question and answering it for yourself.

Posted by: EagleEye Jan 15 2014, 06:47 PM

QUOTE (signalfire @ Jan 15 2014, 02:38 PM) *
If you still have questions about what took down the buildings, I would highly recommend reading Jeff Prager's e-magazine available for free on line; he makes a very good case for mini nukes.

http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/jeff-prager-9-11-america-nuked-free-downloadable-ebook


The thread itself is based on the fact that the cell phone calls must have been made from the ground and not at altitude travelling at 500mph - that's a fact.

The rest is speculation, and can inadvertently "feed the honey pot" and for that i'm guilty, because it's an unknown, but i'm curious about what prompted you to post a link in this thread for "mini nukes"..?

The honey pot

"A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or 'dangle' that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association”
– Michael Ruppert, "Crossing the Rubicon," p. 184

Posted by: EagleEye Jan 15 2014, 06:57 PM

QUOTE (realitycheck77 @ Jan 15 2014, 02:42 PM) *
`

The question was do you find it hard to believe that a group of people could get on a number of different planes departing at around the same time and hijack them. This doesn't involve you or me watching or not watching a documentary, or Occam's anything. It involves asking a simple question and answering it for yourself.


The point is there are facts in evidence, in this case - numerous cell phone calls were made that could not have been made unless the calls were made from a ground-based location.

What i meant by Occam's Razor was that it posits that the simplest explanation capable of taking into consideration all known information and phenomenon is the most likely.

Plane speed and performance, controlled flight, piloting, etc. is one issue, covered extensively by P4T, proving that the OS is not true, but so too is this cell phone issue.

The official story is not believable in light of all available information and phenomenon according to Occam's Razor, even though the alternative explanatory hypothesis may seem more "complex", an aspect or element of the operation that can be seen and recognized in hindsight, was actually anticipated and made use of in the most wicked and dastardly of ways.

The whole thing is a psy-op filled with psy-ops and "honey pots" and that's the problem for the "conspiracy theorist" never mind how much maligned the term "conspiracy theory" became, post JFK.

I could make an argument in light of all known facts and phenomenon regarding the 9/11 events, playing the tape back through to the inevitable planning phase, that this very thing played a KEY ROLE ie: that the simplest explanation in accordance with the OS narrative, would be adopted en mass, while every "conspiracy theory" under the sun would bifurcate endlessly around it, thus allowing the OS to become the adopted historical narrative because it's the easiest and simplest to believe, with the alternative left in the domain of the unbelievable, which even if it could be believed, is simply to wicked, too evil, and too heinous to even begin to fathom.

“It is as hard for the good to suspect evil, as it is for the bad to suspect good”

~ Marcus Tullius Cicero quotes (Ancient Roman Lawyer, Writer, Scholar, Orator and Statesman, 106 BC-43 BC)

Posted by: signalfire Jan 15 2014, 07:03 PM

Nothing except that you seem new to the research and I've got an obsessive over 1000 hours in on it now.

The Prager work is the best answer to my biggest question and finally seeing that saved me a lot of time in the end.

I don't think it muddies the waters to go off topic in a given thread; sometimes one thought leads to another and pretty soon, you've solved a nagging problem or put pieces together that seemed unrelated in the beginning.

I've been guilty myself of going down roads that weren't productive (like were there really planes or were they holograms) but you pretty much have to be open to stuff that sounds insane, to then research it and truly rule it out. The knee-jerk debunkers as opposed to true cynics willing to look at the evidence, never get that far in their research. I'm sure we're all here to research and anyone throwing out 'honey pots' will be found out rather quickly.

Posted by: EagleEye Jan 15 2014, 08:08 PM

QUOTE (signalfire @ Jan 15 2014, 03:03 PM) *
Nothing except that you seem new to the research and I've got an obsessive over 1000 hours in on it now.

The Prager work is the best answer to my biggest question and finally seeing that saved me a lot of time in the end.

I don't think it muddies the waters to go off topic in a given thread; sometimes one thought leads to another and pretty soon, you've solved a nagging problem or put pieces together that seemed unrelated in the beginning.

I've been guilty myself of going down roads that weren't productive (like were there really planes or were they holograms) but you pretty much have to be open to stuff that sounds insane, to then research it and truly rule it out. The knee-jerk debunkers as opposed to true cynics willing to look at the evidence, never get that far in their research. I'm sure we're all here to research and anyone throwing out 'honey pots' will be found out rather quickly.


Fair enough.

But what i mean by "honey pots" are those "impossibilities" by necessity thrown or woven right into the operational planning phase itself with the full knowledge, faith and confidence that "conspiracy theories" would arise therein and bifurcate endlessly in and around them.

Take the south tower plane for example, 90 knots over it's Vd flight envelope limitation, for a standard Boeing 767, accelerating after leveling off from it's dive, ACCELERATING, to retain a near sea level speed of over 500 knots in near sea level air density (impossible for standard engines), impacting the building lower down, at an angle across multiple floors, which helps create a suspension of disbelief in regard to the subsequent near free-fall destruction of the towers, first the south tower, hit lower, over multiple floors, and at a higher rate of speed than the north tower, which itself then creates a plausible reason for the north tower to do the same thing about a half hour later - the whole damn thing is a honey pot, you see - and just look at how "crazy" this paragraph that i've just typed appears... with one impossibility after another - whereby any serious analysis of these events and phenomenon generates what can only be described as "conspiracy theories", and theories by far more complex than the simplicity of the OS narrative.

They USED the psy-op of "conspiracy theory" much maligned after the JFK assassination, to make the utterly impossible, actual.

We're IN the honey pot of the 9/11 events, right now - thus it becomes very important to keep our wits about us, and be careful what we feed it and dish out of it. Very careful.

No planes, DEW, holograms, mini nukes, no plane at the Pentagon (now there's the mother of honey pots, because a large Boeing plane was at the scene, but did not impact the wall ie: they might even have used adaptive camouflage technology, which is maybe why the people who viewed the video at that hotel were agog before the FBI came along and took it away), no plane at Shanksville (even though it probably did pretty much bury itself), cell phone calls from jets at 30,000 feet - honey pots everywhere - for "conspiracy theories", relative to which the OS appears the only sane and rational explanation... do you see it do you see what i mean?

The operation RELIED on the honey pot principal, and expected and anticipated "conspiracy theories", and even that's a type of self referential honey pot in so far as there's a conspiracy theory about it, which i've just pointed to, which appears to, to an unwitting OS believer to represent the rantings of a madman with a need to feel important and to make sense of the incomprehensible..

Some i think even recognize this elements and intentionally feed it - people like John Lear and Morgan Reynolds, and Judy Wood, Jim Fetzer, and others..


P.S. I'm not new, been at it since the spring of '02 where the little research group i was a part of generated the research and info for the Loose Change documentary. I don't mean to brag but i think i might have been among the first 1000 to seriously investigate this fiasco, this monstrous and barbaric lie.


Posted by: signalfire Jan 15 2014, 09:34 PM

I'm not even sure anymore what point you're trying to make, unless it's that the farther you go down the rabbit hole, the farther down the rabbit hole you are. Ridicule has always been used to shut up those who would point out the obvious. The term 'conspiracy theorist' is just another form of ridicule. When people call me a 'truther' I like to point out to them that the opposite of 'truther' is 'liar' and ask them what exactly are they so afraid of, if truth is the object of the discussion?

The problem is that we have many questions and few answers, because a proper investigation never happened. We're left with conjecture and 'most likely' scenarios.

I still wonder about the people that automatically dismiss the possibility of mininukes; since these have been in the US arsenal for decades, information about them is readily available unlike Judy Wood's space based (or whatever) weapons, and nukes of small yield and short lived radiation signatures explain ALL the anomalies seen at the time and in the pile and evidence thereafter, especially the sustained heat in the pile for months afterwards and the massive beams that were turned into taffy in a few seconds or less.

Once you see it, you can't unsee it, and Prager's work proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the daughter products of fission were very much present in the dust studied after the fact; it's just a shame that the initial study of the dust was for air toxin hazards and not by people with a training in nuclear physics, and then Steven Jones muddied the waters with his thermite theory, which absolutely does not account for the collapse of the buildings. Thermite is not explosive enough and does not produce enough heat to turn massive beams into twisted slumps, throw hundred ton assemblies hundreds of feet out laterally, much less turn the office contents and concrete floor panels into pyroclastic dust, and 'evaporate' people as reported by a few eyewitnesses.

The reason I celebrate Prager's work is that it gets very little play in the Truth Movement and my fear is that without an honest airing of that possibility, not only will the medical personnel who work with the responders and NYC inhabitants not fully know what medical issues they are dealing with, but it increases by several orders of magnitude the likelihood that 'they' will do it again whenever it suits them. NYC was nuked and of that, there can be no doubt. It's far more important to me than is worrying about why the planes were angled just so, or what the people in the hotel saw on the video tape before it was confiscated.

Thanks for your input but I'm done here; I prefer question and answer sessions that have more of a point to them, rather than some round robin thing. If you are so long to this discussion I wonder about your perseveration on these topics, but of course we all fixate on certain issues.

Posted by: EagleEye Jan 15 2014, 10:41 PM

QUOTE (signalfire @ Jan 15 2014, 05:34 PM) *


No worries, I was just trying to describe the nature of what i call "the honey pot", which, from the POV of the OS believers, represented another kind of trap, and one we all fell into almost to a one, where we've been shaking it off by varying degrees as time passes and the historical data continues to pile up looking back.

As to mini-nukes, I suppose that's possible, especially if the signature was present in the dust, but i don't see it when i look at the video evidence and the phenomenon of destruction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8

However, at the same time it's somewhat hard to explain the central core "eruption" of the buildings purely in terms of conventional explosives, along with the almost complete pulverization of nearly all the building material such that there were no mangled chairs and filing cabinets, etc. etc. left in the pile and no human remains except small splinters of bone fragments, along with the super high temperatures that remained, I can see where you're coming from, and it might indeed be right.

But for the purpose of the "truth movement" as the movement of the truth itself, namely that the OS is a lie and cannot be believed, is it not sufficient merely to prove that the buildings did not really "collapse" from the plane impacts and fire as everyone was led to believe, but must have been demolished in some kind of high precision engineered demolition starting from around the impact areas?

Then, once most everyone can see that clearly for themselves, and the historical record in the court of public opinion reaches the necessary "tipping point" perhaps then the actual method can be explored further.

But you're right that since there was no real investigation, what are we to do but our own independent investigations.

And everyone seems to have a certain focus as you say.

This is the research forum so there's nothing wrong with a little speculation, since the scientific method involves both deductive and inductive methods of reasoning, which requires hypotheses that can then be examined in accordance with all known information, facts and phenomenon.

So please don't get the wrong idea. I'm not ridiculing you for raising your favorite and most celebrated line of inquiry when it comes to examining what really happened on 9/11, I'm just saying that we ought to approach pretty much everything we do and say, research and present, with a certain awareness and understanding as to the nature of what we're trying to represent and explain to the public, as well as others in certain spheres of influence who are watching closely this movement, because of it's unstoppable and inevitable nature, given the great question that the event still poses to this day - just WTF really happened on September 11th, 2001.

Probably about fully HALF the world considers this and asks this question from time to time, particularly in light of things that are connected to 9/11 and are still relevant, like the state of Iraq, Afghanistan, the NSA leaks, TSA groping and uncaring treatment of people flying to and fro who are treated like criminals and like cattle, the militarization of the bureaucracy ie: rise of the police state, loss of privacy and civil liberties - there's much at state and someone it's fallen in no small measure to the 9/11 truth movement researchers to educate the public about that event.

The documentary linked in the OP did I think a very very good job of that, as have the Pilots for 9/11 Truth, as does A&E4911T, not as much John Bursill at 9/11 blogger who thinks he runs the truth movement from down under, and definitely not so much the no planers, and their hero John Lear, no so much Judy Wood and her DEW, and by it's honey pot nature - not those who focus on the lack of evidence at the Pentagon for the impact of a Boeing 757, not because it DID hit the wall of the Pentagon but only because there was a large Boeing at the scene of the crime.

I just think that we need to be careful and AWARE of what we are representing, that's all, where even if it happens to be true, if it's of a highly incredible nature that people have a hard time believing, perhaps it might not be the best thing to be leading with, that's all i'm saying.

But that was my view towards the cell phone calls - until i watched that presentation, and then it became crystal clear to me that those cell phone calls although "faked" were not "fake" at all, but were actually made by the people who owned them, to their loved ones, but from the GROUND, while also reading out scripts given to them, which would help to create the narrative.

I don't know why it is, because I'm aware that they blew up those buildings on the heads of innocent people and brave firemen and rescue workers - but this cell phone thing makes me very ANGRY, especially when i listened to that lady leaving that answering machine message - it made me cry, and then it made me MAD, and I don't usually get mad, even when i hear about the worst atrocities, which make me sad more than anything, because of the sickness of so many in the world. It's probably because this was not just about some crazy asshole who did something to so and so, but career people with credentials and experience, knowledge and awareness, doing these thing to fulfill a POLICY AGENDA, as if serving their country in the process of putting their own countrymen to DEATH, unnecessarily as a pretext to wage unjust war of aggression and then to basically make a POWER GRAB over their dead bodies on the basis of a LIE and a murderous HOAX.

Evil's bad enough when it doesn't know what it's doing - but when it does, then there's hell to pay for any and all who were aware of what they were doing and what they were involved in.

I was willing to try to forgive people like Dick Cheney, believe it or not, until I ran across this video and really processed the magnitude of what they did.

It's unforgivable, and that's not like me to say something like that.

They'd better HOPE to God there is no God, or they're fucked if there is because if there's one that knows all things and sees all things, for him true Justice will be served.


Sorry for rambling, I guess i've kind of killed my own thread, but i needed to get this out and off my chest, because it's the most disturbing thing these cell phone calls that i've come across in all my researching over the years.

EE


Posted by: EagleEye Jan 16 2014, 02:11 AM

QUOTE (MikeR @ Jan 14 2014, 08:27 PM) *
You can understand ANY element of 9/11 when and ONLY when you are finally able
to get your head round one simple fact: ALL 4 PLANES WERE FAKED

Before I get screamed off the topic, if not off the forum, please note I did NOT say FAKE. I said FAKED.

To illustrate: the Pentagon plane WAS no doubt a real airplane, but it was not flying Route AA77
... the official website recorded the fact Route AA77 was canceled on 9/11/2001...
so the Pentagon plane was a decoy... I bet a few pilot readers will have strong views
on whether the pilot of the Airforce Transport plane was a crack ace fighter pilot
or a cracked trainee with more balls than brain....but it must take courage to skim
the roof of the most heavily-guarded building in the world, especially with
the Military Magician scrutinizing you... although you didn't know till later that
the MM was totally distracted with complete dismay that the Navy Seals'
dynamite charges failed dismally and left the building totally intact


AA11 was also officially CANCELED ... as recorded on the BTS website
UA175 officially left the tarmac.... but never landed
UA93 likewise, officially never landed....
that is government info. I could NOT make up such info even if I tried

Yes, your cell phone calls were also ALL FAKED.

But not necessarily FAKE blink.gif



Well, whatever they did with the planes - although i know that there was a 175 in the air reporting with the regular Captain (i presume his identity, then again... how would we know who that was... it's just a voice, so indeed 175 went up for the swap, yet never hijacked, that certainly would make more sense in light of this cell phone evidence.

So you're right, about faking things, including the premise, but not the actual call, of the cell phones, from the ground.

That's got to be, next to aircraft speeds, including "flight 175" - THE most damning, and horrific, of the 9/11 evidence, because the twin towers doing what they did was "unimaginable", but this is personal, the place these people were REALLY calling from.

To create a tear-wrenching narrative.

It's sad alright, but not in the way that the scripters who had the actors act their part, might have ever considered.

The calls cannot be made from high altitude at high speed, now even now, and not on 9/11.

oh God, it's just horrible.

This is by far a worse leak than the Snowden NSA leak regarding domestic spying and a push back against civil liberties, because this is the reason for all that.

And it cannot be denied, beyond a reasonable doubt.

For Sherlock Holmes it would be a no brainer.

This is by far the worst leak and they offered it themselves, in the form of the honey pot, simply because they never imagined for the life of them that we might figure something out that they did not anticipate or presumed to get away with and so it appears that they have, but i don't think so.

The cell phone record is absolutely damning in no uncertain terms for the official story narrative and it's a central part of the narrative itself, you see.

Thus (puffs pipe) we've overcome the honey pot, and demonstrated in incontrovertible terms relative to the official narrative itself, that it's not possible and cannot be believed or accepted, leaving whatever other possibility might remain in terms of the way and the means by which the people were "handled" and presumably silenced to tie up all the loose ends - that lady KNEW it!

Jesus.

This is not good for the official story narrative - the cell phone calls that cannot have taken place unless they took place, from the ground, and a quiet room at that, and not in a plane at all.

Does the United States Government NOT have the power and the capacity to inquire into it's own shenanigans, not publicly, but privately... and integrate the knowledge from what's to be learned - for God's sake and for the sake of the victims, for the sake of truth and justice and what's RIGHT.

My God men what have you wrought?


Lesson learned?

Posted by: Art Jan 16 2014, 07:23 PM

Cell phone records of the 9/11 passengers were obtained in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. The cell phone calls were never made. Many of the relatives of the victims saw the caller ID of the victims on their phones. Deena Burnett saw her husband's number at least three times but the phone company says the calls were never made. Most likely the calls were made in an office somewhere and the caller ID's were spoofed. You can now get the Call Faker app for your phone to spoof calls.

Posted by: NP1Mike Jan 17 2014, 01:55 AM

QUOTE (realitycheck77 @ Jan 15 2014, 05:42 PM) *
`
The question was do you find it hard to believe that a group of people could get on a number of different planes departing at around the same time and hijack them.



I absolutely find it hard to believe!

One set of hijackers to successfully hijack a plane; very unlikely.
Two sets of hijackers to successfully hijack two planes on the same day; most improbable.
Three sets of hijackers to successfully hijack three planes on the same day; laughable.
Four sets of hijackers to successfully hijack four planes on the same day; chances of happening, one in a billion or less.



Posted by: NP1Mike Jan 17 2014, 02:01 AM

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 14 2014, 10:20 PM) *
Hi all,

I've recently come across what i think is the best researched and the hardest hitting of the 9/11 documentaries, which includes a number of clips from P4T's vids and which references the material here.

Here it is

"September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" - Full version (1/3)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk



I was made aware of the video a few months ago and bought a copy.
It is one of the best on the subject of 9/11.

There were only a few items that were new to me in the video, but still, I bought it after viewing online to give to family members.

One of the items I was not aware of was the "It's a frame" comment left on the answering machine.
That certainly was chilling!
And, as pointed out, a smoking gun that definitely slipped by the perps.

The questions you ask can't possibly be answered by anyone. Any answer would involve PURE speculation, so I don't know why you keep asking them.





Posted by: EagleEye Jan 17 2014, 02:56 AM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 16 2014, 10:01 PM) *
I was made aware of the video a few months ago and bought a copy.
It is one of the best on the subject of 9/11.

There were only a few items that were new to me in the video, but still, I bought it after viewing online to give to family members.

One of the items I was not aware of was the "It's a frame" comment left on the answering machine.
That certainly was chilling!
And, as pointed out, a smoking gun that definitely slipped by the perps.

The questions you ask can't possibly be answered by anyone. Any answer would involve PURE speculation, so I don't know why you keep asking them.


You make a good point. i was just curious if these people were ever in the air, and if there was sufficient time to land and disembark in order for those calls to have been made.

Either way, according to the official story, those cell phone calls could not have been, on the whole, taken collectively, from the altitude and speed they were reported to have been made from, and must therefore have been made from the ground, whereby the callers were offering a scripted narrative which was not their actual circumstance.

I was just curious as to the timing and the window of time involved, which may prove that the cell phone "passengers" never took off that day.

Either way, it's incontrovertible evidence when taken as a whole, that their true situation and obvious predicament involved something other than being on the hijacked aircraft at the time the calls were made.

The somewhat "canned" nature of most of the deliveries of certain bits of information in regards to the hijackers, and the situation, further reveals that the scripts these people were giving was for them being done under false pretense, most likely that they were caught up in a military exercise involving "simulated hijackings", which could explain the tone and style of much of that record in regards to the way the story was delivered and relayed which did not seem to be congruent with the real world situation - and then there's that last lady, who's voice broke only at the end in saying what she seemed to understand implicitly was her final goodbye, and then that fumbling with the phone and the whisper - "it's a frame"

Regardless of which planes took off or were swapped, it doesn't matter, you're right.

What it shows though in incontrovertible terms, as far as i can tell, is that the official story is not true at all in this regard and simply cannot be believed, no matter what the implication of the alternative scenario might be, which must include the handling of these people, in a secure location, on the GROUND.

No need to spoof all the caller ID's or to voicemorph every individuals vocal and language patterning, which inadvertently "feeds the honey pot" with unnecessary information, which, in light of what's proven, is entirely superfluous, and what might be though of as not credible, and as pointed out, unnecessary.

In light of new information, and incontrovertible evidence that cannot be denied, why then lay over it layers of unneeded and unnecessary "conspiracy theory" particularly if that theory would be considered by many if not most to be not credible or believable.

We should never cover up, ourselves, what's clear as day, in this case that the calls were made, and were made from the ground, and they were the real people, caught up in what they must have thought to be a military exercise involving simulated hijacked aircraft perhaps with some of them a little more aware and up to speed on the true nature of their situation than others.

So forgetting about the plane swap element, and whether or not they had sufficient time to land, because that's irrelevant to the fact that the calls can only have been placed, on the whole, from the ground - what else can be deduced?

Except for that whisper, none "spilled the beans" or said anything about being part of an exercise and thus not to worry, so one thing that can be deduced is that they were strongly coached on what to say, and what not to say.

One could imagine i suppose a whole serious of psychological frames or pressure points that could have been used without unduly alarming the callers to the point that they would panic and say the wrong thing.

I had also considered that maybe they were collected on an aircraft at the terminal on the ground and then parked. However, the recipients of the calls remarked at how clear the calls were, and the lack of any background noise. Also, if the people were being handled in a group, whether on a grounded plane or in a room, whatever pretense might have been used could be more apt to fall apart if someone panics, or shouts out, or tries to influence the others around them. Therefore, although this may be speculation, as a type of inductive and deductive reasoning, it's probably fair to assume that they were isolated from one another, or at most in the case of flight 93, handled as a small group ie: when Mark Bingham made his famous "let's roll" comment, albeit at the wrong time in terms of the sequencing of events.

It's ok to speculate and generate hypotheses to a degree, until we begin to undermine, unneccesarily, the very facts that we've uncovered and brought to light.


Regards,

EE

Posted by: EagleEye Jan 17 2014, 03:08 AM

i meant Todd Beamer

Posted by: paranoia Jan 17 2014, 03:45 AM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 17 2014, 12:55 AM) *
I absolutely find it hard to believe!

One set of hijackers to successfully hijack a plane; very unlikely.
Two sets of hijackers to successfully hijack two planes on the same day; most improbable.
Three sets of hijackers to successfully hijack three planes on the same day; laughable.
Four sets of hijackers to successfully hijack four planes on the same day; chances of happening, one in a billion or less.


even more astounding is that after allegedly successfully hijacking 4 planes full of millionaires and government and or defense contractor employees (and women, children and other "regular" folks), that you would waste all the leverage their lives could gain you, by simply killing them all and attacking a few "symbolic targets". historically hijackers would land somewhere and make demands in trade for their hostages, so the 9/11 hijackers were the most counterproductive hijackers in the history of hijacking! and speaking of who supposedly committed (and planned and benefitted), how about bin laden? 9/11 was literal suicide for him and his alqaida organization. by 9/12 all shit was in the process of gathering needed logistix for it to hit the fan in afghanistan. bin laden had to go into supposed hiding while in short time troops on the ground and missiles from the air destroyed alqaida and took over their opium network. from top to bottom the official story of 9/11 fails even as fiction, the people supposedly behind it gained nothing but their own doom! awfully short-sighted plan the whole thing turned out to be for bin laden, alqaida, and his 19 arabs...

Posted by: onesliceshort Jan 17 2014, 09:35 AM

QUOTE (paranoia @ Jan 17 2014, 08:45 AM) *
even more astounding is that after allegedly successfully hijacking 4 planes full of millionaires and government and or defense contractor employees (and women, children and other "regular" folks), that you would waste all the leverage their lives could gain you, by simply killing them all and attacking a few "symbolic targets". historically hijackers would land somewhere and make demands in trade for their hostages, so the 9/11 hijackers were the most counterproductive hijackers in the history of hijacking! and speaking of who supposedly committed (and planned and benefitted), how about bin laden? 9/11 was literal suicide for him and his alqaida organization. by 9/12 all shit was in the process of gathering needed logistix for it to hit the fan in afghanistan. bin laden had to go into supposed hiding while in short time troops on the ground and missiles from the air destroyed alqaida and took over their opium network. from top to bottom the official story of 9/11 fails even as fiction, the people supposedly behind it gained nothing but their own doom! awfully short-sighted plan the whole thing turned out to be for bin laden, alqaida, and his 19 arabs...


Hi P!

Add to this the success rate of the "hits" on those symbolic buildings.
If one of those aircraft had skimmed one of the towers and was sprayed all over Manhattan I might have bought that bridge. Or if Hani had slightly misjudged the official turn rate for the "final leg" (if I bought the bridge) of the Pentagon attack, bounced off the lawn or struck Route 27, same thing

And the "success" of these 1000000 to one hits (combined with the luck of having a free run in the skies and a defence supposedly with its thumb up its ass) was celebrated nor claimed by anyone.

If this group was so fanatic and had planned so hard to pull off this spectacular, why no shouting from the rooftops? Why no further attacks and instead we have the FBI setting up "sting" operations to pad the numbers out on the "terrorist threat"? "Sting operations" that make up almost all "terrorist" acts on US soil since 9/11.

Posted by: EagleEye Jan 17 2014, 03:05 PM

QUOTE (Art @ Jan 16 2014, 03:23 PM) *
Cell phone records of the 9/11 passengers were obtained in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. The cell phone calls were never made. Many of the relatives of the victims saw the caller ID of the victims on their phones. Deena Burnett saw her husband's number at least three times but the phone company says the calls were never made. Most likely the calls were made in an office somewhere and the caller ID's were spoofed. You can now get the Call Faker app for your phone to spoof calls.


I you watch the latter part of the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk

you'll see that for the Zacarias Moussaoui, an attempt was made to cover up and mislead in regards to the cell phone calls.

There's no need at all for voice morphing or caller ID spoofing.

Imho, the cell phone record is one of the most damning indictments of the OS, but one of many.

Posted by: nonflier Jan 17 2014, 04:26 PM

EagleEye,
I started watching that again and this time took particular note of the Popular Mechanics claim that cell phones work at cruising altitude. Knowing PM should be saying the opposite, the thought occurred to me that they may be part of mainstream media with the same owners. And a quick check confirmed it: Hearst! (i.e., NWO). So they have zero credibility in my book.

Posted by: EagleEye Jan 17 2014, 06:37 PM

QUOTE (nonflier @ Jan 17 2014, 12:26 PM) *
EagleEye,
I started watching that again and this time took particular note of the Popular Mechanics claim that cell phones work at cruising altitude. Knowing PM should be saying the opposite, the thought occurred to me that they may be part of mainstream media with the same owners. And a quick check confirmed it: Hearst! (i.e., NWO). So they have zero credibility in my book.


Yep. Corporate whores for the elite's sick and twisted 9/11-related agenda. Cowards and liars. Are they aware of it? Probably.

That's why i'm so pleased to see this latest documentary release.

As a movement, this is the one to buy and re-distribute everywhere, without cessation.


Posted by: NP1Mike Jan 18 2014, 12:29 AM

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 17 2014, 01:56 AM) *
Either way, according to the official story, those cell phone calls could not have been, on the whole, taken collectively, from the altitude and speed they were reported to have been made from, and must therefore have been made from the ground, whereby the callers were offering a scripted narrative which was not their actual circumstance.

I was just curious as to the timing and the window of time involved, which may prove that the cell phone "passengers" never took off that day.

Either way, it's incontrovertible evidence when taken as a whole, that their true situation and obvious predicament involved something other than being on the hijacked aircraft at the time the calls were made.


Something still needs to be worked out. Maybe you can take it upon yourself to investigate.

Everyone except Popular Mechanics knows that the cellphone calls could not have been made at the altitude the planes were flying at.

At the 2006 Moussaoui trial, even the FBI confirmed that no cell phone calls were connected from the planes.

So what needs to be resolved is whether the conversations that took place and the answering machine message(s) that were left were made with cell phones, 'seat back' phones or other phones.

Can we safely rule out cellphones from the planes AND on ground? The FBI would have said cell phone calls were connected if they were.

What phones were used to make these calls and how were the numbers of the cell phones displayed on the phones picking up the calls?

It is still somewhat complicated.

But your scenario of on the ground calls makes the most sense, and in a 'forced' setting.







Posted by: NP1Mike Jan 18 2014, 12:37 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 17 2014, 08:35 AM) *
Add to this the success rate of the "hits" on those symbolic buildings....

And the "success" of these 1000000 to one hits (combined with the luck of having a free run in the skies and a defence supposedly with its thumb up its ass) was celebrated nor claimed by anyone.



Yes my one in a billion was just the chances of four successful hijackings taking place in one morning.

When you add the chances of the hijackers actually being able to take the planes off auto-pilot and have the skills to fly the planes successfully into their targets (3 of 4) you get something like one in a trillion.

Add the chances that ALL U.S. defence forces would be AWOL the whole time and you are getting into a virtual 0 possibility, IF LEFT TO CHANCE.




Posted by: Art Jan 18 2014, 01:43 AM

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 17 2014, 03:05 PM) *
I you watch the latter part of the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk

you'll see that for the Zacarias Moussaoui, an attempt was made to cover up and mislead in regards to the cell phone calls.

There's no need at all for voice morphing or caller ID spoofing.

Imho, the cell phone record is one of the most damning indictments of the OS, but one of many.

When I make a cell call, Verizon knows which number I called and for how long. They never miss a call. There were about ten people that saw caller ID on their phones but the phone companies said that there are no records of those calls. (There was one call by Barbara Olsen that lasted zero seconds.) So if the caller ID was not faked, how did the victims relatives see the caller ID without the phone companies knowledge?

Posted by: EagleEye Jan 18 2014, 03:52 AM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 17 2014, 08:29 PM) *
Can we safely rule out cellphones from the planes AND on ground? The FBI would have said cell phone calls were connected if they were.


Um no, they would not, because any admission to that effect brings in every single one of those calls, which cannot have been made from altitude at speed. They knew it was impossible, so an attempt was made to cover it up, as pointed out in the documentary.

They were forced to admit to a couple of them because in one case the guy was in the lavatory where there's no airphone.

Blatant cover up.

Posted by: EagleEye Jan 18 2014, 04:01 AM

QUOTE (Art @ Jan 17 2014, 09:43 PM) *
When I make a cell call, Verizon knows which number I called and for how long. They never miss a call. There were about ten people that saw caller ID on their phones but the phone companies said that there are no records of those calls. (There was one call by Barbara Olsen that lasted zero seconds.) So if the caller ID was not faked, how did the victims relatives see the caller ID without the phone companies knowledge?


Can you provide a cite for that Art, where did you get this info, was it from the Moussaoui trial?

Maybe pressure was applied to the cell phone companies when it was realized that this part of the OS wasn't workable and betrayed this aspect of the operation, and maybe that took place while they were trying to shift the narrative first for the 9/11 Commission Report, and then later the trial of Moussaoui, where the impression they attempted to convey was that all the calls but two were from airphones.

What we're left with are the recipients who say the ID on the call phone accompanied by their loved one's voice offering up the narrative.

There's no need for any ID spoofing or voice morphing to replicate the individuals voice and language patterning, and isn't that just the type of thing that they would want to tangle up the "conspiracy theorists" in...?

Think it through - when they realize the goof they tried to alter the whole record while pointing to air phones being the almost exclusive source of all the phone calls, and i'll betcha when you look into it, one will discover that the only two they claim took place, in spite of all the calls received with ID's, where made at a believable altitude, although from what i can tell watching the documentary - they screwed it all up.

What's the better argument..? What probably most congruent with the truth according to Occam's Razor?

that the ID's were spoofed the voices simulated, or real calls from cell phones on the ground, the people reading narratives as if part of a military exercise of some kind involving "simulated hijacked aircraft", although in at least one case it would appear that the individual making the call and offering up the scripted narrative was well aware of her situation and predicament.

Let's not feed the honey pot, unnecessarily...

Posted by: EagleEye Jan 18 2014, 04:31 AM

Let's watch the segment again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk

which according to the resource listing

http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&artid=167

starts here

1.38:35 - The cellphone calls

-------------


Now, let's think this through for a minute like Sherlock Holmes, no matter what we might have believed at one time about this aspect, even based on extensive research as the case may be.

What's more likely - that the cell phone calls were made, from the ground, as they were, with the appropriate caller ID and PERSON associated with that very phone

- or -

The caller ID's were "spoofed" (which may very well be possible) and the voices of the callers, "simulated" by "voice morphing", including everything about that voice AND language pattern, to create a simulated "clone" of the indivudal.

Now.. (puffs pipe thoughtfully), getting back to the cell phone company or companies (if they reported no calls, so let's assume there's a valid cite for that), as well as the FBI - why on EARTH would they EVER admit for a moment that the bulk of those calls were made from the individual's cell phone?

They cannot.

Therefore, according to the appropriate application of Occam's Razor, although it was seriously hijacked all over the place by the op itself on September 11th, 2001 leaving what i call "honey pots" all over the place for would-be conspiracy theorists or researchers,

The calls were made from the owners of the cell phones from the ground, with a botched cover up (watch the segment again), right there plain as day in the public record, with the one lady delivering the news as if it's nothing, her voice only finally breaking in the final goodbye, and then the whisper.. "it's a frame"

They quite obviously used, to elicit the cooperation of the callers, some sort of pretext or pretense almost certainly a military excercise involving simulated hijacked aircraft with them caught up in it through absolutely no fault of their own, whether they be aerospace civilians who are known entities, or a few regular everyday folk - so they deliver the lines, but are not permitted to tell the truth and that there's nothing to worry about on the part of their loved one as the recipient of that call, under some sort of authority, even by law for example - something, so that they would say only the right things, and not the wrong things in those calls including the one left on the answering machine - and when the people offer up the scripted narrative indeed it sounds canned, or acted out, either in a care free way because they were completely under the "frame" unawares, and bad actors at that, and/or they were simply not the most enthusiastic, having an inkling that by the fact that they cannot say - "but don't worry it's just an exercise" the suspicion that it might indeed be the last call might not be lost on them in the awareness of the frame itself, as scary as that is to consider.

This isn't entire inductive reasoning either wanding aimlessly in the "honey pot" of the unknown, since certain things are known with certainty, from which certain other thing may be deduced from the information contained in the entire data-set.


Posted by: EagleEye Jan 18 2014, 04:44 AM


That's one heck of a conundrum for the authorities.

And there are more than a few people who would WANT for us to feed this honey pot with misinformation.

It's clear as day however and anyone can visit the website of the trial of whathisname Moussoui.

The documentary fills in the gaps, and what we're left with however horrifying, is equally damning to the official story, since the cell phone calls cannot have been made from altitude and can only have come from the ground in some secure location - where the recipients of those calls all report that they were indeed recieved from that individuals cell phone, with they themselves or that particular person on the other end of the line.

Sure the ID's can be spoofed, but why would they be?

Think it through.

The honey pot can compel us to fill it with pore speculation, because it's just too horrific to deal with, when we ought to only escape it's fundamental trap with simple logic and purely deductive reasoning from inductive reasoning.

There's data here, and a story to tell, capable of stopping short of the unknown based solely on the content and origin of those calls.

It's elementary.

Posted by: EagleEye Jan 18 2014, 05:38 AM

According to the documentary the FBI's own files contain the record of the cell phones, as does the public record, with the recipients having received their calls from the person's cell phone with the ID.

This is as damning as every other piece of evidence proving the official story to be a fabrication and a lie.

That it was lied about - is also just as damning, if not even moreso because it reveals - i'm not sure what the legal term is, a guilty motive?

That's terrible, for them.

It's not on us for merely pointing it out.


Posted by: EagleEye Jan 18 2014, 05:49 AM

This is even MORE devastating i think than other interpretive pieces of evidence that run contrary to the official story because this was intrinsic to that story or narrative itself, and is part of the story.

So all we're looking at is a botched cover-up, which because of the attempt to cover up itself, reveals itself as a cover up, when the fact is that the calls came in from their cell phones with ID and that person on the other end of the line clear as day with no background noise of any kind, in almost every case that we are aware of the appropriate scripting delivered like that of a bad actor or utterly unconcerned, as if running down certain points point by point in every case describing the situation and not veering from that central narrative as you would expect with different people reacting to such a terrible situation ie: it wasn't congruent with real world real life - hoaxed, but not a "hoax", no voice morphing or caller ID spoofing needed.

Posted by: NP1Mike Jan 18 2014, 05:53 PM

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 18 2014, 04:49 AM) *
This is even MORE devastating i think than other interpretive pieces of evidence that run contrary to the official story because this was intrinsic to that story or narrative itself, and is part of the story.

So all we're looking at is a botched cover-up, which because of the attempt to cover up itself, reveals itself as a cover up, when the fact is that the calls came in from their cell phones with ID and that person on the other end of the line clear as day with no background noise of any kind, in almost every case that we are...



I concur with your viewpoint, but why is it necessary to repeat your story 5, 6, 7 or more times?

I understood it the first time.

When I read successive posts from a member, I expect to find new information posted. smile.gif


Posted by: EagleEye Jan 18 2014, 10:05 PM

Sorry NP1Mike,

I was typing too much, and in trying to edit, it got screwed up, and i had to split the posts and add more - so it was a combination of rambling too much and not being good with the forum software editing tool.

Posted by: EagleEye Jan 19 2014, 01:07 AM

Update/Summary


additional reference point.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html


After watching the video documentary linked in the OP - "September 11- The New Pearl Harbor", and looking into this a little further, a number of things become clear.

The official story narrative, as it arose out of the events themselves includes a voluminous account of cell phone calls, like a LOT of them, somewhere in the order of 10-15 minimum.

This is established in mainstream media outlet interviews with victim's loved ones, as well as the FBI documentation of their interviews, where the recipients, presumably the vast majority of them, because the distinction of CELL PHONE CALL is clear and distinct, and there would have been confirmation questions posed in that record..

Flight 11 however differs in the sense that the principal call is that of flight attendant Betty Ong who remained on an alleged airphone for something like 23 minutes if memory serves, a call worth listening to in and of itself in terms of what we've touched on here, more than once as the "bad acting" and canned nature of the reporting of status. In this way the cell phone calls are are very similar, and do not wander much in the vast expanse of possibility in terms of the real world reaction/responses one might expect from such people, instead of always reporting the status of the aircraft, like well it could be anything... anything at all, but they're all consistent in the way and manner of the delivery of the descriptive narrative.

The early story, in regards to the use of cell phones by the passengers as repeated through the MSM and recorded and reported by the FBI - is absolutely filled with the understanding and knowledge of the use of cell phones allegedly made from three of the four flights on September 11th, 2001.

The Moussoui trial, omitted ALL but TWO OF THEM, while the 9/11 Commission Report simply added a mix of cell phone calls and air phone calls without specifying which were which - although one ought to comb the report to see how it's been rendered and if there is any verification, on a particular individual basis, of the use of cell phone calls allegedly made from the aircraft.

The OMISSION of the cell phone record by the Moussaoui trial, with the exception of two - is telling, indicating a conscious omission by awareness of the fundamental problem, as well as an attempt to cover almost the whole of the cell phone record up - which is entirely incongruent with the investigation and reporting of the 9/11 Commission, including the FBI interview oral history, which is much more likely to be reliable as a source of what took place when it happened.

That's a problem, right there in and of itself.


I've come to realize that an entire book could be written by some historian about these cell phone calls, looking at the miriad of data points and questions that arise. It could include:

- Total number of alleged cell phone calls

- Listing of all alleged passengers involve.

- Time of calls

- Aircraft for each, including a corresponding synchronized timeline for each call.

- Duration of each call.

- Status of aircraft for each call made in terms of altitude and speed, where possible (when the transponder of the aircraft was not turned off, although estimates can be made based on last known, and the cockpit narratives.

- Cockpit narratives as per the alleged black boxes - timestamps, synchronization with timelines.

- Content of the calls, which could be catagorized in terms of nature of calls and subject matter..

- Quality of calls.

- Number of dropped calls, if any..


Finally - an effort should be made to try to DISCOUNT some of the reported cell phone calls as alleged air phone calls, say where there was no follow up verification by the FBI to clarify and distinguish if it was a cell phone or not - and knock out the unproven, leaving only the remaining to run through the data point grid.

Everyone has presumed that this issue went away a longgg time ago, but that's not true at all, when it was just a matter of Popular Mechanics and James Meigs saying that they can be made flying at 31,000 feet, and above, on the one hand, and various 9/11 sceptics suggesting otoh that there was some sort of fakery or ruse involving caller ID spoofing and voice simulation technology

and so it was forgotten...

Historians when they get their hands on this kind of data, are going to be asking some serious questions about the validity of the OS as anything more than a public myth..

Regards,

EE



Posted by: EagleEye Jan 19 2014, 01:43 AM

Question:

Does anyone know how to obtain the email addresses of all the top 9/11 researchers and writers like David Ray Griffin, Graeme McQueen, etc.?

If so, please send them the link to this thread,

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22548

as well as this one here..

http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread990280/pg1#pid17369451

which deals with the speed of the south tower plane, proving in no uncertain terms that it cannot have been the original flight 175, which took off and reported in - where it might be helpful to do a voice comparison between the reported captain for that flight and the pilot who reported in post wheels off, that would be worth checking... because of what the overall model is suggesting (herding/handling at the airport facility level), where he's not likely to take off with an empty plane, and yet a flight 175 was needed in the air for the swap, which cannot possibly rely on a successful hijacking with boxcutters.. and the there were no images of hijackers even boarding the aircraft. Those guys couldn't cut their way out of a wet paper bag or flown a baby Cessna, so that's out of the question to begin with.



And suggest that they write a new book called maybe something like "9/11 Birds of Prey", dealing with the entire record in regards to the aircraft themselves on the one hand and the cell phone and call record on the other. Such a work would surely peck away at and eat the flesh of Generals as per the book of Revelation with Philip D. Zelikow starring as the false prophet.

Posted by: EagleEye Jan 19 2014, 01:49 AM

2nd link - didn't work

http:// www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread990280/pg1#pid17369451 (remove space after // and enter into url

Posted by: NP1Mike Jan 19 2014, 02:24 AM

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 19 2014, 12:07 AM) *
Update/Summary


additional reference point.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html


After watching the video documentary linked in the OP - "September 11- The New Pearl Harbor", and looking into this a little further, a number of things become clear.

The official story narrative, as it arose out of the events themselves includes a voluminous account of cell phone calls, like a LOT of them, somewhere in the order of 10-15 minimum.


.... Historians when they get their hands on this kind of data, are going to be asking some serious questions about the validity of the OS as anything more than a public myth..

Regards,

EE



Naw....

You're onto something very important.
Why wait for historians?

You are obviously extremely curious and troubled by these revelations.

You've outlined all the key aspects that you feel need studying re; the cell phone calls.

Why don't you be the historian?

I for one would appreciate the time and effort you would put into researching this.

I'd be very curious about the results.



Posted by: EagleEye Jan 19 2014, 02:44 AM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 18 2014, 10:24 PM) *
Naw....

You're onto something very important.
Why wait for historians?

You are obviously extremely curious and troubled by these revelations.

You've outlined all the key aspects that you feel need studying re; the cell phone calls.

Why don't you be the historian?

I for one would appreciate the time and effort you would put into researching this.

I'd be very curious about the results.



I can't write it, don't have the time, the wherwithall or the will, but i will write a letter and send it to David Ray Griffen and Graham McQueen who i respect the most in terms of academics with the ability to fully investigate such a thing and then write a book on it.

It needs a serious fine combed treatment for the purpose of writing a book.


Posted by: EagleEye Jan 19 2014, 02:48 AM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 18 2014, 10:24 PM) *


In the interim Mike, check out this thread which contains my research and presentation in regards to the work and research of P4T as it relates primarily to the south tower plane.

http:// www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread990280/pg1#pid17369451 (remove space after // and enter into url)

I did get KCAS confused with EAS in the beginning, but relative to the data, that's fine, because at 700 feet altitude they are the same, and above that 420 KCAS cannot be exceeded at any other altitude to remain within the outer limit of the flight envelope.

Pay no heed to the location of the thread or the opening ADMIN NOTICE: which actually ends up adding more credibility in the final analysis.

It's tangentially relevant to this thread and something that i thought you might enjoy reading..

Best Regards,

EE

Posted by: MikeR Jan 19 2014, 02:56 AM

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 19 2014, 05:43 PM) *
and yet a flight 175 was needed in the air for the swap



No plane on flight UA175 hit WTC2 .... the plane was FAKED ... why should we devote ANY time
to cell phones which cannot have ANYTHING to do with whatever Directed Energy Weapon
WAS the real device that brought down WTC2 .... and why FGS do we need to place
ANY credence on any phony fictactious passenger swaps...

There was no plane, therefore there were no passengers

Posted by: paulmichael Jan 19 2014, 05:57 AM

QUOTE (MikeR @ Jan 19 2014, 01:56 AM) *
Directed Energy Weapon WAS the real device that brought down WTC2 ....

If directed energy is a possibility, then would it not also be a possibility that some flying object carried a directed energy weapon that was used to zap the external metal framework of the WTC tower thereby weakening that metal just an instant before impact thus allowing that flying object to cut a plane-shaped hole in the side of the tower?

QUOTE (MikeR @ Jan 19 2014, 01:56 AM) *
There was no plane, therefore there were no passengers

In my other recent post entitled, "Does The Tapping Of Chancellor Merkel's Phone Offer Some Insight..., into the Events Surrounding 9/11?" at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22549 , I posited that the people on the passenger lists of flights 11, 77, and 175 were real, all right, but those flights were totally fictitious.

P.M.

Posted by: MikeR Jan 19 2014, 12:14 PM

QUOTE (paulmichael @ Jan 19 2014, 09:57 PM) *
If directed energy is a possibility, then would it not also be a possibility that some flying object carried a directed energy weapon that was used to zap the external metal framework of the WTC tower thereby weakening that metal just an instant before impact thus allowing that flying object to cut a plane-shaped hole in the side of the tower?


Toxic barium-laden chemtrail effects polluting our skies establish that Reagan's Starwars weaponized directed energy is more than a mere "possibility" every damned day of our lives. A flying object could well have carried a DEW to make the hole we saw in the side of WTC1, if it wasn't radar doppler from the mountains of the moon, just as long as we eliminate AA11 from our inquiries

Not only did no curious dog fail to bark in the night as AA11 became a fictactional apocryphal myth on Dubya and Dick's lying lips, but at the exact instant of the appearance of the said hole, a blatant deviation in the whole-earth magnetism was recorded on all six magnetometers 4000 miles away in Alaska. I kid you not.

The object you mention evidently had nothing to do with the pulling Building Seven that Larry said he wasn't flying anywhere near. Pity your flying object wasn't close enough to zap Larry's fat head

QUOTE (paulmichael @ Jan 19 2014, 09:57 PM) *
In my other recent post entitled, "Does The Tapping Of Chancellor Merkel's Phone Offer Some Insight..., into the Events Surrounding 9/11?" at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22549 , I posited that the people on the passenger lists of flights 11, 77, and 175 were real, all right, but those flights were totally fictitious.


I'd hate to be a party-pooper, but there can be zero relevance of cell-phones from/to any Boeing not involved in WTC2 and WTC1 (in that curious order) turning to dust. The cell-phone stuff was a fiarly-fictitious attempt to distract attention from the far-more-difficult question of buildings turning to dust. We don't dare breathe a word about the dustification because any idiot knows for certain "it cannot possible have happened: everybody knows that steel stanchions CANNOT turn to dust"

Yet that question ignores one pesky problem: "everybody" watched in horror as steel turned to dust on telly screens world wide. We all saw with our own eyes 110 stories of skyscraper become a 1000-foot high column of dust in 10 seconds flat

So, why do we find it so damned impossible to admit an all-important fact?

Posted by: EagleEye Jan 19 2014, 05:25 PM

OK, the no planer and DEW theories are OFF-TOPIC, and could be thought of from the "honey pot" perspective to be shameful disinformation intended to distract from the topic at hand.

Plane-shaped holes..? Plane-like objects delivering DEW's? C'mon, get a fricking grip.

I am disgusted by these intrusions in this thread.

FGS what's wrong with some people?!!!

Please do not reply unless you're on topic.

EE

Posted by: NP1Mike Jan 19 2014, 05:59 PM

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 19 2014, 01:44 AM) *
I can't write it, don't have the time, the wherwithall or the will, but i will write a letter and send it to David Ray Griffen and Graham McQueen who i respect the most in terms of academics with the ability to fully investigate such a thing and then write a book on it.

It needs a serious fine combed treatment for the purpose of writing a book.



That's a shame EE.

Personally, I don't think it would be nearly as time-consuming as you make it out to be.
Certainly a book would not be needed to cover the important details that you have outlined earlier in the post.

A few dozen hours of research, sure.
Just get the main points covered and then hand it over to a pro to write a book (if a book is necessary).

BTW I started reading your ATS post that you mentioned and though the material you cover is valid/important, your writing skills leave the reader in a confused trance. sad.gif

Why start off your post with a rambling one paragraph sentence (that doesn't hold together), when two or three sentences at minimum are called for?




Posted by: NP1Mike Jan 19 2014, 06:02 PM

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 19 2014, 04:25 PM) *
OK, the no planer and DEW theories are OFF-TOPIC, and could be thought of from the "honey pot" perspective to be shameful disinformation intended to distract from the topic at hand.

Plane-shaped holes..? Plane-like objects delivering DEW's? C'mon, get a fricking grip.

I am disgusted by these intrusions in this thread.

FGS what's wrong with some people?!!!

Please do not reply unless you're on topic.

EE



+1
Absolutely! You beat me to the punch.

Posted by: EagleEye Jan 19 2014, 11:01 PM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 19 2014, 01:59 PM) *
BTW I started reading your ATS post that you mentioned and though the material you cover is valid/important, your writing skills leave the reader in a confused trance. sad.gif

Why start off your post with a rambling one paragraph sentence (that doesn't hold together), when two or three sentences at minimum are called for?


You're right, i threw it together in a hurry, and i can see that looking back on it.

It's a difficult issue to describe however. Thus since it's hard enough to get one's head around to begin with, better to be concise and clear and not rambling with run-on sentence structure.

Thanks for the feedback.

As to the research i need to bring it to someone else's attention as i don't have the wherwithall to complete the project.

Anyone could do it though, given enough time, but it would also require all the flight path data or whatever we were given by the officials and synchronized timing in relation to the calls which might require some technical prowess in matters of aircraft.

Posted by: NP1Mike Jan 19 2014, 11:16 PM

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 19 2014, 10:01 PM) *
You're right, i threw it together in a hurry, and i can see that looking back on it.

It's a difficult issue to describe however. Thus since it's hard enough to get one's head around to begin with, better to be concise and clear and not rambling with run-on sentence structure.

Thanks for the feedback.


No problem.

QUOTE
As to the research i need to bring it to someone else's attention as i don't have the wherwithall to complete the project.

Anyone could do it though, given enough time, but it would also require all the flight path data or whatever we were given by the officials and synchronized timing in relation to the calls which might require some technical prowess in matters of aircraft.


I think it would be a fascinating project.
There are so many different angles to cover.
Just the OS changing from 10-15 cell phone calls from the planes to none, five years later, is a front page headline news story by itself.


Posted by: EagleEye Jan 20 2014, 03:44 AM

test

south tower plane presentation

www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread990280/pg1#pid17369451

Posted by: EagleEye Jan 20 2014, 04:09 AM

ok i've directed this to fellow 9/11 researchers, hopefully it got through and will be taken up as a point of additional research and investigative inquiry.


One thing to note about the cell phone calls, is in terms of their content, which is of a situational reporting style, to a one. In other words, they're all congruent in regards to helping to fill in the narrative later employed by the 9/11 Commission and then the Moussaoui trial.

That in and of itself is highly in-congruent imho, in terms of what would be expected in the real world where there would be a very diverse range of things being communicated that would not be as concerned with what was going on in terms of the hijackers, the fellow passengers and the status of the flight. Sure mention would be made of that info, but the overall content seems to support the contention that it was by design with the intent of creating the narrative.

Then there's the way it was "read" by CeeCee Lyles for example where she flew through it point by point in a rapid fire nonchalant way, her voice breaking only in the final goodbye with an emphasis on the word HOPE when she said that the hoped she would see her husband again. It was like she was making an indirect appeal to her handlers/captors in a bid to save her life, or that's the way it comes across within the larger context and in reading between the lines even as she might have intended when she said "you have to listen to me carefully".

Betty Ong's 23 min seat-back phone call also has a canned bad acting quality to it, as when she reports "i see buildings, i see water".

Anyway, i sure hope this line of investigation and reporting gets to see the light of day beyond that which is contained in the documentary "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor"..

If someone does take it up - if you could please try to get in a few interviews, or more, with the relevant family members who received those calls.

Best Regards,

EE

Posted by: poppyburner Jan 20 2014, 09:38 AM

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 20 2014, 08:09 AM) *
Betty Ong's 23 min seat-back phone call also has a canned bad acting quality to it, as when she
reports "i see buildings, i see water".


Wasn't that her colleague http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=madeline_(_amy_)_sweeney?

Posted by: NP1Mike Jan 20 2014, 05:00 PM

re: cell phones and there not being any made from the planes etc.

I am just watching an amateur video from 9/11 on the streets of New York.
Guy comments while watching WTC1 burning: "Cell phones don't even work!"

Heck, they didn't even work on the ground, let alone in the air. smile.gif



Posted by: poppyburner Jan 20 2014, 10:23 PM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 20 2014, 09:00 PM) *
...from 9/11 on the streets of New York.
Guy comments while watching WTC1 burning: "Cell phones don't even work!"

Heck, they didn't even work on the ground, let alone in the air. smile.gif


'After the attack, the cell phone network of New York City was rapidly overloaded as traffic
doubled over normal levels. Cell phone traffic also overloaded across the East Coast, leading to
crashes of the cell phone network. Verizon's downtown wire phone service was interrupted for days and weeks
due to cut subscriber cables, and to the 140 West Street exchange being shut for days. Capacity
between Brooklyn and Manhattan was also diminished by cut trunk cables.
'

~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_during_the_September_11_attacks#Victims

Posted by: poppyburner Jan 20 2014, 11:29 PM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 19 2014, 06:24 AM) *
You've outlined all the key aspects that you feel need studying re; the cell phone calls.

Why don't you be the historian?

I for one would appreciate the time and effort you would put into researching this.

I'd be very curious about the results.


This site may interest you:

http://killtown.911review.org/chart.html

Posted by: EagleEye Jan 21 2014, 12:06 AM

QUOTE (poppyburner @ Jan 20 2014, 07:29 PM) *
This site may interest you:

http://killtown.911review.org/chart.html


Wow that's quite the resource - lots of cell phone calls indicated.

I hope to God that someone with the time and the resources and the energy can give this the attention that it deserves as a historical data point.

We also have the alleged FDR and cockpit recordings for 93 and 77 for synchronization with the calls in terms of aircraft status ie: location, speed and altitude.

Posted by: NP1Mike Jan 21 2014, 12:31 AM

QUOTE (poppyburner @ Jan 20 2014, 10:29 PM) *
This site may interest you:

http://killtown.911review.org/chart.html



Thanks Poppy.
Although I don't subscribe to the no-plane theory that killtown espouses, he does have some good info at the link you provided.

No plane for Shanksville? Yes
No plane for Pentagon? Yes.
No plane for WTC1? No.
No plane for WTC2? No.

Please read my post on proof a plane hit WTC2 in the 'Hijackers In Cockpit Before Takeoff?' thread.


Posted by: EagleEye Jan 21 2014, 01:05 AM

No planers are victims of the honey pot, either unwittingly, in the case of "killtown" or knowingly, in the case of John Lear and Morgan Reynolds.

A modified military drone with a hardened structure surely has enough inertia and kinetic energy to break 1/2 inch thick steel, or whatever it's thickness was, even from wing tip to wing tip, as seen in the penetration and holes.

The Pentagon is a type of honey pot by design embedded right into the operation, to minimize damage and loss of life on the one hand and to mess with the "conspiracy theorists" on the other, because a large Boeing was at the scene, according to the eye witness account, but did not impact the wall, and neither was it seen by the cars on the free way surrounding the Pentagon flying over the other side, as those witness would surely have surfaced. And early on - where was the focus of the 9/11 truth movement? In an irreconcilable honey pot of impossibility. Thank God we've moved on from there to the WTC attacks and CD.

Did a plane bury itself in Shanksville in a small crater with wing shapes? It's possible since it was a mine area - but that's just another honey pot to make "conspiracy theorists" appear insane.

We are therefore better off to leave the Pentagon and Shanksville well enough alone - but note how attractive that seems to be for many, as is the no-planer hypothesis in regards to the WTC, which was recorded from every imaginable angle and camera for miles around.

That the research of P4T has attracted the no-planers I think is both disgrace and to be expected.

It requires a strong mind and will to avoid the honey pots of 9/11, but it's a discipline that we would be well served to acquire.

Heck to try to defeat the no-planers, an otherwise decent guy named John Bursill climed into a flight simulator in the middle of the night, flipped the breaker on the overspeed warning and crash logic of the simulator, to basically try to prove that a Boeing 767 can fly at .86 Mach near sea level, never realizing that the Vmo of the Mmo of .86 Mach is 360 knots, where .86 Mach is the max operating limit at 23,000 feet and the max cruising speed at 35,000 feet - so he wasn't even addressing the issue of the Vd/Md in his attempted demonstration!

That's just the kind of thing you get with these apparent impossibilities contained in the 9/11 honey pots, which on the face of them represent another kind of trap for the knee-jerk OS believer, which we almost all of us were at one time, to a person, because after all - who woulda thunk it that the whole thing was an elaborate, murderous HOAX, not because it wasn't real, but in terms of the way it was rendered regarding how it was to be accepted and believed - planes hit, the buildings collapsed, we were attacked!


"A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or 'dangle' that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association” – Michael Ruppert, "Crossing the Rubicon," p. 184

Jim Hoffman of 9/11 Research:
“The idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is easily the most controversial and divisive issue among researchers of the 9/11/01 attacks. Effectively promoted since early 2002, this idea has enjoyed an increasing acceptance in the 9/11 Truth Movement, despite its blatant incompatibility with the extensive body of eyewitness evidence that a 757-like twin-engine jetliner flew into the Pentagon and exploded.”

I say forget the Pentagon, because what probably happened there, was that either an A3 Sky Skywarrior with a projected hologram envelope of some kind swooped in to hit the building, or, in simultaneity with that strike, a large Boeing overflew the wall and then vanished using adaptive camouflage technology, or some weird combination thereof, which might be why the people at the Marriot hotel were absolutely AGOG when watching the video of the strike before the FBI came and took it away, and the same reason that the strike footage has never been released in spite of a multitude of cameras - leaving only a honey pot for "conspiracy theorists".

Screw the Pentagon and Shanksville - and let's look with great discipline at things that can be proven, which brings us to the south tower plane, the impacts with the north and south tower, and then the destruction of the twin towers and building 7, and, as it turns out, this cell phone call issue - which as a type of honey pot when handled incorrectly breads all kind of nonsense, again to feed it with incredulous nonsense or "outrageous conspiracy theories".


Posted by: EagleEye Jan 21 2014, 01:08 AM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 20 2014, 08:31 PM) *
Please read my post on proof a plane hit WTC2 in the 'Hijackers In Cockpit Before Takeoff?' thread.


Very sad you should even have to make that statement around here, imho.

Proof a plane hit WTC2 - is that needed?!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFiEgwLQVJk


Posted by: EagleEye Jan 21 2014, 04:25 AM

The entire cell phone record, taken as a whole and then even whittled down as much as possible, leaves only one conclusion, especially when taken together with a hard listening of flight attendant CeeCee Lyles leaving that message on her husband's answering machine - the calls were made from the ground under conditions of coercion of some sort.

10 cell phone calls were reported at one time for flight 93 alone.

And when they allegedly "stormed the cockpit" with shouts and the sound of breaking dishes and the roller running into a door, they probably thought they were doing so, in the very enactment with the hope of saving their very lives because in theory if you can take the door, then the plane could be flown by instructions from the ground, thus having the opportunity to land. They were told that the WTC had been impacted, by CeeCee Lyle's call, and thus were aware that there was a corresponding real world situation taking place in real life of which their enactment was it's parallel image - thus lending credence to her whisper "it's a frame" at the end of the voicemail message before a fumbling around with the phone intentionally (something she'd be unlikely to do). Her message is as much a directed plea to her captors/handlers on the one hand, and, a message not only to her husband but also, to us, through him or through the message left - to make it clear as to what really happened.

It's right there in the middle of the public record.

She outsmarted them, imho. That's what i see and recognize clearly in that recording, found half way down the wiki page on the right hand side under her name CeeCee Lyles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

Plug in your headphones, turn up the volume and really really listen hard, within the context presented of the entire cell phone record proving that the calls can only have been made from the ground.

This is the worst thing i've ever discovered in all those years of research, and it goes to the very heart of the official story as per the FBI interviews and even the 9/11 Commission Report.

The cell phone calls.

Faked but NOT fake at all - a play, an enactment, to build a narrative, using people as part of some sort of macabre form of "art" by deception.

The people were led to believe that if they could fake it well enough they would save their lives, somehow.

They were all like - it's time to storm the cabin, gotta go, bye.

Then the sounds of people shouting, a couple of dishes breaking and a roller rolling down the isle towards a door.

On the ground.

That's just the most sick and twisted thing imaginable - to create a "heroic" heart wrenching narrative, scripted right into the operation, from the outset, this poor lady the victim of a terrible "frame" or hoax of which she was AWARE that she was being made to participate in. She figured someone might have a heart in listing to her message very carefully, so that she WOULD get to see him again, but she also did it in such a way that embedded straight into the message was the truth of her situation "it's a frame"

LISTEN to it, as painful as it is to do so in light of everything we know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

Posted by: Art Jan 28 2014, 04:23 PM

That's what i see and recognize clearly in that recording, found half way down the wiki page on the right hand side under her name CeeCee Lyles.


"It's a frame." "Sorry."

Posted by: Art Jan 28 2014, 07:13 PM

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 18 2014, 04:01 AM) *
Can you provide a cite for that Art, where did you get this info, was it from the Moussaoui trial?

Maybe pressure was applied to the cell phone companies when it was realized that this part of the OS wasn't workable and betrayed this aspect of the operation, and maybe that took place while they were trying to shift the narrative first for the 9/11 Commission Report, and then later the trial of Moussaoui, where the impression they attempted to convey was that all the calls but two were from airphones.

Now I get it. If the phone companies would have gave the defense the records, they would include the location where the calls were made and that may have been extremely embarrassing to the government.

Posted by: EagleEye Jan 29 2014, 03:12 PM

What's interesting about this aspect I've discovered, is that it actually seems to be among the most compelling and persuasive pieces of evidence, for which the duhbunkers have NOTHING to say.

It's also very personal, where the destruction of the twin towers is more in the realm of unimaginable and unfathomable.

And it cuts right to the very crux of the OS, proving in rather no uncertain terms that people were calling from the ground reading scripts.

As a "honey pot" issue - some people are drawn to it and are compelled for strange reasons i can't fathom to fill it with the wrong type of "fakery" ie: ID spoofing and voice morphing - but that totally misses the point in regards to the "faked" nature of these calls.

Also the cell phone record pulls many if not most or even the entire call record - to the ground.

I'm glad that certain researchers are looking into this - may God watch over and protect them, because this is the kind of thing "they" would kill people over.


This is the best and latest research the 9/11 truth movement has put together regarding the calls, but as far as I know it's mostly content oriented and might not have done the deep research that's required as it relates to the cell phone call record.

Hijacking America's Mind on 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence

http://www.amazon.com/Hijacking-Americas-Mind-11-Counterfeiting/dp/0875869734

Posted by: EagleEye Jan 29 2014, 04:03 PM

QUOTE (Art @ Jan 28 2014, 03:13 PM) *
Now I get it. If the phone companies would have gave the defense the records, they would include the location where the calls were made and that may have been extremely embarrassing to the government.


Bingo. That's right. It would be interesting however, to see the record provided by the phone companies, if any.


Posted by: EagleEye Feb 10 2014, 08:05 PM

Since the phone call record for flight 175 is highly suspect (do the research), then all indication is that the passengers involved in making those calls were doing so from the ground reading scripts, as the cell phone record when taken together on the whole supports, even if only a percentage of calls were made from cell phones, because those calls can only have been made from the ground.

Furthermore, in regards to the time and flight path of flight 175, with the pilot reporting in after wheels off time, which was delayed - it does not appear that there would be enough time for a swap, landing and disembarkation of the passengers, and yet there must have been a swap nevertheless.

Therefore i think it's fair to presume that the passengers were not aboard flight 175 when it took off, and thus that the original flight 175 most certainly was flown by another pilot other than either Captain Victor Saracini or First Officer Michael Horrocks.

To support this model of hypothesis, since we have the recording of flight 175's pilot reporting in, it would be interesting if a researcher could find a recording of Victor Saracini's voice for comparison because i'll bet you dollars to donuts that it's NOT match, and that even though it's over the radio that it would be possible to tell whether or not it's the voice of the same person.

I think those pilots of the originating flights were grounded and where needed alternative pilots took over the Captains chair, who then managed the radar swap only to land at an airbase, but God help them and the pilots who would have flown the remote drone aircraft, because i'll bet they would have been considered potential loose ends in the grand scheme of things and are thus no longer with us themselves.

That might make for a shocking piece of research though if the voice comparison demonstrates that the pilot reporting in from 175 wasn't the pilot he was supposed to be..

just a thought..

Posted by: paulmichael Feb 11 2014, 05:38 PM

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Feb 10 2014, 07:05 PM) *
Since the phone call record for flight 175 is highly suspect (do the research), then all indication is that the passengers involved in making those calls were doing so from the ground reading scripts, as the cell phone record when taken together on the whole supports, even if only a percentage of calls were made from cell phones, because those calls can only have been made from the ground.

New technology — audio avatars.

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Feb 10 2014, 07:05 PM) *
That might make for a shocking piece of research though if the voice comparison demonstrates that the pilot reporting in from 175 wasn't the pilot he was supposed to be..

New technology — audio avatars.

See my prior post: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22553

P.M.

Posted by: NP1Mike Feb 11 2014, 06:37 PM

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Feb 10 2014, 07:05 PM) *
To support this model of hypothesis, since we have the recording of flight 175's pilot reporting in, it would be interesting if a researcher could find a recording of Victor Saracini's voice for comparison because i'll bet you dollars to donuts that it's NOT match, and that even though it's over the radio that it would be possible to tell whether or not it's the voice of the same person.


I for one would be extremely interested in finding out the results of a voice comparison if it could be made.

QUOTE
I think those pilots of the originating flights were grounded and where needed alternative pilots took over the Captains chair, who then managed the radar swap only to land at an airbase, but God help them and the pilots who would have flown the remote drone aircraft, because i'll bet they would have been considered potential loose ends in the grand scheme of things and are thus no longer with us themselves.


I don't follow this part.
I always thought that if a drone was used, it wouldn't be piloted, it would have been remote controlled.


Posted by: NP1Mike Feb 11 2014, 06:58 PM

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 21 2014, 12:05 AM) *
A modified military drone with a hardened structure surely has enough inertia and kinetic energy to break 1/2 inch thick steel, or whatever it's thickness was, even from wing tip to wing tip, as seen in the penetration and holes.


This was something that I and probably most truthers have struggled with for a long time.
How could planes cut through the buildings so easily.
Even if the steel was 'only' 1/2 inch thick, that would still be a tall order.

Logic would dictate that the planes had to have been modified (something that most truthers and the public in general don't ever consider).

But the buildings would have had to have been modified as well (again, something that most truthers and the public in general don't ever consider).

Only recently did I come to the conclusion that the steel wasn't cut through at all by the planes.
Even a modified plane wouldn't have been able to do that.

BUT... with the bolts removed that were holding the columns together (or even removing some steel beams completely) a modified plane could very easily 'cut through' the steel and slide into the building.
All the plane would be doing was pushing the steel beams away (if they were there), NOT slicing through them!

The visual evidence supports this. You will see steel columns keeping the same pattern that existed at installation time. You won't see steel columns sliced up in the middle etc.

QUOTE
... which might be why the people at the Marriot hotel were absolutely AGOG when watching the video of the strike before the FBI came and took it away,


Can you please provide links to testimony of these Marriot witnesses?
I hadn't heard of this before.

Posted by: paulmichael Feb 11 2014, 09:16 PM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 11 2014, 05:58 PM) *
This was something that I and probably most truthers have struggled with for a long time.
How could planes cut through the buildings so easily.
Even if the steel was 'only' 1/2 inch thick, that would still be a tall order.

Well, I didn't want to bring it up, but...

It was not believed that a piece of foam could penetrate the wing of the space shuttle, but experiments with foam being shot at high speed into the wing's material showed that it was, indeed, possible.

A report to this effect can be found at Wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster

It's still hard for me to digest an aluminum plane's ability to penetrate steel to it wing tips especially since I have viewed a video of a test crash of a plane having its wings sheared off by wooden telephone poles.

P.M.

Posted by: EagleEye Feb 17 2014, 05:21 PM

QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 11 2014, 05:16 PM) *
It's still hard for me to digest an aluminum plane's ability to penetrate steel to it wing tips especially since I have viewed a video of a test crash of a plane having its wings sheared off by wooden telephone poles.

P.M.


Check out this thread for a possible solution to that issue, which involves a combination of speed and modifications.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22605

There's no need to enter into the domain of no-planer nonsense which is very unhelpful and discrediting to our movement.

Posted by: EagleEye Feb 17 2014, 05:55 PM

P.S. This is the reason, in part, that i'm not so enamored with the NRPT (no real plane theory).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFiEgwLQVJk

Other reasons would include the impact sites or more specifically the impact holes in the buildings.

I also believe that Morgan Reynolds, and John Lear have an agenda..

Posted by: MikeR Feb 17 2014, 06:06 PM

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Feb 18 2014, 09:21 AM) *
Check out this thread for a possible solution to that issue, which involves a combination of speed and modifications.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22605

There's no need to enter into the domain of no-planer nonsense which is very unhelpful and discrediting to our movement.


What is more unhelpful and movement discrediting than anything I've read in this forum is the fatuous assumption that even a mere-beginner airplane designer/constructor is going to swap 3mm leading edge airfoil aluminum for hardened steel from a WW1 tank shell ... just so that forum surfers can argue idiotic technicalities here online.

If you ever came back down to earth and eliminated all 4 Boeings from your mental equation, you would also eliminate all the evidence that doesn't fit the 9/11 puzzle.

Including cell-phone calls... but I guess admitting that does run the risk of getting back on topic again...

As a matter of curiosity: what was the impact on other evidence of the last time you tried removing the airplanes to see what happens? You have at least attempted the exercise I trust?

I personally have found no evidence that needs an airplane in the picture for an explanation

Posted by: MikeR Feb 17 2014, 06:24 PM

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Feb 18 2014, 09:55 AM) *
P.S. This is the reason, in part, that i'm not so enamored with the NRPT (no real plane theory).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFiEgwLQVJk

Other reasons would include the impact sites or more specifically the impact holes in the buildings.

I also believe that Morgan Reynolds, and John Lear have an agenda..


(1) The impact site in Shanksville was photographed by a Government agency in 1995,
the photograph online for you to check

(2) The impact site at the Pentagon was photographed and videotaped for nearly an hour
before some rogue elements succeeded in getting their gelignite to dry out in the sun long enough
to topple a tiny section of real building. The rest of the hour was a NPSD ... no plane static display.
Nothing happened that wasn't blatant advertising for fire brigandeers to piss off the public.
NO EVIDENCE A PLANE HAD EVEN TOUCHED A BUILDING

(3) The impact site on WTC1 revealed too many dents in sheet aluminum to support Dubya's
apocryphal story about the 19 Arabian Knights chasing the fracking goat

(4) The impact site on WTC2 was rendered utterly implausible by the videos you blindly admire.
Nothing in the still photos taken over the next hour showed any way whatsobloodyever that
anything bigger than a missile could possibly have forced illicit entry into that building, nothing.|

All four planes were pulp fiction.

I also believe that Morgan Reynolds and John Lear have an agenda... as do a sizeable proportion
of US intelligents... an agenda interalia to eliminate dual-citizen Israeli renegades from any US
administration, to get rid of foreign-serving agents placed by nameless higher powers
such as the CIA and M*ss*d


Posted by: EagleEye Feb 17 2014, 06:35 PM

QUOTE (MikeR @ Feb 17 2014, 02:06 PM) *
What is more unhelpful and movement discrediting than anything I've read in this forum is the fatuous assumption that even a mere-beginner airplane designer/constructor is going to swap 3mm leading edge airfoil aluminum for hardened steel from a WW1 tank shell ... just so that forum surfers can argue idiotic technicalities here online.

If you ever came back down to earth and eliminated all 4 Boeings from your mental equation, you would also eliminate all the evidence that doesn't fit the 9/11 puzzle.

Including cell-phone calls... but I guess admitting that does run the risk of getting back on topic again...

As a matter of curiosity: what was the impact on other evidence of the last time you tried removing the airplanes to see what happens? You have at least attempted the exercise I trust?

I personally have found no evidence that needs an airplane in the picture for an explanation


I don't understand the apparent animosity. An airplane was there, and did impact the north and south towers.

What needs to be proven there, is simply that the south tower plane was not and could not have been flight 175, but a swapped in remotely piloted drone (only alternative explanation).

As to the cell phone calls, when taken together as a whole, there's no need for ID spoofing or voice morphing nonsense, but just the record itself which reveals that the calls must have been made from the ground and thus from people reading scripts, almost assuredly under the pretext of simulated hijackings/military exercises.

Otoh, to say that there was no plane even like THERE, in the case of the north and south tower impacts, or that the cell phone calls were faked, not in terms of the content but the calls themselves with voice simulation technology, is not only unnecessary speculation, but yes, high discrediting and very unhelpful.

Also, as to the hardened structure allowing for the plane's speed through to impact, kevlar composites are often used, as in the rebuilt retrofit described for the KC-767 Tanker Transport.

I'm simply presuming that leading wing edges would also have been modified, to allow for greater speed and additional hardness in order to break through the outer steel column. It's just physics.

The key to the scientific method is to come up with hypothesis, test them, and then discard what doesn't work or isn't workable.

Clinging to some sort of pet theory, and then being unwilling to reject it in the face of all information and phenomenon under observation, isn't science.

And neither should there be any sort of contemptuous bias prior to investigation.

The plane was there, it was recorded travelling at certain speeds both by observation and multiple radar returns, and as far as i know there's no such thing as a sound-making hologram that shows up on radar and is capable of making plane shaped holes in buildings, since it's like not really there to begin with.

No planes and holograms have been to a large degree the bane of the 9/11 truth movement and have been used widely as a tool to discredit and thus obscure the truth.

No planes, holograms and voice morphing = unhelpful, and unnecessary.

It's what i call feeding the honey pot - something that people like John Lear and Morgan Reynolds have done knowingly and with conscious awareness because they are very smart men who would know better.

Posted by: NP1Mike Feb 17 2014, 07:01 PM

QUOTE (MikeR @ Feb 17 2014, 05:06 PM) *
If you ever came back down to earth and eliminated all 4 Boeings from your mental equation, you would also eliminate all the evidence that doesn't fit the 9/11 puzzle.

... I personally have found no evidence that needs an airplane in the picture for an explanation


It sure as heck sounds like you are a no-planer.
Are you?
If so, how do you differentiate yourself from Reynolds, Lear et al?


Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 17 2014, 10:32 PM

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Feb 17 2014, 11:35 PM) *
I don't understand the apparent animosity. An airplane was there, and did impact the north and south towers.

What needs to be proven there, is simply that the south tower plane was not and could not have been flight 175, but a swapped in remotely piloted drone (only alternative explanation).

As to the cell phone calls, when taken together as a whole, there's no need for ID spoofing or voice morphing nonsense, but just the record itself which reveals that the calls must have been made from the ground and thus from people reading scripts, almost assuredly under the pretext of simulated hijackings/military exercises.

Otoh, to say that there was no plane even like THERE, in the case of the north and south tower impacts, or that the cell phone calls were faked, not in terms of the content but the calls themselves with voice simulation technology, is not only unnecessary speculation, but yes, high discrediting and very unhelpful.

Also, as to the hardened structure allowing for the plane's speed through to impact, kevlar composites are often used, as in the rebuilt retrofit described for the KC-767 Tanker Transport.

I'm simply presuming that leading wing edges would also have been modified, to allow for greater speed and additional hardness in order to break through the outer steel column. It's just physics.

The key to the scientific method is to come up with hypothesis, test them, and then discard what doesn't work or isn't workable.

Clinging to some sort of pet theory, and then being unwilling to reject it in the face of all information and phenomenon under observation, isn't science.

And neither should there be any sort of contemptuous bias prior to investigation.

The plane was there, it was recorded travelling at certain speeds both by observation and multiple radar returns, and as far as i know there's no such thing as a sound-making hologram that shows up on radar and is capable of making plane shaped holes in buildings, since it's like not really there to begin with.

No planes and holograms have been to a large degree the bane of the 9/11 truth movement and have been used widely as a tool to discredit and thus obscure the truth.

No planes, holograms and voice morphing = unhelpful, and unnecessary.

It's what i call feeding the honey pot - something that people like John Lear and Morgan Reynolds have done knowingly and with conscious awareness because they are very smart men who would know better.


Excellent post.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21992

All four sites were controlled at ground level/close quarters. There were planes at all four sites.

If the north tower had been struck, the south tower half clipped with the remaining aircraft sprayed over Manhattan, and maybe even a partial collapse of one of the towers, I maybe would have bought the bridge.

Or if the Pentagon aircraft had careered along the ground, striking two very sturdy VDOT masts and overhead roadsigns or trees while partially penetrating the building, while the Shankesville site was splayed with aircraft seating, cadavres and a vertical stabilizer, I would also have bought that bridge.

Holograms and a plethora of actors is just as "out there" as three buildings collapsing and two aircraft completely "desintegrating" in three 100% success rate attacks and a propaganda shoot carried out by alleged rooky pilots flying blind while air defenses had their thumbs up their asses.

Posted by: MikeR Feb 18 2014, 04:05 AM

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Feb 18 2014, 10:35 AM) *
I don't understand the apparent animosity. An airplane was there, and did impact the north and south towers.

What needs to be proven there, is simply that the south tower plane was not and could not have been flight 175, but a swapped in remotely piloted drone (only alternative explanation).

As to the cell phone calls, when taken together as a whole, there's no need for ID spoofing or voice morphing nonsense, but just the record itself which reveals that the calls must have been made from the ground and thus from people reading scripts, almost assuredly under the pretext of simulated hijackings/military exercises.

Otoh, to say that there was no plane even like THERE, in the case of the north and south tower impacts, or that the cell phone calls were faked, not in terms of the content but the calls themselves with voice simulation technology, is not only unnecessary speculation, but yes, high discrediting and very unhelpful.

Also, as to the hardened structure allowing for the plane's speed through to impact, kevlar composites are often used, as in the rebuilt retrofit described for the KC-767 Tanker Transport.

I'm simply presuming that leading wing edges would also have been modified, to allow for greater speed and additional hardness in order to break through the outer steel column. It's just physics.

The key to the scientific method is to come up with hypothesis, test them, and then discard what doesn't work or isn't workable.

Clinging to some sort of pet theory, and then being unwilling to reject it in the face of all information and phenomenon under observation, isn't science.

And neither should there be any sort of contemptuous bias prior to investigation.

The plane was there, it was recorded travelling at certain speeds both by observation and multiple radar returns, and as far as i know there's no such thing as a sound-making hologram that shows up on radar and is capable of making plane shaped holes in buildings, since it's like not really there to begin with.

No planes and holograms have been to a large degree the bane of the 9/11 truth movement and have been used widely as a tool to discredit and thus obscure the truth.

No planes, holograms and voice morphing = unhelpful, and unnecessary.

It's what i call feeding the honey pot - something that people like John Lear and Morgan Reynolds have done knowingly and with conscious awareness because they are very smart men who would know better.


No animosity whatever, my friend ...but for you to state with dogmatic certitude that "An airplane was there, and did impact the north and south towers" only goes to show we were all taken in by the fakery.... and how we are too-easily fooled. Your "(only alternative explanation)" is also irrationally dismissive.

I know enough about airplane wing design to be equally dismissive about ANY airplane reinforcing capable of resisting the sort of impact we're up against. You're talking about slicing through a 24" x48" by 2 1/2" box column... any airplane wing-spar of comparable size would anchor the plane to ground level permanently, it would never even roll as far as the beginning of a takeoff runway. ALL airplane designers have the same interminable problem designing ANY airplane: minimizing structural weight.

But why would any perpeTRAITOR (even an idiot as inept as ours clearly was) why would they resort to reinforcing airplane wings way beyond maximum takeoff weight, when there's a totally-believable way of achieving a semi-credible result?

They would simply FAKE THE EVIDENCE.

Which of course is exactly what they did.

QED

The measured speed of the WTC2 faked image was way above disintegration.... way above the maximum speed that would have been possible for any airplane of any comparable type suggested by the fake image.

"far as i know there's no such thing as a sound-making hologram that shows up on radar" ... your qualification leads us to suspect you don't even know for sure that believe holograms actually exist? That's okay... I have a lot to learn myself too pilotfly.gif

There are actual credible examples of holograms to be seen on your favorite video channel. But DO check carefully before seriously considering why the military are NOT about to reveal top-secret technical data about the sort of military holography that might or might not have been deployed on 9/11/01..

Navy Seals will refuse to acknowledge your question... at best they simply will neither confirm nor deny they heard your question. But the resulting evidence which you and I can view on a public website is enough for one of us to acknowledge that holographic projection is more than a passing possibility. My lips are sealed = "that's all I know anyway"

MikeR

PS Testing your theory scientifically makes sense in some cases, but FGS don't try constructing an airplane wing out of 2" nickel-chrome-vanadium howitzer steel plate and see if it cuts box beams faster than thermite... you'll build your braces, but no backers will wear them rolleyes.gif
HINT: test.... DO TEST the no-planes-position in scrupulous detail.... you WILL finally find your answer there.... yes, I scoffed at no-planes.
That was before I found the sharper specs.



Posted by: MikeR Feb 18 2014, 04:15 AM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 18 2014, 11:01 AM) *
It sure as heck sounds like you are a no-planer.
Are you?
If so, how do you differentiate yourself from Reynolds, Lear et al?



I asked "have you ever gone to the trouble of personally testing the no-planes-position?

Until you progress past any possibility that you refuse to check the NPP,
we cannot usefully progress this conversation.

I lived months after 9/11/01 thinking how ridiculous was this no=planes nonsense....
till I realized I hadn't even begun to check, so I may well have some idea of
what causes blockages in peoples perceptions on the topic.

Fortunately, I soon discovered that the Pentagon facade was totally intact for an hour after
the Hollywood fireball... and when I realized that meant absolutely no plane ever hit the building,
I carefully checked the other 3 planes... and found out how they had all been faked.

You CAN do it too.

It ain't rocket science, believe me...and I'm just an architect... laughing1.gif

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 18 2014, 07:18 AM

From my earlier link

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21992

here's the problem (apart from the obvious) with the hologram theory:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21992&view=findpost&p=10804774

Posted by: MikeR Feb 18 2014, 07:50 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 18 2014, 11:18 PM) *
From my earlier link

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21992

here's the problem (apart from the obvious) with the hologram theory:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21992&view=findpost&p=10804774


Just because it's blatantly obvious that the fact that it was a physically impossible that any Boeing
could have been flying route UA175 as shown on endless faked videos does NOT mean any of US
is obliged to include hologrammetry or any other particular alternative explanation. Your brave
and bold attempt to disprove any hologram option alas raises more questions than it provides
answers. I for one do NOT insist on holograms or the like.

It's like the futile argument against Judy's DEW. We do not know what the DEW was...and we have
no more than a hint of an explanation. The military have all the misappropriated power to make sure
we don't find out.... not even at the next 9/11 Commission v 201

But if we all did a bit more homework we can individually come to know that the however-improbable
no-planers are right. THAT realization, unpalatable as it still is to some of us, will eventually tip the balance
in favor of a new Commission.... and a huge line of gallows hanging symbolically over Brooklyn Bridge
...assuming the bridge doesn't actually get bought before then by a Pilotsfor9/11truther. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 18 2014, 09:46 AM

MikeR, read the entire link I gave. There's much more evidence there that people saw an aircraft of some sort strike Tower 2.

There's no way those spineless bastards that I would also like to see swinging on the Brooklyn Bridge would leave their lives in the hands of scores of willing participants in the mass fakery you propose.

Over and out.

Posted by: MikeR Feb 18 2014, 10:19 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 19 2014, 01:46 AM) *
MikeR, read the entire link I gave. There's much more evidence there that people saw an aircraft of some sort strike Tower 2.

There's no way those spineless bastards that I would also like to see swinging on the Brooklyn Bridge would leave their lives in the hands of scores of willing participants in the mass fakery you propose.

Over and out.


Every man and his best friend's next door neighbor saw something they assumed
was what caused the fireballs. Psychology 101... a witness could indeed make a link.

But the videos of WTC2 all show a flying phenomenon which could not possibly have been
UA175 late for an appointment landing at the next airport. The videos lied.

The perpeTRAITOR's incompetent Navy Seals explosive experts failed dismally to do
anything more than break a window in the Pentagon to coincide with the plane arriving ...
and then another posse of minions admitted defeat by stealing all the tapes from cameras
pointing at nothing happened.

Then Shanksville was a disaster in mismanagement of acting, a few turncoat crisis actors
wandering aimlessly for half an hour, in a crater filmed by USGS years before.

How CAN we in all sincerity begin to believe that planes were involved when these fakes
are SO blatantly obvious? Why spend time inventing impossibly-reinforced leading-edge
wings that still won't do what we and flat-earthers so erroneously continue to believe in?

I'll grant you one point: AA77 was NOT the route being flown by the unidentified AirForce troop
transport that flew through the erupting Hollywood fireball, skimming the Pentagon
roof, before hundreds of witnessed realized the plane had indeed shot through.

Posted by: paulmichael Feb 18 2014, 10:47 AM

QUOTE (MikeR @ Feb 18 2014, 09:19 AM) *
Every man and his best friend's next door neighbor saw something they assumed
was what caused the fireballs.


Actually, I cannot recall a single person claiming to have been an on-the-street eyewitness of the strikes on the WTC mentioning fireballs, and this would include suspected shills.

I personally spoke to someone who claimed to have been riding eastbound in a car on Route 3 in New Jersey in the Secaucus vicinity at the time of at least one of the WTC strikes. He further claimed to have witnessed the strike(s). I asked him, "Did you witness the fireballs that were depicted on T.V.?

His pause was so prolonged that I thought that he went into some kind of a trance with a shocked look on his face. Then, he sheepishly and haltingly said, "Yes, yes, I did."

Was this person credible, or, just like so many others, a victim of the power of suggestion with a false memory?

I can say this much. This guy was reputed to be a certified mental case, and so he was not the best person to interrogate about anything.

P.M.


Posted by: paulmichael Feb 18 2014, 01:33 PM

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Feb 17 2014, 05:35 PM) *
Otoh, to say that there was no plane even like THERE, in the case of the north and south tower impacts, or that the cell phone calls were faked, not in terms of the content but the calls themselves with voice simulation technology, is not only unnecessary speculation, but yes, high discrediting and very unhelpful.


EagleEye, you seem very reluctant to even entertain any no-plane theory.

So, Eagle Eye what do you make of this?

At around the time of the 10th anniversary of 9/11, the television broadcasters did not air a single video depiction of planes approaching and striking the WTC towers even though on 9/11 and for weeks thereafter in 2001 they showed such videos thousands of times ad nauseum.

Why would they apparently censor the airing of such videos 10 years after the fact if there was nothing faked, nothing suspect, nothing controversial about those videos?

The newspapers, around the 10th anniversary of 9/11, however, did carry still shot depictions of planes approaching the WTC towers, but these were so poor that they were obviously "Photoshopped."

On a related note... Around the time of the 10th anniversary of 9/11, the television broadcasters didn't air any videos of the WTC towers becoming undone. They just showed the very last plume of dust arising at street level, even though on 9/11 and for weeks thereafter they showed such videos thousands of times ad nauseum.

Why would they apparently censor the airing of such videos 10 years after the fact if there was nothing suspect, nothing controversial about those videos, like the towers' being reduced to street level at near freefall rates?

P.M.

Posted by: NP1Mike Feb 18 2014, 04:06 PM

QUOTE (MikeR @ Feb 18 2014, 03:15 AM) *
"have you ever gone to the trouble of personally testing the no-planes-position?


Yes I have.


MikeR, the sound that this magical hologram produced; can you enlighten us as to how was it accomplished?
Please be as specific as possible.
Thanks!

Posted by: paulmichael Feb 18 2014, 04:46 PM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 18 2014, 03:06 PM) *
MikeR, the sound that this magical hologram produced; can you enlighten us as to how was it accomplished?
Please be as specific as possible.
Thanks!


I'd like to chime in here.

Please see my prior post at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22157

with emphasis on Obwon's reply #4 which I quote right here:
QUOTE (Obwon @ Aug 24 2012, 12:11 PM) *
Remember the President's jet (Obama) flying low over Staten Island? That prompted many dozens of 911 calls from all around the area.

Now think about a heavy jet, racing at full throttle down the Hudson river. Yet, not a single 911 call from anyone on Riverside Drive. According to the data presented here by P4T, that plane was moving at supersonic speed for over a minute. Back track up the Hudson for 700 feet times 60 seconds. Shouldn't someone have heard a sonic boom at the least? They did hear Captain Scully's jet, land on the Hudson with engines off. That landing generated many dozens of 911 calls.

Like I said, a the recorded speeds the planes were supposed to have hit at, no one on the ground near the towers, would have heard anything until at least a second or two after they hit.


P.M.


Posted by: NP1Mike Feb 18 2014, 06:40 PM

Thank you very much, but I asked MikeR.

Posted by: MikeR Feb 18 2014, 08:16 PM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 19 2014, 08:06 AM) *
Yes I have.


MikeR, the sound that this magical hologram produced; can you enlighten us as to how was it accomplished?
Please be as specific as possible.
Thanks!


Sorry NP1, as I said before... I am NOT specifically proposing a hologram anything....
we don't have anything like enough information.

A Boeing airliner legitimately flying route UA175 could not possibly have been anything
other than a fake of some kind. Ask Richard Hall for more detail,. All MikeR will say
is the no airliner had nothing to do with whatever caused
the ILLUSION of a kite-strike on WTC2

The lie about the Pentagon strike, so obviously a LIE... for me that canceled ANY
chance I'd accept another word Dubya and Cheney ever uttered

You can believe whatever allows you to sleep at night

Einstein never believed an axiom. MikeR doesn't either.

Posted by: MikeR Feb 18 2014, 08:23 PM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 19 2014, 08:06 AM) *
Yes I have.

Thanks!


Are you therefore a closet no-planer in thin disguise?

If not, what it would take for generous, truth-loving Pilot9/11Truthers
to help steer you back on-course?

Posted by: MikeR Feb 18 2014, 08:56 PM

QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 19 2014, 05:33 AM) *
EagleEye, you seem very reluctant to even entertain any no-plane theory.

So, Eagle Eye what do you make of this?


.... or THIS
....showing in-synch versions of regurgitated lies
on each of 4 channels .... right up to the cock-up point
of "fade to black"
pilotfly.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UscCJZaun6A

Problem seems to be that "no-plane theory"
(just like "conspiracy theory") is actually
"no-plane fact"

Posted by: NP1Mike Feb 18 2014, 09:03 PM

QUOTE (MikeR @ Feb 18 2014, 07:16 PM) *
Sorry NP1, as I said before... I am NOT specifically proposing a hologram anything....
we don't have anything like enough information.


Thank goodness for that!
*Mental note - MikeR is not a hologrammer, as of Feb 18, 2014.

QUOTE
A Boeing airliner legitimately flying route UA175 could not possibly have been anything
other than a fake of some kind.


So you don't want to commit do you?
Fake as in:
- fake airplane?
- fake video?
- fake airplane + fake video
- ???


QUOTE
Ask Richard Hall for more detail,.


Oy veh!
You know, a little while ago I respected Hall's work (his work on the modified 767 with a pod).
But then a year or so ago he went off the deep end.
Now he's in the hologram camp and he's a Judy Wood disciple to boot!
I feel for the guy, I really do, because he seems like a nice chap.

QUOTE
All MikeR will say
is the no airliner had nothing to do with whatever caused
the ILLUSION of a kite-strike on WTC2


You're beating around the bush again.
Why don't you just come out and tell us what you feel really happened, instead of
messing around with kites.



Posted by: NP1Mike Feb 18 2014, 09:07 PM

QUOTE (MikeR @ Feb 18 2014, 07:23 PM) *
Are you therefore a closet no-planer in thin disguise?

If not, what it would take for generous, truth-loving Pilot9/11Truthers
to help steer you back on-course?



No MikeR, I'm sorry to inform you the 'NP' in my forum name (NP1Mike) does not stand for 'No Planer', but rather 'Non-Pilot'.

I hope that doesn't ruin your night.



Posted by: EagleEye Feb 18 2014, 11:07 PM

Just look at what the no plane video fakery nonsense has done to this thread, and to the inquiry it was attempting to make.

I don't know if it's unwittingly or knowingly, but it's like an attempt to both cover up, obfuscate and discredit the self evident truth, that that the plane wasn't flight 175, but must have been a highly modified military variant of the Boeing 767.

So they just layer no planer video fakery all over it, and do the devil's bidding, whether knowingly or unwittingly it doesn't matter, it's the same intentionality in the final analysis.

It's like a zealous belief of some kind.

You can even show them the video and photographic record from that day, the holes in the buildings, the fireball, and they'll try to maintain that it was all "faked".

Tell me, how is that helpful to the truth movement as the movement of the truth about what actually took place on September 11, 2001?

So what was it that was speeding through the sky, recorded on radar? - why should i even be asking that question?

Real men will change their mind and admit to their error when it becomes obvious.

What's sad and ridiculous and pathetic is their use of the research and data of P4T to suggest that it proves there was no plane there at all, how deceptive and disingenuous.

The no plane video fakery position is the bane of the 9/11 truth movement and deserves to be ridiculed.


I hereby declare this thread a NO no planer video fakery thread.

Please direct such comments elsewhere and/or start a new thread of your own about that crap. Thanks.

Posted by: EagleEye Feb 18 2014, 11:15 PM

You will note dear reader, that the same no planer people who hijack these threads, when it comes to looking at the cell phone record are the very same people advocating for ID spoofing and voice morphing, when the record itself proves that the calls can only have been made from the ground, thus destroying the official story.

Again, layer on the fakery hypothesis to obfuscate the self evident truth at the heart of the matter.

What a disgrace to the truth and to an honest investigative inquiry!

Posted by: EagleEye Feb 19 2014, 12:09 AM

South Tower Plane Speed Analysis - Pilots for 9/11 Truth Research, Explained.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showforum=8

That's real research, real observations and analysis.

The thread on reddit

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1xlc96/911_proof_in_evidence_that_the_south_tower_plane/

I even made mention of John Lear and Morgan Reynolds, if only they were also paying attention..


Posted by: MikeR Feb 19 2014, 05:05 AM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 19 2014, 01:07 PM) *
No MikeR, I'm sorry to inform you the 'NP' in my forum name (NP1Mike) does not stand for 'No Planer', but rather 'Non-Pilot'.

I hope that doesn't ruin your night.


I am not a Pilot either (I am an airplane designer
but that is irrelevant except I feel qualified to talk
about design weight with dogmatic confidence :-)

We can carry on enjoying the night as friends,
Mike :-)

Posted by: MikeR Feb 19 2014, 05:14 AM

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Feb 19 2014, 04:09 PM) *
South Tower Plane Speed Analysis - Pilots for 9/11 Truth Research, Explained.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showforum=8

That's real research, real observations and analysis.

The thread on reddit

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1xlc96/911_proof_in_evidence_that_the_south_tower_plane/

I even made mention of John Lear and Morgan Reynolds, if only they were also paying attention..


You typed "What it does for certain is to prove that the plane was not and cannot have been UA175, and that's enough"
In essence, I agree. Dunno what is your problem with Morgan or Lear could be, that I can add anything quasi-intelligent.

Posted by: MikeR Feb 19 2014, 05:29 AM

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Feb 19 2014, 03:07 PM) *
"the plane [that] wasn't flight 175, but must have been a highly modified military variant of the Boeing 767."


Call me a short-sighted bigot or whatever... how can you, or why would you, suggest
a highly modified military variant of the Boeing 767 .... when some sort of fakery
is a saner, safer and more boringly-sensible way of achieving a dead-certain result?

The reason the decoy Boeing succeeded overflying the Pentagon was precisely that
there was no practical risk a crack pilot wouldn't complete the flight, and zero
mods were required to the airplane except maybe a Hollywood-fireball-camouflage
paint job

Posted by: MikeR Feb 19 2014, 05:48 AM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 19 2014, 01:03 PM) *
So you don't want to commit do you?
Fake as in:
- fake airplane?
- fake video?
- fake airplane + fake video rolleyes.gif
- ???
You're beating around the bush again.
Why don't you just come out and tell us what you feel really happened, instead of
messing around with kites.


How can you, or why would you, suggest I'm beating around the bush,
when the Bush hissillyself was leading the charge, beating around the Booker schoolkids.

We are never going to have enough information to know what really happened: military secrecy
will make darned sure we never do find out.

Precisely because no US Administration can ever be trusted to attempt
to fool all of the people with another Phony 9/11 Inquisition, the universal need
for a UN Inquiry into a matter of such World Significance means no speculation on
how the Military Magician pulled off the Great 9/11 Illusion is all that helpful.

Once enough people become aware that the 4 planes were faked

Posted by: EagleEye Feb 19 2014, 01:42 PM

QUOTE (MikeR @ Feb 19 2014, 01:29 AM) *
how can you, or why would you, suggest
a highly modified military variant of the Boeing 767 .... when some sort of fakery
is a saner, safer and more boringly-sensible way of achieving a dead-certain result?


No it's not sane or sensible.

Stop feeding the honey pot, it's so unhelpful and discrediting.

Posted by: EagleEye Feb 19 2014, 02:23 PM

QUOTE (MikeR @ Feb 19 2014, 01:48 AM) *
We are never going to have enough information to know what really happened: military secrecy
will make darned sure we never do find out.


You wish.

Knowing that the south tower plane was a modified military variant Boeing 767, and that the buildings were blown up via CD, is all that anyone needs to know.

There are some people however, who would gleefully like to throw a cover of obfuscation and disinfo over that reality..

Whether knowingly or unwittingly they kiss the devil's ass, but because many seem to relish it, with a certain impish glee, it's pretty obvious where they're coming from, and if they are unaware, they should look within to see.

Posted by: paulmichael Feb 19 2014, 02:24 PM

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Feb 18 2014, 10:15 PM) *
You will note dear reader, that the same no planer people who hijack these threads, when it comes to looking at the cell phone record are the very same people advocating for ID spoofing and voice morphing, when the record itself proves that the calls can only have been made from the ground, thus destroying the official story.

Again, layer on the fakery hypothesis to obfuscate the self evident truth at the heart of the matter.

What a disgrace to the truth and to an honest investigative inquiry!


Ah, I am reminded of an old "Matlock" episode in which Matlock said that the Russians were always accusing the U.S. of what the Russians were doing.

P.M.

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 19 2014, 03:04 PM

The "debate" style here is no different from the government loyalist tapdancing and evasion.

Seeing as how none of the NPT advocates have the decency to address any of the valid points made in the link I've continually posted, I'll bring some of it in here.

As for waiving away the modification angle:

QUOTE
Post 4.

The claim that modification of the witnessed aircraft which was travelling well over the structural limitations of a standard transport category Boeing 767 is "impossible"

Rob's response:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804735

My response:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804737

What's the difference in bodyframe between these two 747s?



And

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/images/content/637760main_ED12-0108-07.jpg

This...

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/pb-120417-space-shuttle03.photoblog900.jpg

QUOTE
Weights

Empty: 151,315 lb (68,635 kg)
With main engines: 171,000 lb (77,564 kg)

http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/shuttle_atlantis.pl


QUOTE
The aircraft was extensively modified by Boeing in 1976.[2] Its cabin was stripped, mounting struts added, and the fuselage strengthened; vertical stabilizers were added to the tail to aid stability when the Orbiter was being carried. The avionics and engines were also upgraded, and an escape tunnel system similar to that used on Boeing's first 747 test flights was added. The flight crew escape tunnel system was later removed following the completion of the Approach and Landing Tests (ALT) due to concerns over possible engine ingestion of an escaping crew member

Flying with the additional drag and weight of the Orbiter imposed significant fuel and altitude penalties. The range was reduced to 1,000 nautical miles (1,850 km), compared to an unladen range of 5500 nautical miles (10,100 km),[3] requiring an SCA to stop several times to refuel on a transcontinental flight. The SCA had an altitude ceiling of 15,000 feet and a maximum cruise speed of Mach 0.6 (445mph) with the orbiter attached.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Carrier_Aircraft

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 19 2014, 03:06 PM

How can a fake video or hologram do this?

QUOTE
Post 3.

The claim that the tower didn't budge (and for me personally the nail in the coffin of NPT)

An analysis of Scott Myers' impact video







There's a sway that can only have been caused by a solid object travelling through the tower to cause the movement in that direction.

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 19 2014, 03:09 PM

"Fade to black"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zjrWa6khyY

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 19 2014, 03:13 PM

NPT isn't the only option

QUOTE
Post 7.

My own 2cents on other technology to aid penetration of the building:





Note: I don't agree with the "drone out" claims in this next video as no "exit hole" is visible.



Exit area in question:

http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/7657/exithole2he8.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/nist1-5fd/6-30_wtc2-north-face-exit.jpg


Apparent aircraft "appendage" physical interaction with facade




ASCE gif of facade damage showing this interaction:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aJeegFsC3nY/RzjE83XnsHI/AAAAAAAAAZQ/DTQSal6eKsM/s1600/e-24_wtc2-impact-pattern.jpg

http://911anomalies.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/boeingwtc2qi02.jpg?w=450


Finally, cause of "nose out"?



Edit: As i said. 2cents!

Posted by: EagleEye Feb 19 2014, 03:20 PM

Great info and analysis onesliceshort.

But why must we keep doing this, and since when did the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum become some sort of haven for no planers.

Proving the south tower plane wasn't flight 175 doesn't prove there was no plane there at all...

Just where are they coming from, if it's not disinfo intended to obfuscate and discredit?

I think it's what i would call the "honey pot" effect where they are drawn into it to do the devil's bidding.. either knowingly or unwittingly.

Posted by: NP1Mike Feb 19 2014, 06:23 PM

QUOTE (MikeR @ Feb 19 2014, 04:48 AM) *
How can you, or why would you, suggest I'm beating around the bush...

Once enough people become aware that the 4 planes were faked


Still beating around the bush MikeR.

Faked could mean any number of things. You are hiding, non-committal, behind 'faked'.
Can't you see that?

1. The perps faked a plane crash at the Pentagon? Yes
2. The perps faked a plane crash at Shanksville? Yes
3. The perps faked a plane crash at WTC1? No
4. The perps faked a plane crash at WTC2? No

You are painting yourself into a corner Mike.
You said you are not in the hologram camp.
What means of fakery were used for the plane crashes at WTC1/2?

Come out and say it
You know you really want to say it.
No one will laugh at you, I promise.

Posted by: NP1Mike Feb 19 2014, 06:43 PM

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Feb 19 2014, 02:20 PM) *
Great info and analysis onesliceshort.


Yes the swaying WTC2 is an excellent nail in the coffin for any NPT.
I have my own personal favorite that I consider the final nail in the NPT coffin.

QUOTE
But why must we keep doing this, and since when did the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum become some sort of haven for no planers.

... Just where are they coming from, if it's not disinfo intended to obfuscate and discredit?


Good question EagleEye.
For some strange reason P4T seems to have attracted an unusually large number of no-planers recently.
goprisko, paulmichael, Obwon and MikeR keep fanning the NP embers with fervor.
Sorry if I left out any other recent NP'ers. My sincerest apologies.



Posted by: MikeR Feb 19 2014, 09:30 PM

QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 19 2014, 02:47 AM) *
Actually, I cannot recall a single person claiming to have been an on-the-street eyewitness of the strikes on the WTC mentioning fireballs, and this would include suspected shills.
.


David Long has gone on record,
47mins on YT, in considerable detail, and
described how he saw no plane from his vantage point,
where any real big plane would have been very visible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQbEuBgAKso

Posted by: paulmichael Feb 20 2014, 07:50 AM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 19 2014, 05:43 PM) *
.
For some strange reason P4T seems to have attracted an unusually large number of no-planers recently.
goprisko, paulmichael, Obwon and MikeR keep fanning the NP embers with fervor.


Well, what can I say?

Oh, I know.

I checked out the Youtube video cited in michael72's recent posting, http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22608, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDWP0Wn6xpo entitled, "9 11 - NO PLANES-VIDEO FAKERY - Watch for proof."

Let me tell you, the producer of that video makes an excellent case of video trickery in the mass media coverage of the faked strike on the WTC South Tower.

And regarding the videos of the South Tower's sway, were those videos faked, too? If they weren't, maybe, just maybe a blast by new-fangled technology of the directed energy type struck the south face of that South Tower.

P.M.


Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 20 2014, 09:03 AM

QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 20 2014, 12:50 PM) *
Well, what can I say?

Oh, I know.

I checked out the Youtube video cited in michael72's recent posting, http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22608, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDWP0Wn6xpo entitled, "9 11 - NO PLANES-VIDEO FAKERY - Watch for proof."

Let me tell you, the producer of that video makes an excellent case of video trickery in the mass media coverage of the faked strike on the WTC South Tower.

And regarding the videos of the South Tower's sway, were those videos faked, too? If they weren't, maybe, just maybe a blast by new-fangled technology of the directed energy type struck the south face of that South Tower.

P.M.


And also posted at Michael72's thread

QUOTE
From Simon Shack’s FAQ section:

QUOTE
The skeptics argue that “too many videos of the airplane were captured, therefore all cannot be fake …” Too many indeed: there are a simply ludicrous amount of “lucky” shots. In fact, the sheer amount of existing ‘airplane’ images is grossly absurd in itself: We now have more than 45 “amateur videos” (some of which were released – inexplicably – as late as June 2008!). We also have at least 10 still pictures depicting alleged “Flight 175” “in its very last second of flight” 


First off, the "lucky shots" description is ludicrous because thousands of New Yorkers were focused on this area after the strike on Tower 1.

According to the NPT accusations, that’s 55 people who allegedly, knowingly allowed their names to be publically used as authors of totally manipulated footage, or altered the footage themselves. 55 people, alleged “sleepers”, who “know” exactly what happened on 9/11 in Manhattan. That the towers were blown up by internal explosives and that a hologram was used to fool on the ground witnesses. 

That’s a lot of loose ends.





Please also check the above collection of still images for debris falling from the impact side of the facade.

I agree that certain footage has been edited, withheld, censored or have had their resolution purposely lessened. The Naudet second tower impact has clearly been edited, one Citgo camera was physically removed, the "gatecam" footage which was capable of reading registrations on vehicles has been purposely reuploaded (at least twice) to make the footage useless etc. 

But to insinuate that an actual army of ops actually added an aircraft to footage caught? And adding them perfectly to match the flightpath?



Posted by: NP1Mike Feb 20 2014, 11:27 AM

QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 20 2014, 06:50 AM) *
Well, what can I say?

Oh, I know.

I checked out the Youtube video cited in michael72's recent posting, http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22608, at [url="http://wwwLet me tell you, the producer of that video makes an excellent case of video trickery in the mass media coverage of the faked strike on the WTC South Tower.

P.M.


I have to admit that Ace Baker makes very slick videos with great music to accompany them.
I actually watched his entire series if you can believe it.

But in time, I discovered the flaws in his proclamations.
The flaws were so serious that they completely undermined his no plane theory.

In the coming days I will show you the error of his ways.

Posted by: MikeR Feb 20 2014, 02:32 PM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 21 2014, 03:27 AM) *
In the coming days I will show you the error of his ways.


I look forward to your correction, IF and only if there were errors
in Ace's original. IMHO His music is intolerable but his video info is ACE

Ronald Wieck's persistent shillery has reduced my appetite for trollery
on YT to absolute zero. I have ever-diminishing patience for
the customary total info overload..

Please K.I.S.S. ....in line with the NP=non-pilot cause, Mike :-)

Posted by: NP1Mike Feb 20 2014, 05:44 PM

I must say Paul, your brain is wired in a very weird way.

QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 20 2014, 06:50 AM) *
Let me tell you, the producer of that video makes an excellent case of video trickery in the mass media coverage of the faked strike on the WTC South Tower.


Shouldn't that read: 'an excellent case for video trickery'?

QUOTE
And regarding the videos of the South Tower's sway, were those videos faked, too?


'faked too'?
Huh????

If OSS said any of the 55 WTC2 hit videos were faked, then using 'faked too' might make sense.

But he doesn't. Therefore your brain is wired in a very weird way.

Why don't you just come out and say what you feel, instead of insinuating/misstating things?
If you feel the WTC2 sway videos are fake, then just say it for goodness sakes!
Stop beating around the bush.

Posted by: MikeR Feb 20 2014, 07:11 PM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 21 2014, 09:44 AM) *
I must say Paul, your brain is wired in a very weird way.

Why don't you just come out and say what you feel, instead of insinuating/misstating things?
If you feel the WTC2 sway videos are fake, then just say it for goodness sakes!
Stop beating around the bush.


Can we Non-Pilots not allow oursillyselves to apply personal imagination
to help understand occasional bush-beaten relevant statements
that we No-Planers are compelled (for of lack of black-and-white evidence)
to type on rare occasions? rolleyes.gif

MikeR
(NP)

Posted by: EagleEye Feb 21 2014, 01:37 AM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 20 2014, 07:27 AM) *
In the coming days I will show you the error of his ways.


Hurray! Let's deal with this issue once and for all time and last put it to bed to focus on more important and more real and authentic investigative lines of inquiry capable of doing the victims justice by allowing historical scrutiny of the 9/11 even with clear eyes and near 20/20 hindsight unclouded by idiotic speculations who's ultimate aim it is to obfuscate, misdirect and in effect, cover up the truth at the heart of the matter where plane strike and CD form a logical chain capable of breakign the official story about what really happened on September 11, 2001.

Posted by: NP1Mike Feb 24 2014, 10:15 PM

QUOTE (MikeR @ Feb 20 2014, 01:32 PM) *
I look forward to your correction, IF and only if there were errors
in Ace's original. IMHO His music is intolerable but his video info is ACE


Thanks for your patience in waiting for my reply Mike.
Here it is.

When I first watched the Baker Youtube video of the Hardfire TV show hosted by Ron Wieck, featuring Steve Wright 'video compositing expert' and himself, I had my bowl of popcorn and bottle of beer and was cheering Baker on. At the time I was toying with the no plane theory and enjoyed rooting for the under-dog.
I certainly couldn’t stomach Wieck and although Wright seemed like a likeable chap, Baker was the young, long-haired rebel who was going against the establishment.

But that was before I did my ‘no-plane’ homework. I had much to learn at the time.


The following errors were key (sorry Ace, this word isn't copyrighted just yet) for me in showing Ace Baker dropped the ball with his no plane theory.

Mr. Baker prides himself on having eyes of an eagle, a trait that is necessary if you are producing a series of videos to be released on the internet.

Yet Mr. Baker's eyes failed him, big time.
They failed him in a most embarrassing way too, inside a video that he released to a potential world wide audience!

1. "And there is no plane."

Mr. Baker's first boo-boo occurs at around the 5:00 min. mark of 'The Key' (his 7th video in his 'Key' series) where he is examining the Chopper 5 wide-angle shot.

He shoots himself and his entire no plane theory in the foot with the following statements:

"Wait a minute. Is something missing here? With the camera zoomed in, now it looks like the chopper is arriving at the scene. Seems that we weren't supposed to see that wide shot.

And that's because there's no plane in it...

The plane should be visible for over five seconds. That's 340 separate images. And there is no plane."

Mr. 'eagle-eye' Baker somehow missed the ‘no plane’ plane that was clearly in the Chopper 5 video for more than 5 seconds!

He chose to use the blurry Youtube version of the Chopper 5 wide-angle shot in his video rather than the original version (I wonder why?).
Although the plane can clearly be seen in the original version, it still can be made out in the Youtube version if you look closely enough. It's still there, for all of 5+ seconds. (It isn’t there in a second generation Youtube video, which is what we are seeing on Baker’s notebook computer.)

The most ironic part is that he then conducts an experiment to show the audience what a plane from 5-6 miles out should have looked like. He films a plane and then says:

"The plane is small and blurry, but it appears in every single frame" (in his experiment from 5-6 miles out shooting another plane.)

Why is it ironic? Because the plane in the Chopper 5 original version film can be seen just as clearly as the one he films in his experiment!!! Holy crap, Batman!!!


2. Nose-in-Nose-out Chopper 5:

Baker goes on to explain that the 'nose-in-nose-out' we see in the Chopper 5 video is conclusive proof that video fakery was used. That a blunder was made, and that is why we see the nose out.

The problem with his 'nose-in-nose-out' theory is that:

a) the shape of the nose out is not the exact same shape of the nose in! If it were simply a layering issue, the nose in and out would be an exact match.

b) all of the other videos taken from the other side of the building show a 'nose-out' (which is the engine) and then a continuation of the ‘nose’ flying in a trajectory towards Murray St.
This would mean that all of these cameramen had video layering issues (similar to Chopper 5) that they failed to cover up!

To use Mr. Baker's famous words "What are the chances of _that happening?" smile.gif

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)