IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Questions: The Passengers, Cell Phone Calls, And Plane Swapping.

EagleEye
post Jan 14 2014, 11:20 PM
Post #1





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 15 2014, 12:18 AM
Post #2





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



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.

This post has been edited by EagleEye: Jan 15 2014, 12:20 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Jan 15 2014, 12:27 AM
Post #3





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



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

This post has been edited by MikeR: Jan 15 2014, 12:30 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 15 2014, 12:57 AM
Post #4





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mainer
post Jan 15 2014, 09:19 AM
Post #5





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 21
Joined: 16-January 09
Member No.: 4,070



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 15 2014, 12:34 PM
Post #6





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



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.

This post has been edited by EagleEye: Jan 15 2014, 12:38 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 15 2014, 02:30 PM
Post #7





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
realitycheck77
post Jan 15 2014, 04:17 PM
Post #8





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 77
Joined: 25-December 08
Member No.: 4,042



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 15 2014, 05:27 PM
Post #9





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
signalfire
post Jan 15 2014, 05:55 PM
Post #10





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 20
Joined: 5-June 08
Member No.: 3,508



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CharlesGWright
post Jan 15 2014, 06:03 PM
Post #11





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 13
Joined: 4-September 13
From: Grove City, Pennsylvania
Member No.: 7,511



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.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
signalfire
post Jan 15 2014, 06:38 PM
Post #12





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 20
Joined: 5-June 08
Member No.: 3,508



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...nloadable-ebook
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 15 2014, 06:41 PM
Post #13





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



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..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
realitycheck77
post Jan 15 2014, 06:42 PM
Post #14





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 77
Joined: 25-December 08
Member No.: 4,042



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 15 2014, 06:47 PM
Post #15





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



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...nloadable-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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 15 2014, 06:57 PM
Post #16





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



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)

This post has been edited by EagleEye: Jan 15 2014, 07:01 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
signalfire
post Jan 15 2014, 07:03 PM
Post #17





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 20
Joined: 5-June 08
Member No.: 3,508



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 15 2014, 08:08 PM
Post #18





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



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.



This post has been edited by EagleEye: Jan 15 2014, 08:12 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
signalfire
post Jan 15 2014, 09:34 PM
Post #19





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 20
Joined: 5-June 08
Member No.: 3,508



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 15 2014, 10:41 PM
Post #20





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



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



This post has been edited by EagleEye: Jan 15 2014, 10:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th October 2019 - 12:41 AM