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 )

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Debunking 9/11 Myths

Beached
post Dec 21 2006, 10:07 AM
Post #41





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



The passenger lists did not include any of the alleged hijackers

9/11 Myths Claims:

The claim that none of the passenger lists included any of the alleged hijackers is false. Mike points toward the following low-quality reproductions of alleged passenger manifests:

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidenc...1Manifest_a.jpg

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidenc...1Manifest_b.jpg

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidenc...1Manifest_c.jpg

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidenc...5Manifest_a.jpg

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidenc...7Manifest_a.jpg

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidenc...7Manifest_b.jpg

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidenc...3Manifest_a.jpg

Our Take:

The passenger lists cited by Mike were revised manifests which did not appear until July 2006; released by an unverifiable source. All passenger lists published by CNN and elsewhere are free of any Arab names, much less any matching the alleged hijackers:

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/e...11_victims.html

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.cen...77.victims.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/e...75_victims.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/e...93_victims.html

It has always been claimed that the names of the hijackers were on the airlines' flight manifests, however, there had never been any public evidence of this. Furthermore, researchers who have attempted to obtain this information from the airlines have been rebuffed.

However, almost 5 years later, the revised passenger lists cited by Mike were released on a website of Moussaoui trial exhibits. Interestingly, according to these latest manifests, Mark Bingham is no longer onboard Flight 93.

So, if these were the original manifests, then why did it take almost 5 years for these to appear? Why were they not published previously? Any red flags going up?

Considering the suspicious circumstances under which they surfaced, and without any means of verifying their authenticity, we must conclude that they are nothing more than fabricated evidence, intended to fill in some of the holes in the official story at a time when a record number of people are beginning to question this.

This post has been edited by Beached: Dec 21 2006, 10:15 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Dec 21 2006, 10:40 AM
Post #42



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49





Did you hear that folks? "Interestingly, according to these latest manifests, Mark Bingham is no longer onboard Flight 93". If that had been said by Columbo, the end-credits would then start rolling.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
conspiracy_chest...
post Dec 21 2006, 08:49 PM
Post #43





Group: Newbie
Posts: 463
Joined: 22-November 06
Member No.: 252



QUOTE (Beached @ Dec 6 2006, 09:37 PM)
the govt loyalist site are the Randi cult tongue.gif I think it stands for James Randi Educational Foundation

Thanks. I couldn't find this post again to see if anyone had replied. I recently found out myself after slapping someone about Randi.

I had forgotten that he had started calling his site the govt loyalist site. What a joke that is. It sure sounds good, though. Kind of "official" and "real" and everything.

Those poor Randi-ites. He has them all mesmerised using his half-rate magician skillz.

I met a local Randi-ite who is, of course, anti-9/11 Truth, and he almost blew a gasket when I told him I was "not a fan of James Randi", to put it politely. They, literally, almost worship Randi. It's a very sick relationship, both ways.

I used to be a big Randi fan myself, until I realized several years ago what kind of person he is and chooses to be. When you saw him on The Late Show and other shows like that every once in awhile, it was easier for him to act halfway normal and seem like what the Randi-ites think he is. But once he hit the net, he could not hide is true self anymore. And that was that. Anyone with half a brain should be able to see that, so it definitely speaks largely about the Randi-ites about who and what kind of people they are and choose to be, as well.

I just ignore him and them anymore, for the most part. When they are all proved wrong about their rather severe asininities, you will find them all claiming that they "really knew all along." They are big into 'rewriting history' and the like.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 29 2006, 07:17 PM
Post #44



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Beached @ Dec 6 2006, 11:39 AM)
Interestingly, I also noticed that he's updated his Hanjor "debunk" and now conceeds that it was a 330 degree turn. Hmmm.. I wonder if we've had a secret the govt loyalist site visit?......  But the rest of it is still the same crap about how he had to make the turn to be able to "find" the Pentagon! dunno.gif

Mike claims Hani made the turn away from the pentagon to FIND the pentagon? Uhhh... yeah.. ok... blink.gif rolleyes.gif

The upcoming documentary will fully cover the turn.. in shocking detail. Even Mike himself will be shocked im sure. Unless he is blind... (and deaf)... lol


whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
conspiracy_chest...
post Dec 29 2006, 09:01 PM
Post #45





Group: Newbie
Posts: 463
Joined: 22-November 06
Member No.: 252



QUOTE (johndoeX @ Dec 29 2006, 06:17 PM)
Mike claims Hani made the turn away from the pentagon to FIND the pentagon?

I thought the 'official story' is that they had GPS units.

In which case, they wouldn't need to make any turns they didn't need to make.

So, either they had GPS units, or they didn't, or they couldn't figure out how to use them. (but could fly jets without ANY experience (a flight simulator is NOT experience))
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Dec 29 2006, 09:04 PM
Post #46





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



QUOTE (conspiracy_chestnut @ Dec 30 2006, 01:01 AM)
QUOTE (johndoeX @ Dec 29 2006, 06:17 PM)
Mike claims Hani made the turn away from the pentagon to FIND the pentagon?

I thought the 'official story' is that they had GPS units.

In which case, they wouldn't need to make any turns they didn't need to make.

So, either they had GPS units, or they didn't, or they couldn't figure out how to use them. (but could fly jets without ANY experience (a flight simulator is NOT experience))

They had GPS units?? I thought they used a compass or the sun!! [laugh]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Jan 15 2007, 08:52 PM
Post #47


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: arlington va
Member No.: 96



beached, great job for accumulating such a comprehensive rebuttal to the so-called "debunkment". and thanx jdx and librarian for making it accessible and easy to follow.


i have been immersed in the pft library for 2 days and realize now that the library should have been my starting point here at the site. i intend to spend many more hours reading up everything in the library and i highly recommend it for everyone from novices to "skeptics".

i dont have much to add, but i thought this was pertinent: the fbi's most wanted page of bin laden:

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm





NOTE: i highlighted (in red rectangles) the words "OUTSIDE", and the text of the "CAUTION" paragraph on the page.


curious thing how the FBI does NOT even imply any relation between OBL and 911 crimes... anyhow, i thought it was worth a mention.

salute.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cary
post Jan 15 2007, 09:15 PM
Post #48


Ragin Cajun


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,691
Joined: 14-August 06
From: Baton Rouge, LA
Member No.: 5



Damn straight, paranoia. UBL/OBL has never been wanted by the FBI for the attacks of 9/11 despite the propaganda of the govt. Hell, I'll see if I can find the White House site article where Cheney says OBL and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 in an interview with Tony Snow before he became the WH presstitute. Fascinating and entertaining. LOL The skeptics don't have sh*t to say about that when you put it in their face.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tarya
post Jan 16 2007, 02:57 AM
Post #49


Library Team


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 16-October 06
From: Middle Earth
Member No.: 82



QUOTE (paranoia @ Jan 16 2007, 03:52 AM)
curious thing how the FBI does NOT even imply any relation between OBL and 911 crimes... anyhow, i thought it was worth a mention.

At least they're honest about it rolleyes.gif
QUOTE
FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”

June 6, 2006 – This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, and was sent to the Muckraker Report by Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), bringing attention to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden.[1]  (See bottom of this web page for Most Wanted page)  In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?”  The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya.  According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people.  The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.” 

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11.  The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI.  When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” 

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?”  Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.”  I asked, “How does that work?”  Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence.  Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice.  The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury.  In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury.  He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”


It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure.  If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered.  First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?”  The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban.  Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001.  Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11. 

http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

Maybe shure can make another call to the FBI so we can have that on tape idea.gif

PS: @ Beached worthy.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Jan 16 2007, 03:17 AM
Post #50



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



@ paranoia

Thanks, we're still getting it together in there - some topics still haven't been sorted yet... but we're working on it gradually.

Yeah, beach's Debunking 911 Myths is a great series.


P.S., I just swiped your FBI image and used it in the bin Laden, Osama topic intro tongue.gif nice...

- Sanders (aka librarian)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mftorso
post Feb 6 2007, 03:37 PM
Post #51





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 100
Joined: 30-January 07
Member No.: 526



http://911debunker.livejournal.com/

This site needs to be slammed.
Let's go get them!

I'll try to draw them to the pilots forum as well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Feb 6 2007, 04:20 PM
Post #52





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



QUOTE (mftorso @ Feb 6 2007, 07:37 PM)
http://911debunker.livejournal.com/

This site needs to be slammed.
Let's go get them!

I'll try to draw them to the pilots forum as well.

If I remember correctly, that blog belongs to an idiot over at LC called MinesotaLover. Rather than debate me, that person told me that I'm a sicko for even comparing Bush to Hitler, and that my avatar made him/her want to vomit! laugh.gif See, that's the mentality of the kind of people we're up against!

Like 911myths, that site relys heavily upon the NIST report, and is a compilation of other strawmen which have been covered here. However, my support goes to anyone willing to write a custom debunk for that blog! salute.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Feb 7 2007, 08:17 PM
Post #53





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



Just a quick update...

I've made a couple of updates to the debunks of the "Bin Laden Confession Tape" and Mike's rebuttal to the claim that some of the alleged hijackers may still be alive. Please take the the time to look over these, and if you can think of anything else that should be included please let me know! Thanks!

This post has been edited by Beached: Feb 7 2007, 08:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Graham
post Feb 24 2007, 07:51 AM
Post #54





Group: Newbie
Posts: 24
Joined: 24-February 07
Member No.: 676



Great work Beached.

Is this going on a website, or shall we just copy and paste from here?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Feb 24 2007, 09:51 AM
Post #55





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



I believe some of the posts are linked from the relevant sections in the library, however, other than that, feel free to copy paste whatever you like! thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Apr 4 2007, 02:04 PM
Post #56





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



This was posted over at LC by 28th Kingdom. Dr. Frank Greening, whose articles are often used by Mike Williams at 911myths, weighs in on the govt loyalist site...

QUOTE (28th Kingdom)
"I’m new to posting on the govt loyalist site but I have been following this forum for quite a while and I have observed how the regular JREFers eagerly DEVOUR each CTist that ventures on to this Conspiracy thread to question the official 9/11 story. It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:

(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.
(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.

When a CTist retreats, the JREFers pass the time patting each other on the back for another debunking job well done and discuss how idiotic that particular CTist was. While this may be a source of entertainment for the JREFers, this type of mutual admiration is not particularly helpful to anyone seeking to understand how the Twin Towers collapsed. In fact, I would say that the JREFers appear to be fixated only on smothering scientific debate under a blanket of NIST, FEMA, Kean, Fox and CNN “Truths”! But as Leonardo da Vinci so aptly states: “Whoever in a discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but rather memory.”

I have worked as a research scientist in industry and academia for MANY years but I do not recall ever witnessing such an endless appeal to authority, by one side in a debate, as I see with the JREFers! Indeed, I find the JREFers more often than not coming across as dogmatic followers of a creed. Thus, ironically they have become a modern band of Inquisitors doling out their autos-da-fe to heretic CTists for simply having the temerity to question NISTIAN authority.

In truth, the NIST Report is seriously flawed in many respects. It is inconsistent and contradictory in the way it treats the tipping of the upper section of each tower. It assumes that global collapse ensues without modeling the collapse. Its fire simulations generate such a wide array of temperature profiles as to be essentially useless. Its assumptions about the loss of thermal insulation are mere speculation. It ignores the important effects of massive releases of corrosive gases in the fires. Its metallurgical analysis of the steel is perfunctory. It ignores evidence (micron sized spheres) for the presence of molten iron in the towers prior to collapse. It mentions sulfidation, which it does not explain, while ignoring chlorination. And finally, NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying….. This is the JREFers Bible!?!?!?"

Username: Apollo20

http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php?t=78111

I cannot even express the level of joy and glee I felt from reading this... Anyone who knows anything about the Pseudoskeptic Bowel Movement... will know that Dr. Greening is someone who JREFers frequently quote (worship) and hold in high regard for his level of knowledge and expertise... 

Some of his articles have even been used on sites like 911myths.com - so that kind of shows you how much these "debunkers" respect his work.

Here's my one word review for Dr. Greening's post about the govt loyalist site:

OWNED !!


cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Apr 4 2007, 05:06 PM
Post #57



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (Beached @ Feb 24 2007, 10:51 PM)
I believe some of the posts are linked from the relevant sections in the library...

They ALL are yes1.gif

salute.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post May 6 2007, 08:57 AM
Post #58





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



I found this essay on Mike's site concerning the anti-terror drill that occurred at the exact same time as the 7/7 bombings. While I happen to agree that AJ's calculation of the chances being 1 in 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to be over-exaggerated, you should read Mike's essay carefully as it proves that Mike is no misguided fool. He is a highly intelligent individual who knowingly disseminates disinformation.

7/7 Training Excercises

911Myths claims:

QUOTE
Sounds staggering, right? But it's also twisting the statistics very considerably. We'd recommend you read the original calculation at http://www.infowars.com/articles/London_at..._coinciding.htm, then we can consider the many problems.

1. The accuracy of the exercises is based on this quote from Peter Power:
At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2...ngexercises.htm

But when asked to clarify he said "Almost precisely", and

"we based on a scenario of simultaneous attacks on a underground and mainline station"
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/london_exercise_video.html

However, there was no mainline station attacked. Power may have predicted a bomb on Kings Cross mainline station, and counted this a "hit" because a bomb actually occurred close to Kings Cross underground station, but they are not the same place. He also did not predict a bomb on a bus.

Further, in later clarifications, Power said this:

"It is confirmed that a short number of 'walk through' scenarios planed [sic] well in advance had commenced that morning for a private company in London (as part of a wider project that remains confidential) and that two scenarios related directly to terrorist bombs at the same time as the ones that actually detonated with such tragic results. One scenario in particular, was very similar to real time events".
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2...werresponds.htm

So now it appears that Power was running several scenarios, or at least more than two. One of these was similar (but not identical) to real-world events, we would guess in predicting two out of three of the named stations. It may be that another referred to a bomb at the mainline station instead of the underground, and the fourth bomb (on the bus) was missed altogether. Not quite as precise as the headline figure would have you believe, then.


2. The calculation assumes that the attacks are randomly spread and independent of each other. Let's look at how realistic this is.

In terms of location, they mention that there are 274 Underground stations, and assume that each are likely to be hit.  There's no reason to believe this is true. Many of these stations are far outside Central London, and bombs there wouldn't cause nearly as much disruption. It makes far more sense to hit Central London stations only, and for multiple terrorists working together from a single starting point, this greatly reduces the figure. We'd say 30 to 50 stations is far more realistic.

In terms of time, the calculation mentions that each station is open for 19 hours, therefore the chance of an attack within a particular 1 hour block is 1/19. This is also implausible. Terrorists want to cause the maximum disruption and casualties, which means striking in the morning rush hour between 8 and 9am. They did this in Madrid, it's the obvious thing to do in London.

In terms of date, the calculation mentions that the stations are open 364 days a year, and assumes each day is equally likely to be hit. Wrong again. At a minimum, they would hit working days only (that's 260 in a year). If Thursdays are a particular favourite (as with Madrid) then that's reduced to 1 in 52.

Finally, the calculation assumes that each bombing is independent. So they state that the chance of one bombing occurring at the time and place it did was 1 in 9,474,920, therefore the chances of three occurring were 9,474,920 x 9,474,920 x 9,474,920 = 1 in 850,602,500,906,920,000,000. It's a big figure, but an inaccurate calculation. The whole point of these bombings is that they're coordinated, so if one happens, then the others are going to follow. The extra multiplications only serve to make an impressively large figure, and in no way affect the real probability.

Which should be what, exactly? They've gone for the maximum figure, so let's see how it might be if we take a more conservative view.

Likely hours of attack = 1, the 8 to 9 rush hour
Likely days of attack in 1 year = 52 if we're aiming at Thursdays
Likely stations of attack = perhaps 30 in Central London
Likely period of attack = 3 years max, not the 5 they specify

Probability of an attack on one station at a particular hour is now 1 x 52 x 30 x 3 = 1 in 4,680

Probability of 3 attacks at named stations = 4,680 x 29 x 28 = 1 in 3,800,160

...and in fact that could be even less if we decided it's likely that the attacks wouldn't occur at adjacent stations...

4,680 x 27 x 25 = 1 in 3,159,000

Which is a little big less than 1 in 850,602,500,906,920,000,000, although the problems don't stop there.


3. Even our figure of 1 in 3,159,000 seems high, but that's because we're calculating the chance of the bombings occurring at that particular time and date. Again, that's irrelevant, just a trick used to boost the figures. The probability we need to be finding out is given a terrorist attack at any time (regardless of whether it occurred on the 7th of July, 8th, 9th or any other time), how likely is it that a matching antiterrorist exercise would occur at the same time?

Think about it that way and we have to ask other relevant question, that the original article entirely ignores. Like, how many antiterrorist exercises are going on? If Peter Power has one of these a week, for instance, then the chances of a hit on the same day are 1/5. And it's likely they'll be at the same time, too: between 8 and 9am for a terrorist hit, with the exercise beginning just after 9am once everyone's arrived for work.


4. There's still the probability of predicting the stations, of course, but what counts as an accurate prediction? That's not clear.

The first bomb exploded in the tunnel between Liverpool Street and Aldgate, for instance ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings ). Some media reports described it as a bomb at Liverpool street ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4662045.stm ), a Government statement said it happened at Aldgate ( http://www.direct.gov.uk/Nl1/Newsroom/Publ...0593&chk=1wl1uB ).

Another bomb exploded about half way between Russell Square and Kings Cross ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/0.../russell_sq.stm ). Again, Power is getting two chances at a hit (so he could name any two of four Central London stations and say he got it right).

It appears Power may also have accepted as a hit, his prediction of the bombing of a mainline station, when the bomb actually hit an underground station with the same name.

What does this mean? Although only three bombs went off on the underground, we've multiple chances of naming them "correctly". Liverpool Street Underground, Liverpool Street Mainline, Aldgate, Russell Square, Kings Cross Underground, Kings Cross Mainline, Edgware Road and possible Paddington Underground and Paddington Mainline may all be close enough to be scored as hits.

Factor in an extra free guess (Power didn't predict the fourth bomb, so either he only predicted 3 events or his fourth guess was incorrect), and the fact that he had more than two scenarios, and that he may only have scored two hits on the best of them, and this is beginning to look not so improbable at all.

Still not sure? Do the math. If we accept that 30 mainline stations are most likely to be bombed, and 7 of these names count as a successful prediction, then there's a 7/30 chance of a successful prediction. That's almost one in 4, so make 4 guesses and you'll probably have at least one hit. Make several sets of guesses, and it's not at all inconceivable that you'll have two, or even three.

Of course some will argue with our assumptions. Maybe it's not 30 stations, they might say -- you should say 40, 50, 60 or more. But that's not the point. What we're trying to say is the original 1 in 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 probability figure is a gross distortion. The reality is very different, and the chances of these two events coinciding certainly aren't so high as to prove conspiracy.

See also a special report from UK TV station Channel 4 at http://www.channel4.com/news/special-repor...page.jsp?id=372


The reality:

So, Mike is claiming that the chances of this being a coincidence are only around 1 in 3 million? That's good to know - there's certainly nothing suspicious there Mike! rolleyes.gif

QUOTE
Maybe it's not 30 stations, they might say -- you should say 40, 50, 60 or more.


What is clear from this statement is that Mike is not only a disinformant, but also a handler training individuals in the art of defending Zionist propaganda.

This post has been edited by Beached: May 6 2007, 11:57 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
maturin42
post May 18 2007, 11:46 PM
Post #59





Group: Core Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 18-February 07
From: Maryland, USA
Member No.: 633



QUOTE (Beached @ Dec 5 2006, 04:29 PM)
Coleen Rowley, and the FBI's Sabotage of the Moussaoui Investigation

911Myths Claims:

Mike claims that in her letter, Rowley's phrase, "deliberately sabotage" has appeal for those who want to believe in a Government conspiracy, however this is not her view at all:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC_whistleblower1.htm

Mike claims: "Plenty of institutional reasons why the FBI behaved as it did, then, without requiring foreknowledge of or complicity in the attacks."

Our Take:

So, as with everything, Mike's excuse is incompetence. Isn't that the same excuse given for the stand down? Isn't that the same excuse given for pretty much everything relating to 9/11, the so-called "war on terror" and The Bush Administration? It's amazing how incompetent these people can be when it comes to incidents from which they stand to gain.

Did you hear about the time the US Military accidentally airlifted 8,000 members of the Taliban and "Al Qaeda" to safety?

"NEW YORK, Nov. 29, 2001 - The United States took the unprecedented step this week of demanding that foreign airlines provide information on passengers boarding planes for America. Yet in the past week, a half dozen or more Pakistani air force cargo planes landed in the Taliban-held city of Kunduz and evacuated to Pakistan hundreds of non-Afghan soldiers who fought alongside the Taliban and even al-Qaida against the United States."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340165

Can anybody else see what's wrong with this picture? Anybody at all??

Beached, I don't think it matters a tinker's dam what Rowley believes. Rowley appears to have been a good FBI agent trying to do her job but she was working within the system and being thwarted by guys acting on their orders to sit on any effort to draw attention to the patsies' before the deal went down.

Frasca, et al blocked her warrant and Ken Williams' memo because that is what they were supposed to do. They were rewarded and promoted because they did that, much to Sen. Grassley's confusion. It seems to be all about plausible deniability and preserving the upper echelons in blissful ignorance that was itself a cover story.

That entire episode sticks in my craw about as much as anything else. That's saying something.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Firsk
post Feb 18 2008, 02:44 PM
Post #60





Group: Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: 18-February 08
Member No.: 2,761



www.911myths.com is one of the 911 debunking sites, and it is run by a "Mike Williams" who is allegedly from the UK. Supposedly, he is a "free-lance writer" and "software developer" although I couldn't find anything about him in those respects on the Internet. On his site, he takes to task every argument and every piece of evidence that disputes the official story of 911. Well, I sent him the letter below asking him to debunk my concerns, and his only reply was: "I suppose paranoia has its uses if it makes you feel that special, like you're combatting dangerous CIA-funded fronts. Unfortunately you're just making an idiot of yourself. Have a nice day." Not one word about any of my objections!

I'll post my letter to him below, so that you can see what you think. Are these legitamate questions about 911 or not? I regard his silence, his refusal to answer, as a smoking gun that he is not legit. What does anybody know about this guy? Thank you, Raff

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Mike, I wonder if you have considered the issue of smuggling the box-cutters on the planes? It was already prohibited by the airlines pre-911. And even pre-911, you had to walk through a metal detector, and your carry-ons were x-rayed. So how hard was it to smuggle a razor knife on a plane? I don't know, but if we assume that each of the 19 hijackers had one such knife, then it happened 19 times in one day at 3 different airports. What are the odds of that?

And have you given much thought to how easy it would have been for the hijackers to overcome the crews and take control of the planes? A box-cutter is a formidable weapon, but the hijackers were vastly outnumbered. And while a hijackjer was slashing one guy, one or more other guys could have been jumping him.

And what about the part about the pilots surrendering the planes to the hijackers? For instance, Barbara Olsen said that the pilots were huddled in the back of American 77 with the passengers. Would Captain Burlingame have surrendered the controls of the plane to a guy just because he was waving a box-cutter at him? Or, let's say the hijacker had the knife to the jugular of a stewardess. So, he had no choice, is that it? Well, think about it: What reason would he have to think that the guy could competently fly a 757? How many people in the world can do that? What is it about a swarthy Arab guy wielding a box-cutter that would inspire confidence in his piloting ability?

I have a good friend who is a commercial pilot, and he tells me that a terrorist could be "de-emboweling a stewardess," and he wouldn't give up the controls. Doesn't it seem more likely that he would fight the guy to the death? I know I would. So, how did Burlingame wind up in the back of the plane? Any ideas?

There are all kinds of problems with the notion of 4 guys taking over a plane with box-cutters. I don't know how you British guys are, but I can tell you American men are rather a feisty, hot-headed bunch. You might say that rage becomes us. There's plenty of us who, upon realizing some guy was on a rampage with a box-cutter, would take it right to him. Remember, the hijacker has got the element of surprise only once and for a very short time. After that, it's mano-o-mano. Sure, he's still got an advantage. But I'm not helpless. I, for instance, travel with a rather heavy briefcase that's quite solid, which I keep under the seat. If I slam that thing into his face, he's not going to be feeling too bueno- with or without a box-cutter. But whether I succeed at taking him out or not, if he's fending me off with his box-cutter, he's not paying attention to the other American who's coming at him from behind.

Now think about it: they had to start with the pilots and get control of the planes because if they started anywhere else, the pilots would have gotten wind of it and sent a distress signal- which none of the four pilots did. Agreed? And again, I don't think any of the pilots would have handed over the controls of the plane under any circumstances because there was no basis to assume flying competence among the attackers. But if somehow, two hijackers did wind up behind the controls, then they are out of commission as fighters. You can't fight and fly at the same time. Right? So how could the two remaining hijackers with box-cutters subdue all those people?

Well, let's just say it wouldn't be easy. How hard would it be? I don't know, But it's got to be at least as hard as getting a hit in baseball. Right? Or are you more of a cricket man? But let's see, a good batting average in baseball is in the high 200s. Getting above 300 is darn good. And the best batting average of all time was Ty Cobb at 367. But these hijackers actually batted 1000. Imagine that. They hit 4 for 4. And they did it without causing the slightest ripple or disturbance in the flight path of the planes, going from pilot control to hijacker control. Smooth as silk! They did it before any pilot could move the transponder down into hijack mode. Amazing grace.

Of course, we all know about Todd Beamer and the "Let's Roll" gang on Flight 93. But the thing is, and again, you being a limey maybe you wouldn't understand, is that for American men, the resistance would have come much earlier. The peril of just turning the plane over to the terrorists to fly would have registered very fast, and I mean instantly. Think about it! What were the hijackers going to do? Land the plane somewhere? If so, why remove the professional pilots? Hijackers know that pilots are instructed to take hijackers wherever they want to go, fuel permitting. Why waste hijacker manpower flying the plane when you've got commercial pilots who will cooperate and do exactly as you ask? As soon as the hijackers demanded the controls, that would have sent off alarm bells in the minds of the crew and passengers alike.

So, the part of the story with the least credibility is the part about the pilots turning over control of the plane to hijackers, presumably to avoid getting cut or someone else getting cut. They just wouldn't do it because it doesn't make sense. It would only increase the peril to everyone. I'd like you to respond.

I've done some searches for Mike Williams. If you are a free-lance writer, I presume you have done more than this 911 website, but I can't find anything on you or what you have written. And I guess you don't develop the software under your own name. Hmmm. Well, with all we hear about the CIA setting up phony companies overseas, it wouldn't take much to concoct one phony identity of a free-lance writer. Would it?

So, I am sending copies of this letter to a bunch of people, and let me make it crystal clear that I am not the least bit suicidal; I am not accident-prone; and I don't have any enemies. So my friends, if anything happens to me, start by telling the police about Mike Williams at 911myths.com. Have a nice day.

Very truly yours,

Art Vadelay
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
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: 21st July 2019 - 12:52 AM