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 5 2006, 06:49 AM
Post #31





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



QUOTE (johndoeX @ Dec 4 2006, 10:05 PM)
Focus on important stuff. .stick to facts... my 2 cents.. wink.gif

Agreed! cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Dec 5 2006, 08:57 AM
Post #32





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



Automated Control of the 9/11 Aircraft

911Myths Claims:

QUOTE
Remote control of large planes isn’t in itself a new idea. Successful tests have been carried out long ago, for example this experiment in 1984. However, some go further and say the Boeing 757 and 767 come with this ability already.
"The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight. They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls.

They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury... No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature.

The plane that hit the Pentagon approached or reached its actual physical limits, military personnel have calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and seven g's in its final turn.

The same is true for the second aircraft to impact the WTC.

There is only one way this can happen.

As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it.”
http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=Ne...le=print&sid=48

Unfortunately, it's mostly nonsense. The Boeing 757 and 767 do have autopilot, but turn it off and you can do what you like.  What's more, the 757 and 767 do not have "fly by wire" capabilities (their control systems are mechanical, not electronic, with cables and hydraulics to move the control surfaces).  The only plane that did at the time was the 777, and even this could be overridden by the pilot.

"On Boeing jets, the pilot can override onboard computers and their built-in soft limits.
"It's not a lack of trust in technology," said John Cashman, director of flight-crew operations for Boeing. "We certainly don't have the feeling that we do not want to rely on technology. But the pilot in control of the aircraft should have the ultimate authority.""
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/boe202.shtml

But okay, let’s take this further. Maybe the planes were modified to be remote controlled.  After all, America has remote controlled planes like the Predator and Global Hawk, so why couldn’t the technology be applied here?

Some people point to the planes final movements as indications of remote control.  They talk about last minute corrections as planes flew into the WTC, or the difficulty of flying low-level into the Pentagon, as being far beyond the capabilities of the inexperienced hijackers. So is this really plausible?

We say no. Problem  #1 is the major modifications that would be necessary to the plane, and the control system.  You’d need several cameras mounted on the plane to show the “remote controller” what was going on, too, and a transmission system to send images back, and receive commands.  All to be achieved without anyone noticing.

But that’s only the first issue. Consider this press conference reply from American General Ronald Keys:

Q: Referencing the E-10, if we can control a Predator from Nevada, why do we need to put a battle staff airborne in the E-10?

General Keys: Well, you can control them, but for example, we missed shooting down a MiG-25 during the war because of the latency in the system. We had the Hellfire-armed Predator up and the MiG-25 was coming in to intercept and we had him locked up, but by the time we had fired the missile, he had started his turn and so he broke lock. The reason was there's about a several second delay in the latency.
http://www.afa.org/Media/scripts/Keys_AWS05.asp

The “latency” the General refers to here is the delay any remote controlled plane faces. To take an example of flying into the Pentagon, what would happen if you appear to be coming in too low?  First, there would be a delay while the cameras on board the plane processed the image. There’s then a delay while the image is transmitted, and another while it’s displayed to the remote pilot. There’s a natural delay while he reacts to the situation, then another in transmitting his commands back to the plane, and another while it adjusts the control surfaces accordingly.

How long is this delay, in total?  The general says “several” seconds, and that’s based on current technology, not anything available in 2001. But let’s be generous, and say the latency adds just an extra two seconds to a pilots response time.  What does that mean for the 9/11 flights?

A little math begins to make it clear. At a flight speed of 500 mph, say, our planes would be covering 733.33 feet per second. In other words, even on our generously low estimate, they would fly 1466.33 feet, heading for a third of a mile, before they could possibly even begin react to anything the remote pilot has seen. Any sudden reactions in the final fraction of a second, as has been claimed at the WTC, just don’t look possible by remote control. In fact, they more than anything indicate the presence of a real, live pilot flying the aircraft.


Our Take:

While the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft are not "fly-by-wire" in the same sense as the more recent 777's; according to Boeing, they can be flown entirely under the control of their Flight Management Computer Systems (FMCS):

"A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system ensures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload.

The precision of global positioning satellite system (GPS) navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer."
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/a...background.html

Boeing also provides information on the ease of reprogramming various systems including the FMCS:

"Airplane systems that can be modified with loadable software are standard on several later-model Boeing airplanes (see table 1). This feature allows operators to change the configuration of loadable systems without physically modifying or replacing hardware components. Benefits include the ability to meet new requirements, incorporate design improvements, and correct errors. In addition, software often can be loaded just in the time required to turn an airplane around for the next flight. A major advantage of changing system functionality without changing hardware is the reduced number of line replaceable unit (LRU) spares both operators and Boeing must keep in stock."
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/a...background.html

So, if the FMCS had been hacked to take control of the aircraft, then the only remaining problem would be the flight crew attempting to override this. However, had the crew and passengers been incapacitated, the FCMS would have been able to fly the aircraft directly into their targets.

One way the crew and passengers may have been taken out is if the cabin were filled with a potent gas at a predetermined point in flight. Since pressure variations are a predictable behavior of changing altitude, a barometric-triggered device could have been used.

The scenario of the aircraft flying under the control of the FMCS seems the most likely, however, as Mike has brought up the subject of remote control, let's look into this too...

Interestingly, British aeronautical engineer Joe Vialls claims that, the 757 and 767 flight control computers incorporate a feature which enables them to be remotely controlled, for the purpose of aborting hijackings. In a January 2002 interview, Former German secretary of defense, Andreas Von Bulow claimed that this technology has existed for decades. He also said that if such systems were operative on 9/11, they should have been used to take control of and land the hijacked jets.
http://911review.com/articles/vonbuelow/tagesspiegel.html

More on this system can be found here:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/home_run.htm

Regardless of whether this feature had already been incorporated into 757 and 767 aircraft, the possibility of such a modification is not at all far fetched. Furthermore, Mike's claim that the flights could not be remote controlled, as last minute corrections would be prevented by a time delay is also fallacious.

Here is Mike's source:

"Q: Referencing the E-10, if we can control a Predator from Nevada, why do we need to put a battle staff airborne in the E-10?

General Keys: Well, you can control them, but for example, we missed shooting down a MiG-25 during the war because of the latency in the system. We had the Hellfire-armed Predator up and the MiG-25 was coming in to intercept and we had him locked up, but by the time we had fired the missile, he had started his turn and so he broke lock. The reason was there's about a several second delay in the latency."
http://www.afa.org/Media/scripts/Keys_AWS05.asp

General Keys was referring to a missile lock broken due to the MiG-25 turning before they had a chance to fire. In other words, this was an unpredictable moving target! Had the MiG-25 been static, it is unlikely that the remote pilot would have had the same problem. Under those circumstances, an experienced military pilot could have easily taken the time delay into consideration.

The only 9/11 plane which hinted at a last minute correction was Flight 175 just prior to impacting the South Tower. However, WTC 2 was a very large, stationary target.

It is clear that while the aircraft was flying a straight path into the tower, it was descending too rapidly, and therefore, the remote pilot needed to pitch up slightly. Had the aircraft pitched-up several seconds earlier, it would have hit WTC 2 higher up, closer to where Flight 11 impacted WTC 1. Furthermore, it would appear that the upper floors were the intented target, and thus strongly suggests that the late change in altitude was due to a poor estimation of the time delay.

Had a correction been made by a kamikaze pilot in the last seconds of his life, due to the intensity of the situation it is more than likely that he would have pitched-up too far, and over-exaggerated the maneuver.

However, the impact video hints at another possibility - What was thought to be a "correction" to the trajectory of Flight 175, may not have been a correction after all. Had the aircraft been flying under the FMCS, then this maneuver may have been a part of the pre-defined route, taking the aircraft through the tower. Since this took place just prior to impact, it is easy to see how this could have been misinterpreted as a "correction".

If you believe that there were real, live hijackers in control, then you have to ask yourself how these men, without any training in flying 757/767 aircraft, could have flown these at full-throttle, and with such skill and precision into the Twin Towers.

This post has been edited by Beached: May 6 2007, 08:39 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Dec 5 2006, 04:29 PM
Post #33





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



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??

This post has been edited by Beached: May 6 2007, 08:44 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Dec 5 2006, 05:06 PM
Post #34



Group Icon

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



Slow down, Beached, I can't keep up with you! (this is all getting linked)
biggrin.gif

Great stuff.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Dec 5 2006, 05:09 PM
Post #35





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



HEHEHE... Well, I'm planning on taking a break from this over the Christmas holidays! But I still have a few more to go... biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Dec 6 2006, 09:56 AM
Post #36





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



The "Put" Options and Unclaimed UAL Stock

911Myths Claims:

QUOTE
This is a complex story, but the reality is a little different from the claims.

Although there were high volumes traded on these days, for instance, they weren’t as exceptionally high as some sites like to claim. Here’s one analysis.

There were very good reasons to sell American Airlines shares, too, as they’d just announced a string of bad news. Read more here.

United Airlines stocks were falling in price, too. If investors anticipated they were about to release bad results then their put options would also be worth buying (although keep in mind that the UAL put volumes weren’t the highest in the year anyway). Here’s our thoughts.

Some point to stories like the “unclaimed millions” from UAL puts as having a sinister explanation, but we disagree.  Here’s why.

There was plenty of talk about potential insider dealings in other stocks, too.  We haven’t researched these in any depth, but it’s worth pointing out that some people believe the claims were overblown.

What about most of the options being put through a CIA-linked bank?  We weren’t convinced.

The 9/11 Commission Report mentions this issue in its notes to Chapter 5:

"A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10...

Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10th was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades".

Some suggest they should have paid more attention to it, but we’re not entirely sure why.  As you can see from the other links here, the UAL trades weren’t exceptional, and there was news to justify the sale of American Airlines shares.  Foreknowledge of 9/11 isn’t required to explain these trades.


Our Take:

Firstly, let's take a look at how the 9/11 Commission Report responded to the issue of insider trading on 9/11 (chapter 5, note 130):
QUOTE
Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options--investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price--surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10--highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. Joseph Cella interview (Sept. 16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10-11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003); SEC memo, Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners, "Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review," May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004).


So, according to the 9/11 Commission, "Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11."

What was the reason for the Commission's claim that "the trading had no connection with 9/11"? Because these trades were made by "a single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda". That means the investigation is blocked for the reason that the trail doesn't lead to the largely mythical Al-Qaeda! What is that for an "investigation" when the result stands before the investigation has even begun?

The commission are claiming that a "single U.S.based investor... purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts".

Therefore, as this turned out to be only one company, how could such a claim be made that said trading is referred to a general fall of airline-options and a general recommendation made by a trading newsletter? That fact that 95% of the put options were purchased by one investor is proof that this options-trade wasn't result of general business. This investor had a very special interest in these put-options. Who was this single investor?

The bank which purchased 95% of the UAL-Put-options was Alex Brown Inc, headed until 1998 by "Buzzy" Krongard, who became executive director of the CIA in March 2001 (resigned December 2004). Krongard was chairman of Alex Brown Inc, America's oldest investment banking firm. Alex Brown was acquired by Bankers Trust, which in turn was bought by the German Deutsche Bank. His last post before resigning to take his senior role in the CIA was to head Bankers Trust – Alex Brown's private client business, dealing with the accounts and investments of wealthy customers around the world.

Now, as we've just seen that the Commission Report contradicts itself, let's look directly at these suspicious trades:

On Sptember 10th, 1,535 contracts changed hands on options that bring a profit if AMR stock falls below $30 per share before Oct. 20. That was more than 60 times the previous daily average, according to a Bloomberg analysis of options market data (BLOOMBERG NEWS, Sept.20, 2001, also CBS News, Sept.26,2001)

In "Unusual Options Market Activity with an Application to the Terrorist Attacks of Sept. 11, 2001" by Allen M. Poteshman of the University of Illinois, the author states:
QUOTE
"When the option market activity in the days leading up to the terrorist attacks is compared to the benchmark distributions, the volume ratios and call volume indicators are seen to be at typical levels. The indicator of long put volume, however, appears to be unusually high, which is consistent with informed investors having traded in the option market in advance of the attacks."


According to Bloomberg News, Sept.20, 2001, October $30 put options for UAL soared, with 2,000 contracts traded on Sept. 6, three trading days before the attack. That was 285 times the previous average trading.

According to CBS News, Sept. 26, 2001, there has been a jump in UAL put options 90 times above normal between September 6 and September 10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack.

The Put/Call Ratio for UAL was 25 times higher than normal:


But there were more suspicious trades before 9/11:

On 21 September 2001, the Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism, states in the report entitled "Black Tuesday: The World's Largest Insider Trading Scam?" :
QUOTE
„Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45.00 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday; this compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6.“


That means 719 daily average the last three day before 9/11, compared to 27 daily average. That's 26 times more than before. The report goes on:
QUOTE
„Merrill Lynch & Co., with headquarters near the Twin Towers, saw 12,215 October $45.00 put options bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in these options had been 252 contracts per day“

That's 12 times more than the previous average volume.
QUOTE
Morgan Stanley's stock dropped 13% and Merrill Lynch's stock dropped 11.5% when the market reopened.

Again, Bloomberg News, Sept.20, 2001:
QUOTE
Citigroup Inc., which has estimated that its Travelers insurance unit may pay $500 million in claims from the World Trade Center attack, had about 45 times the normal volume during three trading days before the attack for options that profit if the stock falls below $40. Citigroup shares fell $1.25 in late trading to $38.09.

„European regulators are examing trades in Germany's Munich Re, Switzerland's Swiss Re, and AXA of France, all major reinsurers with exposure to the Black Tuesday disaster.... It is not clear if any trades in these stocks ring alarm bells.“

Also, note that German central bank president Ernst Welteke reports that a study by his bank indicates,
QUOTE
„There are ever clearer signs that there were activities on international financial markets that must have been carried out with the necessary expert knowledge“,
not only in shares of heavily affected industries such as airlines and insurance companies, but also in gold and oil. [Daily Telegraph, 9/23/01] His researchers have found
QUOTE
almost irrefutable proof of insider trading“ [Miami Herald, 9/24/01]. „If you look at movements in markets before and after the attack, it makes your brow furrow. But it is extremely difficult to really verify it.“
Nevertheless, he believes that
QUOTE
„in one or the other case it will be possible to pinpoint the source.“ [Fox News, 9/22/01]
Welteke reports
QUOTE
fundamentally inexplicable rise
in oil prices before the attacks [Miami Herald, 9/24/01] and then a further rise of 13 percent the day after the attacks. Gold rises nonstop for days after the attacks. [Daily Telegraph, 9/23/01]

There were also other suspicious winners of 9/11:

Raytheon saw its stock rise immediately after the attack. Purchases of call options on Raytheon stock increased sixfold on the day before the attack.
QUOTE
A Raytheon option that makes money if shares are more than $25 each had 232 options contracts traded on the day before the attacks, almost six times the total number of trades that had occurred before that day. A contract represents options on 100 shares. Raytheon shares soared almost 37 percent to $34.04 during the first week of post-attack U.S. trading. Bloomberg News, 10/3/01


Five-year US Treasury notes were purchased in abnormally high volums before the attack, and their buyers were rewarded with sharp increases in their value following the attack.
QUOTE
The Wall Street Journal reported on October 2 that the ongoing investigation by the SEC into suspicious stock trades had been joined by a Secret Service probe into an unusually high volume of five-year US Treasury note purchases prior to the attacks. The Treasury note transactions included a single $5 billion trade. As the Journal explained: "Five-year Treasury notes are among the best investments in the event of a world crisis, especially one that hits the US. The notes are prized for their safety and their backing by the US government, and usually rally when investors flee riskier investments, such as stocks." The value of these notes, the Journal pointed out, has risen sharply since the events of September 11.Suspicious trading points to advance knowledge by big investors of September 11 attacks, wsws.org, 10/5/01


In conclusion:

1. A jump is seen in United Airlines put options. This is 90 times above normal between September 6 and September 10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack. In the case of the UAL put options, even Mike admits that, "[he] cannot definitively show why the UAL put options were purchased".

2. A jump is seen in American Airlines put options. This is 60 times above normal on the day prior to the attacks.

We should also consider that while the American Airlines shares were falling in price, if we look at the share prices, we will see that their decline in previous months was not as dramatic as Mike makes out:

According to Mike's chart, between July 16th and September 10th 2001, the price of AA stock fell from $38 to $29.95. However, if we review the complete history, we will see that between June 26th and July 16th, the opening price had gone from $32.50 - 38.00, where it peaked. Of course, Mike begins his chart from July 16th, thus presenting the illusion of a more dramatic, long-term decrease!

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=AMR&a=08&b...e=30&f=2001&g=d

From July 16th there had been a gradual decline in price, albeit very slow. Considering none of Mike's evidence suggested a huge plummet on the horizon, the sheer volume of put options purchased appears to be overly speculative.

To put this into perspective, we should consider that the price of Continental Airlines stock was also in decline. This was also the case with many other airlines. In 2001, Continental stock fell from $51.85 on July 16th, to $39.75 on September 10th. In fact, it fell further than the American Airlines stock in less than 2 months!
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=CAL&a=08&b...e=30&f=2001&g=d

The Continental share prices followed a similar pattern to those of American Airlines, however, no similar trades occured on this airline, or any others in the days immediately prior to 9/11.

3. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co, which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw between September 7 and September 10, an increase of 26 times in the purchase of put options on its shares. 2,157 of its October $45 put options were purchased in the three trading days before Black Tuesday. This compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6. In the aftermath of the attacks, Morgan Stanley’s share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50.

4. Merrill Lynch & Co., whose headquarters were near the Twin Towers, saw a jump of more than 12 times the normal level of put opinions in the four trading days before the attacks. 12,215 of their October $45 put options had been bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in those shares had been 252 contracts per day. That's an increase of 1200%!

5. A jump is seen in Raytheon call options, more than 6 times their daily average

6. Extraordinary high volumes of trading is seen in both gold and US Treasury notes.

What a coincidence! In the days prior to 9/11, a large spike is seen in the stock of American and United Airlines, together with several other businesses also to be directly affected by the disaster!

Don't you think there should be a real investigation, even if the result would be that the investors have "no conceivable ties to al Qaeda"?

This post has been edited by Beached: May 6 2007, 08:46 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Dec 6 2006, 12:39 PM
Post #37





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



Ok, I think I've covered most of the important stuff, and so I'm going to take a break until the new year! Having trawled through Mike's site, the rest are strawmen and idiotic "claims" such as:

"The Pentagon had foresight of AA77's impact because they had a drill of an aircraft crashing into their building"

..to which Mike's reply is something like...

"The Pentagon is near a major airport and so such drills could normally be expected"

What a stupid strawman/reply! It debunks the strawman of "foresight", however, it doesn't mean they hadn't envisioned such a scenario!! laugh.gif

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? dunno.gif

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! [laugh] I noticed there's now even a link to a pseudo "expert" (and probably a closet JREFer) "backing it up"! laugh.gif

This post has been edited by Beached: Dec 6 2006, 05:34 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
conspiracy_chest...
post Dec 6 2006, 10:26 PM
Post #38





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



I missed what a the govt loyalist site is.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Dec 6 2006, 10:37 PM
Post #39





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



QUOTE (conspiracy_chestnut @ Dec 7 2006, 02:26 AM)
I missed what a the govt loyalist site is.

the govt loyalist site are the Randi cult tongue.gif I think it stands for James Randi Educational Foundation
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Dec 7 2006, 10:03 AM
Post #40





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



I was just looking at the 911myths FAQ page and this cracked me up...

QUOTE
What do you think happened on September 11th?

I think the attacks were carried out by al Qaeda, and involved the 19 named hijackers.


[laugh]

There is no way a genuinely intelligent, critical thinker could believe such tripe! On his website, he conveys himself as a seemingly intelligent individual, especially in his manipulative style of writing, which is why his "takes" appear so convincing. However, it's only when people carefully dissect, and analyze what he's written, that it becomes apparent that most of it is nonesense.

Interestingly, his FAQ goes on to say:

QUOTE
Why spend so much effort on this?

Why do you ask? Oh, I know. It’s the old one where anyone who spends a lot of time promoting a particular 9/11 theory is A Fearless Seeker After Truth (even if their site is packed with “Donate” buttons and invitations for you to “buy the book/ DVD/ video”), but anyone who spends the same amount of time on the other side of the argument is A Government Shill/ Paid Disinformation Agent, right?

Well, believe what you like, but I do this because I enjoy it. It’s an interesting exercise in collecting information online, and sharpens my research skills. Plus I didn’t see anyone else bothering to do the same thing (plenty of sites making these claims, not so many questioning them), so arguably the site is performing a useful function as well. Although that’s really just a side issue: I’m doing this for me, not for anyone else.


Well, despite what Mike says, his motivation is too suspicious. He blindly accepts the "official" fairytale despite the many holes in the story. However, when it comes to an alternative explanation, he follows the Randi methodology; dictating that unless full confessions are provided by all parties involved, he denies all possibility.

There is no way he could be so obtuse, unless it were deliberate. However, the top of his FAQ may hint toward his true motivation...

QUOTE
Who are you?

I'm Mike Williams, a software developer and freelance writer from the UK.


Could he be doing this on behalf of a particular client? Considering his talent for spin, Mike could even give "Mein Kampf" an innocuous twist! laugh.gif

Well, if he is doing this on behalf of a client, it may be one who pays very well...

... but of course, I may be wrong, and it may turn out that Mike is just a misguided fool, however, as with everything else, common sense dictates taking an alternative explanation into consideration.

This post has been edited by Beached: Dec 9 2006, 10:34 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
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

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: 25th August 2019 - 05:34 AM