Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Psychic Christine Holohan on TV Fri29Sep

2

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,815 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    You are funny lol! The technology didnt exist then to make calls from cell phones. It has only been made available recently. indeed some planes today have just put the technology in place. In 2001, it was impossible. Period.
    Ok then prove it. Should be easy if you can so easily declare it impossible.
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    Check out the transcripts from the Massasoui trial for yourself , how much more evidence do you need.
    The actual evidence that this was said.
    Again should be easy for you to pull up if you actually researched it and didn't just parrot it off some crank's site.
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    Anytime I post a reply, you just answer with a broad denial or with puerile statements like "B***S**". If its not that its accusations of copying and pasting from websites or just plain refusal to accept facts. Again some sceptic you are - if the government says its true then it must be true lol.
    No if you actually read it, I'm asking you to provide evidence for your claims, exactly what a skeptic does.
    Just because you say it doesn't make it a fact, post your references.
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    My point exactly and why this important question that you so eloquently and correctly posed needs to be answered by a new independent 911 investigation.
    That's the thing though, that question assumes a vast conspiracy. And it certainly isn't proof positive of a conspiracy (which I asked for in the original question.)
    Also it assumes that it was impossible for such calls to be made, which you've only support by insistingly saying so.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    another popular ad hominen attack made against people who dare question 911.
    There's a evidence to suggest that, depending on how and where one asks the question, that "people who dare question 911" are actually in the majority in the US.

    Consequently, people who accept the official explanations are actually in the minority and painting yourself as a brave independent thinker who "dares" to question the very simple (if nationally demeaning) evidence-based conclusion that hijackers alone organized and executed the events of 11/9/2001, is overegging your position a trifle.
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    I have as I said earlier done my own independent research
    How many of the participants have you interviewed? How many times have you visited the WTC site in NY the Pennsylvania crash site, and the Pentagon and carried out your "independent research", or have you simply read the the usual 9/11 PCT literature?
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    was this not a debate between myself and King Mob?
    I'm moderator here and when, as I said above, you are posting in a forum devoted to the exploration of topics using scientific skepticism, but choosing instead to post in normal PCT style (random jumping from topic to topic, asserting grand conspiracies, no original research, lengthy cut'n'paste from third-party sources etc, etc) then it's my job to step in and point this out.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    I dont think myself a brave independent thinker
    Good, then don't use the word "dare" when describing your own position :)
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    I wasn't aware that I had to go over to ground zero in order to research 911 and ask questions about what happened that day.
    You claimed that you have carried out "independent research" and I'd like to know what this research is, and under what conditions it was carried out.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭Chriskavo


    ''Ok then prove it. Should be easy if you can so easily declare it impossible."

    Well-known Canadian scientist and mathematician A. K. Dewdney, who for many years had written a column for Scientific American, reported early in 2003 on experiments showing that these difficulties would have rendered impossible at least most of the reported cell phone calls from the 911 airliners.27 His experiments involved both single- and double-engine airplanes.

    Dewdney found that, in a single-engine plane, successful calls could be counted on only under 2,000 feet. Above that altitude, they became increasingly unlikely. At 20,000 feet,

    “the chance of a typical cellphone call making it to ground and engaging a cellsite there is less than one in a hundred.... [T]he probability that two callers will succeed is less than one in ten thousand.”

    The likelihood of 13 successful calls, Dewdney added, would be “infinitesimal.”28 In later experiments using a twin-engine plane, which has greater mass and hence provides greater insulation from electronic signals, Dewdney found that the success rate decayed to 0 percent at 7,000 feet.29 A large airliner, having much greater mass, would provide far more insulation – a fact, Dewdney added, that “is very much in harmony with many anecdotal reports ...that in large passenger jets, one loses contact during takeoff, frequently before the plane reaches 1000 feet altitude.”30 Dewdney concluded, therefore, that numerous successful cell phone calls from airliners flying above 30,000 feet would have been “flat out impossible.”31

    Such calls would become possible only several years later. In 2004, Qualcomm announced a successful demonstration of a fundamentally new kind of cell phone technology, involving a “picocell,” that would allow passengers “to place and receive calls as if they were on the ground.” American Airlines announced that this new technology was expected to be commercially available in 2006.32 This technology, in fact, first became available on commercial flights in March 2008.33

    I suppose he's a crank right?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    I dont go along with the official version.
    That's fine, but independent research doesn't mean reading books -- it means getting out there and doing something.

    Regardless of that, people lie -- and that applies to conspiracy theorists who have their peculiar reasons for doing so just as much as governments do.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭Chriskavo


    robindch wrote: »
    That's fine, but independent research doesn't mean reading books -- it means getting out there and doing something.

    Regardless of that, people lie -- and that applies to conspiracy theorists who have their peculiar reasons for doing so just as much as governments do.

    I do hope you are not implying that I am a liar - you do remember carding me for using that term? As for the term 'Conspiracy Theorist' lets go into that term a little. A conspiracy is an agreement to perform together to commit an illegal , evil or treacherous act. Does that not make the official story of 911 a conspiracy theory? Nevertheless this term conspiracy theory' a favorite of yours is used only for those who reject the official conspiracy theory in favor of the alternative theory. As a scientific skeptic I urge you to take a look at this website with an open mind - www.ae911truth.org/

    P. S I take it that you go along with the official conspiracy theory? have you done any research on the topic yourself?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    I do hope you are not implying that I am a liar
    No, I am saying that the people who provide the active and large paranoid conspiracy theorist community with their literature are liars.
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    Does that not make the official story of 911 a conspiracy theory?
    Don't be silly -- you're perfectly well aware of what a paranoid conspiracy theory is :rolleyes:
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    As a scientific skeptic I urge you to take a look at this website with an open mind - www.ae911truth.org/
    That website is a plain vanilla recycling of the usual paranoid conspiracy theories that surround the WTC attacks. I certainly don't see anything original with that particular website, other than the requests for donations down the left hand side -- turning PCT's into money -- doesn't look like it's a bad business to be in either, judging by the amounts of cash they're making off with!
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    have you done any research on the topic yourself?
    Other than to read the official reports (I'm a qualified engineer, and they are consistent, reasonable and professional accounts of the events of the day), and some segments of the PCT literature (unmitigated, thoroughly inconsistent nonsense), I haven't studied anything concerning the WTC attacks.

    As far as I'm concerned, WTC PCT's occupy the same intellectual arena as creationism and one could waste one's entire life rebutting each lie or fantasy as it happens along, only to have it ignored as indeed most of KM's points were here.

    I really do have far more interesting and far more productive ways to spend my time :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭Chriskavo


    robindch wrote: »
    No, I am saying that the people who provide the active and large paranoid conspiracy theorist community with their literature are liars.Don't be silly -- you're perfectly well aware of what a paranoid conspiracy theory is :rolleyes:That website is a plain vanilla recycling of the usual paranoid conspiracy theories that surround the WTC attacks. I certainly don't see anything original with that particular website, other than the requests for donations down the left hand side -- turning PCT's into money -- doesn't look like it's a bad business to be in either, judging by the amounts of cash they're making off with!Other than to read the official reports (I'm a qualified engineer, and they are consistent, reasonable and professional accounts of the events of the day), and some segments of the PCT literature (unmitigated, thoroughly inconsistent nonsense), I haven't studied anything concerning the WTC attacks.

    As far as I'm concerned, WTC PCT's occupy the same intellectual arena as creationism and one could waste one's entire life rebutting each lie or fantasy as it happens along, only to have it ignored as indeed most of KM's points were here.

    I really do have far more interesting and far more productive ways to spend my time :)

    You haven't studied the WTC attacks and willingly accept the official account. That says it all - you are certainly not a skeptic. You haven't even bothered to do proper research. Do you know that I could also accuse you of being an Offical paranoid conspiracy theorist. The official account of 911 is a conspiracy - FACT! Do you accuse your fellow engineers who have petitioned congress looking for a new independent investigation of being delude PCTer's. Can you as an engineer explain the free fall collapse of building 7? Are the six of the 10 911 commisioners who now question the official conspiracy account PCTer's including the senior counsel John Farmer and the commisions authors Kean and Hamlton? What about the majority of the victims familie who want to see a ne investigation. I want buy into your strawman argument of equating the 911 truth movement with creationism. Creationism has nothing to do with questioning 911. Diversion tactics like this serve no purpose and are intellectually bankrupt. So as an engineer - explain the free fall collapse of WTC7?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    The official account of 911 is a conspiracy - FACT!
    Boring!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,815 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    Well-known Canadian scientist and mathematician
    A. K. Dewdney, who for many years had written a column for Scientific American,
    So therefore we know he must not be questioned.
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    reported early in 2003 on experiments showing that these difficulties would have rendered impossible at least most of the reported cell phone calls from the 911 airliners.27
    Was that the actual conclusion or just one tacked on by the CTers?
    Can you actually post the paper or are we to just take your word on it?
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    His experiments involved both single- and double-engine airplanes.
    Why does that matter?
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    Dewdney found that, in a single-engine plane, successful calls could be counted on only under 2,000 feet. Above that altitude, they became increasingly unlikely. At 20,000 feet,
    “the chance of a typical cellphone call making it to ground and engaging a cellsite there is less than one in a hundred.... [T]he probability that two callers will succeed is less than one in ten thousand.”

    The likelihood of 13 successful calls, Dewdney added, would be “infinitesimal.”28 In later experiments using a twin-engine plane, which has greater mass and hence provides greater insulation from electronic signals, Dewdney found that the success rate decayed to 0 percent at 7,000 feet.29 A large airliner, having much greater mass, would provide far more insulation – a fact, Dewdney added, that “is very much in harmony with many anecdotal reports ...that in large passenger jets, one loses contact during takeoff, frequently before the plane reaches 1000 feet altitude.”30 Dewdney concluded, therefore, that numerous successful cell phone calls from airliners flying above 30,000 feet would have been “flat out impossible.”31
    [/QUOTE]
    There's some bad math here.
    It's correct for when you're dealing with unrelated and independent events, like the lottery tickets etc.
    But the phone calls were not independent, they relied on precisely the same set of circumstances. If a 9/11 plane were in the right position, in relation to a powerful base station, for the calls to take place, then it was in the right position for everyone on the plane (who had a mobile which could use that base station). At any given moment, either all this group of people could get through, or none of them. Therefore the chance of two people getting through remains close to 1 in 100, even with Dewdneys flawed conditions, not the 1 in 10,000 he claims.

    And even then 1 in 10,000 that's not "impossible".
    More on his experiments here:
    http://www.911myths.com/html/ak_dewdney_and_project_achille.html

    And of course there are plenty of sources that say phonecalls are possible in Aeroplanes.
    http://www.hindu.com/seta/2003/10/31/stories/2003103100110300.htm
    http://www.wirelessweek.com/index.asp?layout=story&articleId=CA160201&stt=001
    http://www.slate.com/id/1008297/
    http://www.sandiegometro.com/2001/oct/sdscene.html

    And a detailed debunking of this myth here:
    http://www.911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html

    So it's clear it's possible that the phone calls could have been made.
    Furthermore it's likely that those two calls were the only successful ones from a lot of panicked attempts.
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    I suppose he's a crank right?
    Nope but the cranks that take his flawed experiment out of context and proportion are.

    Now since you think it's unseemly for me to label everyone as cranks it's only fair you refrain from claiming anyone is in on it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,815 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    explain the free fall collapse of WTC7?
    Prove that it fell at free fall speed.
    Why do we have to explain something that simply didn't happen?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭Chriskavo


    So we are to believe some guy in India and a vague article on New York Times lol.

    Given the cell phone technology available in 2001, cell phone calls from airliners at altitudes of more than a few thousand feet, especially calls lasting more than a few seconds, were virtually – and perhaps completely – impossible. And yet many of the reported cell phone calls occurred when the planes were above 25,000 or even 40,000 feet24 and also lasted a minute or more – with Amy Sweeney’s reported call even lasting for 12 minutes.25

    Three problems have been pointed out: (1) The cell phone in those days had to complete a “handshake” with a cellsite on the ground, which took several seconds, so a cell phone in a high-speed plane would have had trouble staying connected to a cellsite long enough to complete a call. (2) The signals were sent out horizontally, from cellsite to cellsite, not vertically. Although there was some leakage upward, the system was not designed to activate cell phones at high altitudes.26 (3) Receiving a signal was made even more difficult by the insulation provided by the large mass of an airliner.

    Furthermore why was TED Olsens phone call rejected by the FBI?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3 KenfromDublin


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    So we are to believe some guy in India and a vague article on New York Times lol.

    Given the cell phone technology available in 2001, cell phone calls from airliners at altitudes of more than a few thousand feet, especially calls lasting more than a few seconds, were virtually – and perhaps completely – impossible. And yet many of the reported cell phone calls occurred when the planes were above 25,000 or even 40,000 feet24 and also lasted a minute or more – with Amy Sweeney’s reported call even lasting for 12 minutes.25

    Three problems have been pointed out: (1) The cell phone in those days had to complete a “handshake” with a cellsite on the ground, which took several seconds, so a cell phone in a high-speed plane would have had trouble staying connected to a cellsite long enough to complete a call. (2) The signals were sent out horizontally, from cellsite to cellsite, not vertically. Although there was some leakage upward, the system was not designed to activate cell phones at high altitudes.26 (3) Receiving a signal was made even more difficult by the insulation provided by the large mass of an airliner.

    Furthermore why was TED Olsens phone call rejected by the FBI?
    That's so true Chris, Ryanair are only now pioneering air to ground mobile technology, almost ten years after the fictional calls that we were led to believe took place in 2001, when the technology was non-existent, just like [...personal invective deleted....]


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭Chriskavo


    King Mob wrote: »
    Prove that it fell at free fall speed.
    Why do we have to explain something that simply didn't happen?

    So you disagree with NIST who also agree that building 7 collapsed at fere fall speed?

    NIST Admits Free Fall: NIST did acknowledge free fall in its final report. It tried to disguise it, but the admission is there on page 607. Dividing the building’s descent into three stages, it describes the second phase as “a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds]. “Gravitational acceleration” is a synonym for free fall acceleration.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    [...personal invective deleted....]
    Ken is currently on a week's holiday from the forum.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,815 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    So we are to believe some guy in India and a vague article on New York Times lol.
    No more than you expect me to believe this drivel you keep copy pasting.
    I back up my claims with actual sources,you do not.
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    Given the cell phone technology available in 2001, cell phone calls from airliners at altitudes of more than a few thousand feet, especially calls lasting more than a few seconds, were virtually – and perhaps completely – impossible. And yet many of the reported cell phone calls occurred when the planes were above 25,000 or even 40,000 feet24 and also lasted a minute or more – with Amy Sweeney’s reported call even lasting for 12 minutes.25

    Three problems have been pointed out: (1) The cell phone in those days had to complete a “handshake” with a cellsite on the ground, which took several seconds, so a cell phone in a high-speed plane would have had trouble staying connected to a cellsite long enough to complete a call. (2) The signals were sent out horizontally, from cellsite to cellsite, not vertically. Although there was some leakage upward, the system was not designed to activate cell phones at high altitudes.26 (3) Receiving a signal was made even more difficult by the insulation provided by the large mass of an airliner.
    So I take it then you didn't read any of the links I posted?

    All this stuff just makes a cellphone call hard, not impossible.

    Chriskavo wrote: »
    Furthermore why was TED Olsens phone call rejected by the FBI?
    I don't know. You haven't even show that it was rejected.
    How does this prove a conspiracy?

    Chriskavo wrote: »
    So you disagree with NIST who also agree that building 7 collapsed at fere fall speed?

    NIST Admits Free Fall: NIST did acknowledge free fall in its final report. It tried to disguise it, but the admission is there on page 607. Dividing the building’s descent into three stages, it describes the second phase as “a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds]. “Gravitational acceleration” is a synonym for free fall acceleration.
    Wow, you're really stretching there.
    You do know what an out of context quote is right?
    And you know why they are dishonest to use?

    Tell us what the other two stages where.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    King Mob wrote: »
    All this stuff just makes a cellphone call hard, not impossible.
    Ten days back, I was in an A380 at 40k feet trundling slowly from Singapore back to Heathrow. Some klutz had left his mobile on and from time to time, one could hear the beep-beep as messages or GSM provider welcome notes drifted in.

    40k feet is 12km, while GSM has a nominal maximum range of 35km and can be extended to much more than that by suitably configuring the base stations.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭Chriskavo


    King Mob wrote: »
    No more than you expect me to believe this drivel you keep copy pasting.
    I back up my claims with actual sources,you do not.


    So I take it then you didn't read any of the links I posted?

    All this stuff just makes a cellphone call hard, not impossible.



    I don't know. You haven't even show that it was rejected.
    How does this prove a conspiracy?



    Wow, you're really stretching there.
    You do know what an out of context quote is right?
    And you know why they are dishonest to use?

    Tell us what the other two stages where.

    The New York Times article indicated that it might be possible on take off and descent when the plane is at low altitudes. Not 40,000 feet - impossible. As the scientist who conducted his experiment proved, but you have proven yourself adept at ignoring empirical evidence. You would rather accept the views of some Indian from the Hindu Times that no one has ever heard of and not the views of a well respected and established scientist contrary to your claims to being a scientific skeptic.I have posted you the link to the Massasoui trial and if you looked properly which I doubt you will get your answer there. You also deny NISTs own report where they admit building sevens free fall speed which is on page 607 of their report.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,815 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    The New York Times article indicated that it might be possible on take off and descent when the plane is at low altitudes. Not 40,000 feet - impossible.
    Again you've shown nothing substantial to prove that it's impossible to make such calls, I have shown plenty to suggest it is possible.
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    As the scientist who conducted his experiment proved,
    You mean the non-reviewed, non-replicated experiment published only on a conspiracy theorist website and performed by a guy biased towards a conspiracy theorist explanation?

    Very loose definitions of proof and scientist would have to apply.
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    but you have proven yourself adept at ignoring empirical evidence.
    Oh the irony...
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    You would rather accept the views of some Indian from the Hindu Times that no one has ever heard of and not the views of a well respected and established scientist contrary to your claims to being a scientific skeptic.
    And yet you have no problem disagreeing with the respected and well established scientist who worked on the 9/11 reports.
    Do you know what an argument from authority is?
    And why it's dishonest to use one?

    And what's so wrong about using the Hindu times as a source exactly?
    What about the other sources?
    Did you just look at the headlines and stop?
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    I have posted you the link to the Massasoui trial and if you looked properly which I doubt you will get your answer there.
    No you didn't. And you certainly didn't show that they rejected the evidence.

    And can you explain what this is?
    http://www.911myths.com/images/7/78/FBI_compilation_re_Flight_77_calls.pdf

    And can you finally explain why this would prove a conspiracy?
    Or are you going to start ignoring tough questions again?
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    You also deny NISTs own report where they admit building sevens free fall speed which is on page 607 of their report.
    Ok let's ignore reality for a second. Lets say the this does show the tower was demolished, why the **** is it in the freely available report on why the tower collapsed?

    Are you going to answer the original question?
    What where the other two stages it refers too?

    But I know well you're not going to answer that question, because if you did so truthfully it would negate your point. Because you are taking it out of context and you know that you are.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭Chriskavo


    King Mob wrote: »
    Again you've shown nothing substantial to prove that it's impossible to make such calls, I have shown plenty to suggest it is possible.

    You mean the non-reviewed, non-replicated experiment published only on a conspiracy theorist website and performed by a guy biased towards a conspiracy theorist explanation?

    Very loose definitions of proof and scientist would have to apply.


    Oh the irony...
    And yet you have no problem disagreeing with the respected and well established scientist who worked on the 9/11 reports.
    Do you know what an argument from authority is?
    And why it's dishonest to use one?

    When 6 out of the 10 commissioners say that they were lied to and that it was tantamount to a criminal cover up then of course I have a problem.

    And what's so wrong about using the Hindu times as a source exactly?
    What about the other sources?
    Did you just look at the headlines and stop?

    No you didn't. And you certainly didn't show that they rejected the evidence.
    Her you are - www.zimbio.com/Ted+Olson/.../Flight+77+United+States+v+Zacarias+Moussaoui
    And can you explain what this is?
    http://www.911myths.com/images/7/78/FBI_compilation_re_Flight_77_calls.pdf

    Yup - a contrived manufactured piece of fiction used to back up the official conspiracy theory.
    And can you finally explain why this would prove a conspiracy?
    Or are you going to start ignoring tough questions again?

    Ok let's ignore reality for a second. Lets say the this does show the tower was demolished, why the **** is it in the freely available report on why the tower collapsed?

    It took NIST a long time to try and explain WTC & collapse - eventually through sustained pressure from various groups they came out with their report. And as you have seen in the quote which was not taken out of context and which is totally unambiguous - they admit free fall collapse. One of the many reasons why over a thousand scientists want to see 911 re-investigated.

    Are you going to answer the original question?
    What where the other two stages it refers too?
    But I know well you're not going to answer that question, because if you did so truthfully it would negate your point. Because you are taking it out of context and you know that you are.

    Not true, read the NIST report and stop trying to obfuscate matters.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭Chriskavo


    robindch wrote: »
    Ten days back, I was in an A380 at 40k feet trundling slowly from Singapore back to Heathrow. Some klutz had left his mobile on and from time to time, one could hear the beep-beep as messages or GSM provider welcome notes drifted in.

    40k feet is 12km, while GSM has a nominal maximum range of 35km and can be extended to much more than that by suitably configuring the base stations.

    I am talking about 2001 not 10 days ago. :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,815 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    When 6 out of the 10 commissioners say that they were lied to and that it was tantamount to a criminal cover up then of course I have a problem.
    That's not what they said and it's not what they meant. you are taking quotes out of context.
    And you know well that's what you are doing.
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    Link not working.
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    Yup - a contrived manufactured piece of fiction used to back up the official conspiracy theory.
    And I bet you have tons of evidence to prove it's fabricated.

    But seeing as you have no problem introducing baseless claims to dismiss evidence against you, no reason you can complain if I dismiss both the "experiments" and the supposed FBI rejections as manufactured pieces of fiction used to back up the paranoid conspiracy theory, right?
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    It took NIST a long time to try and explain WTC & collapse - eventually through sustained pressure from various groups they came out with their report.
    That's not what happened.
    It's a very different world you live in.
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    And as you have seen in the quote which was not taken out of context and which is totally unambiguous - they admit free fall collapse.
    Then please describe what the other two "stages of collapse" are.
    And why would they admit it in a freely available document?
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    One of the many reasons why over a thousand scientists want to see 911 re-investigated.
    And as we all know scientists are never to be questioned.
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    Not true, read the NIST report and stop trying to obfuscate matters.
    I have and you have.
    You have not read the links I posted from the NIST that explictly refute the "Free fall" nonsense.

    And again we have the irony of you accusing me of obfuscating matters when you repeatedly refuse to answer very simple questions.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    robindch wrote:
    Ten days back, I was in an A380 at 40k feet trundling slowly from Singapore back to Heathrow. Some klutz had left his mobile on and from time to time, one could hear the beep-beep as messages or GSM provider welcome notes drifted in.

    40k feet is 12km, while GSM has a nominal maximum range of 35km and can be extended to much more than that by suitably configuring the base stations.
    I am talking about 2001 not 10 days ago. :rolleyes:
    GSM in the USA was four years old in 2001 :rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭Chriskavo


    robindch wrote: »
    GSM in the USA was four years old in 2001 :rolleyes:

    It was impossible in 2001 and was duly proven by a renowned Canadian scientist. The transcript from the alleged phone call to Ted Olsen from his wife Barbara read 0.00 seconds i.e their was no phone call and has been rejected by American Airines lthe FBI and the Pentagon. The Barbara Olsen phone call is the one most cited by defenders of the official conspiracy theory. Only two possibilties remain here - either Ted Olsen lied or he was duped.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,815 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    It was impossible in 2001 and was duly proven by a renowned Canadian scientist. The transcript from the alleged phone call to Ted Olsen from his wife Barbara read 0.00 seconds i.e their was no phone call and has been rejected by American Airines lthe FBI and the Pentagon. The Barbara Olsen phone call is the one most cited by defenders of the official conspiracy theory. Only two possibilties remain here - either Ted Olsen lied or he was duped.

    Can you explain these phone call then?
    UnknownCallerAA77.png

    And again a non peer reviewed and non replicated experiment by a biased experimenter who uses bad math isn't proof of anything.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭Chriskavo


    King Mob wrote: »
    Can you explain these phone call then?
    UnknownCallerAA77.png

    And again a non peer reviewed and non replicated experiment by a biased experimenter who uses bad math isn't proof of anything.[/QUO

    So, we learn, there were apparently only two sources of information: purely oral reports from people in the office (not backed up by any notes or logs), which provide the account of two calls from Barbara Olson; and "records available for the phone calls from American 77," which provide no proof that Barbara Olson made any calls whatsoever. The DOJ and the FBI merely "believe" that two, or perhaps all four, of the connected calls to unknown numbers had been made by her. Hmmmm

    But what are we to suppose about the third call, which reportedly began at 9:25:48 and lasted for 2 minutes and 34 seconds, and the fourth call, which reportedly began at 9:30:56 and lasted for 4 minutes and 20 seconds? Are we to suppose that Keyton received these calls and transferred them to the solicitor general, but then both of them failed, while being interviewed by the FBI, to mention these two calls, which would have lasted a total of almost 7 minutes? The idea is too ludicrous to consider. How, then, are we to suppose that these final two calls could have been "from Barbara Olson to her husband Ted's office"? Can we imagine that someone else in that office - perhaps Ted Olson's personal secretary, Helen Voss, or someone else who took over telephone duty from Lori Keyton - received these two calls and then, instead of transferring them to Ted, stayed on the line with Barbara for almost seven minutes, and then never told him about these calls? Again, the idea is too absurd to entertain.

    Again A highly respected and renowned scientist who has had many of his findings published in peer reviewed magazines like Scientific Journal. And why did the FBI change its position in 2004 and admit that cell phones calls could not be made in 2004..kinda puts a spanner in the works eh?:D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭Chriskavo


    King Mob wrote: »
    Can you explain these phone call then?
    UnknownCallerAA77.png

    And again a non peer reviewed and non replicated experiment by a biased experimenter who uses bad math isn't proof of anything.[/QUO

    So, we learn, there were apparently only two sources of information: purely oral reports from people in the office (not backed up by any notes or logs), which provide the account of two calls from Barbara Olson; and "records available for the phone calls from American 77," which provide no proof that Barbara Olson made any calls whatsoever. The DOJ and the FBI merely "believe" that two, or perhaps all four, of the connected calls to unknown numbers had been made by her. Hmmmm

    But what are we to suppose about the third call, which reportedly began at 9:25:48 and lasted for 2 minutes and 34 seconds, and the fourth call, which reportedly began at 9:30:56 and lasted for 4 minutes and 20 seconds? Are we to suppose that Keyton received these calls and transferred them to the solicitor general, but then both of them failed, while being interviewed by the FBI, to mention these two calls, which would have lasted a total of almost 7 minutes? The idea is too ludicrous to consider. How, then, are we to suppose that these final two calls could have been "from Barbara Olson to her husband Ted's office"? Can we imagine that someone else in that office - perhaps Ted Olson's personal secretary, Helen Voss, or someone else who took over telephone duty from Lori Keyton - received these two calls and then, instead of transferring them to Ted, stayed on the line with Barbara for almost seven minutes, and then never told him about these calls? Again, the idea is too absurd to entertain.

    Again A highly respected and renowned scientist who has had many of his findings published in peer reviewed magazines like Scientific Journal. And why did the FBI change its position in 2004 and admit that cell phones calls could not be made in 2004..kinda puts a spanner in the works eh?:D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,815 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    So, we learn, there were apparently only two sources of information: purely oral reports from people in the office (not backed up by any notes or logs), which provide the account of two calls from Barbara Olson; and "records available for the phone calls from American 77," which provide no proof that Barbara Olson made any calls whatsoever. The DOJ and the FBI merely "believe" that two, or perhaps all four, of the connected calls to unknown numbers had been made by her. Hmmmm

    But what are we to suppose about the third call, which reportedly began at 9:25:48 and lasted for 2 minutes and 34 seconds, and the fourth call, which reportedly began at 9:30:56 and lasted for 4 minutes and 20 seconds? Are we to suppose that Keyton received these calls and transferred them to the solicitor general, but then both of them failed, while being interviewed by the FBI, to mention these two calls, which would have lasted a total of almost 7 minutes? The idea is too ludicrous to consider. How, then, are we to suppose that these final two calls could have been "from Barbara Olson to her husband Ted's office"? Can we imagine that someone else in that office - perhaps Ted Olson's personal secretary, Helen Voss, or someone else who took over telephone duty from Lori Keyton - received these two calls and then, instead of transferring them to Ted, stayed on the line with Barbara for almost seven minutes, and then never told him about these calls? Again, the idea is too absurd to entertain.
    And thus your entire argument is destoryed.
    You had been arguing that it was impossible for the calls to be made, therefore they must be fake.

    You now have to admit that they could have made, instead copy pasting some other silly argument that too many calls were made.

    So answer one question, is it possible two of those connected calls could have been from Barbara Olson to her husband?
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    Again A highly respected and renowned scientist who has had many of his findings published in peer reviewed magazines like Scientific Journal.
    1. there is no such magazine called Scientific Journal.
    2. Magazines aren't the same as actual scientific journals.
    3. Magazines don't peer review.
    4. this experiment was not peer reviewed.

    Just because you keep calling him "highly respected" doesn't make it so.
    Just because he's published in actual scientific jounrals doesn't make him infallible.

    Instead of just making silly arguments from authority, you can answer some of the criticisms I've posted about his experiment?
    And maybe answer some of those other though questions you like to ignore.
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    And why did the FBI change its position in 2004 and admit that cell phones calls could not be made in 2004..kinda puts a spanner in the works eh?:D
    They said no such thing.
    You keep making these claims but never back them up with any source.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭Chriskavo


    King Mob wrote: »
    And thus your entire argument is destoryed.
    You had been arguing that it was impossible for the calls to be made, therefore they must be fake.

    You now have to admit that they could have made, instead copy pasting some other silly argument that too many calls were made.

    So answer one question, is it possible two of those connected calls could have been from Barbara Olson to her husband?


    1. there is no such magazine called Scientific Journal.
    2. Magazines aren't the same as actual scientific journals.
    3. Magazines don't peer review.
    4. this experiment was not peer reviewed.

    Just because you keep calling him "highly respected" doesn't make it so.
    Just because he's published in actual scientific jounrals doesn't make him infallible.

    Instead of just making silly arguments from authority, you can answer some of the criticisms I've posted about his experiment?
    And maybe answer some of those other though questions you like to ignore.

    They said no such thing.
    You keep making these claims but never back them up with any source.

    Not at all what it says is that it provides no proof that these alleged calls were made by Barbara Olsen at all much less from flight 77. Can you provide me with proof that those alleged calls came from her?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,815 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    Not at all what it says is that it provides no proof that these alleged calls were made by Barbara Olsen at all much less from flight 77. Can you provide me with proof that those alleged calls came from her?

    You see that's what you get when you copy and paste before reading the stuff, it tends to contradict yourself.

    It shows, that calls of the same reported length and close to the report time where made.
    You yourself had absolutely no problem what so ever using that exact source to "prove" that Barbara Olson's call only lasted 0 seconds.

    Your entire argument was based on the premise that these (or any) calls where impossible.
    So answer the question, are these calls possible? Yes or No?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭Chriskavo


    King Mob wrote: »
    You see that's what you get when you copy and paste before reading the stuff, it tends to contradict yourself.

    It shows, that calls of the same reported length and close to the report time where made.
    You yourself had absolutely no problem what so ever using that exact source to "prove" that Barbara Olson's call only lasted 0 seconds.

    Your entire argument was based on the premise that these (or any) calls where impossible.
    So answer the question, are these calls possible? Yes or No?

    Those calls were impossible, the FBI, the Pentagon and American Airlines have rejected Ted Olsen story.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭Chriskavo


    And provide me with proof that those calls came from Barbara Olsen please!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,815 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    Those calls were impossible, the FBI, the Pentagon and American Airlines have rejected Ted Olsen story.
    Then why does a slide used by the FBI state that these phone calls where made?
    Are you claiming that the slide you used yourself as a source is fabricated evidence?
    Did you know then it was fabricated and ignored that to prove a point, or are you only now deciding it's fake when it's been used against you?

    And again they said no such thing.
    Unless you can actually provide a source.
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    And provide me with proof that those calls came from Barbara Olsen please!
    And you see no hypocrisy in asking me this, yet refuse to prove that the FBI even rejects the story?
    Wow.

    Thing is I don't have to prove the calls came from her, all I have to do is show that they could have come from her, to refute you argument.
    And if you open your closed mind for a second and impartially look over the evidence I have provided, you'll see I've already done that.

    So I'll take it you're not going to answer any of the issues I raised about the crap experiment you're taking as gospel truth?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭Chriskavo


    King Mob wrote: »
    Then why does a slide used by the FBI state that these phone calls where made?
    Are you claiming that the slide you used yourself as a source is fabricated evidence?
    Did you know then it was fabricated and ignored that to prove a point, or are you only now deciding it's fake when it's been used against you?

    And again they said no such thing.
    Unless you can actually provide a source.
    And I'll take it you're not going to answer any of the issues I raised about the crap experiment you're taking as gospel truth?
    A professor emeritus of Ontario university who is widely respected throughout the scientific community would not dare perform 'crap' experiments or risk his highly valued reputation. But as I said in an earlier post - you are quite adept at ignoring empirical scientific analysis not to mention the collapse of all 3 building that day which magically broke several laws of physics.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,815 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    A professor emeritus of Ontario university who is widely respected throughout the scientific community would not dare perform 'crap' experiments or risk his highly valued reputation. But as I said in an earlier post - you are quite adept at ignoring empirical scientific analysis
    Dude seriously.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

    He's just a man, he's fallible.
    I have already shown how his experiment is flawed, particularly in the math.

    And I have no doubt what so ever if I provided a scientist of equal standing you'd have no problem questioning him.

    His experiment was not peer reviewed or replicated, therefore it cannot be empirical.
    In fact all we have that he even did these experiments is his word.
    And seeing as you rejected the testimony of Olson and co. cause that's all they had, I see no reason why you could complain if I do the same right?
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    not to mention the collapse of all 3 building that day which magically broke several laws of physics.
    And when backed into a corner you can't get out of you pull a classic CTer move and start throwing you red herrings and non sequiters.
    Bravo.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3 God says


    Just been reading this entire thread, and this is all an eye opener for me.

    I'd heard that a lot of people believe that 9/11 wasn't all that it seemed to be, but I don't understand why people are so afraid of simple scientific fact and eye witness testimony.

    I have to say from reading this thread that I have learned a lot more about events from that day from all the scientific evidence that Chriskavo has presented rather than from all the denial and blanket unverified counter claims to his presentations of fact.

    I'm still keeping an open mind about events from that day, but lads, maybe some research is in order on your part if you want to be taken seriously rather than all the denial, as I think Chris is the only one doing his homework here.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,815 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    God says wrote: »

    I have to say from reading this thread that I have learned a lot more about events from that day from all the scientific evidence that Chriskavo has presented rather than from all the denial and blanket unverified counter claims to his presentations of fact.

    Could you perhaps point to a single claim the Chriskavo Has actually backed up with any kind of source?

    Could you point out a single claim I've made that wasn't backed up with any kind of source?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭Chriskavo


    King Mob wrote: »
    Could you perhaps point to a single claim the Chriskavo Has actually backed up with any kind of source?

    Could you point out a single claim I've made that wasn't backed up with any kind of source?

    Prove to me that those calls were made by Barbara Olsen?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,815 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    Prove to me that those calls were made by Barbara Olsen?

    Would you like to stick you fingers in you hears and scream lalala too?

    I have already explained how I don't have to prove beyond doubt that she made those calls, only that she could have.
    And since now you've resorted to this childish tactic of yours it's clear that I've already shown that much.

    So answer just one question: Is it possible that she made those calls?
    Yes or no?
    (Oh and if you ignore this question like the others you can't answer, I'll assume the answer is yes.)

    And again I have to ask do you see no irony or hypocrisy in demanding something like that, yet continually ignore my points and questions and requests for sources?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3 God says


    King Mob wrote: »
    Could you perhaps point to a single claim the Chriskavo Has actually backed up with any kind of source?

    Could you point out a single claim I've made that wasn't backed up with any kind of source?

    Yes, all of your claims so far, please provide us with a relevant URL sources whenever you post one of your very dubious and seemingly off-the-top-of-your-head analysis as opposed to the objective well researched reasoning we have come to expect - and admire - from Chriskavo.





  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,815 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    God says wrote: »
    Yes, all of your claims so far, please provide us with a relevant URL sources whenever you post one of your very dubious and seemingly off-the-top-of-your-head analysis as opposed to the objective well researched reasoning we have come to expect - and admire - from Chriskavo.

    You seemed to misunderstand the questions and dodged them completely, you seem to have that in common with Chriskavo ;)

    Point out Any claim I've made that's not backed up.
    Point out one claim Chriskavo made that was.

    But I've a sneaking suspicion that these questions aren't going to be answered(as we have come to expect - and admire - from Chriskavo.) If you don't I'll assume that you can't provide examples for either.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3 God says


    King Mob wrote: »
    You seemed to misunderstand the questions and dodged them completely, you seem to have that in common with Chriskavo ;)

    Point out Any claim I've made that's not backed up.
    Point out one claim Chriskavo made that was.

    But I've a sneaking suspicion that these questions aren't going to be answered(as we have come to expect - and admire - from Chriskavo.) If you don't I'll assume that you can't provide examples for either.

    Thank you Mob with that failed defence of a reply, as once again you prevaricate and as per usual lamely counter claim.

    I'm an impartial observer here, open to both sides of the argument, but Chris has been slam dunking you at every turn so far, and you have yet to convince me that his arguments as you yourself re-quote (as we have come to expect - and admire - from Chriskavo) are anything other than purely objective and based on the available facts to hand.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    robindch wrote: »
    Ken is currently on a week's holiday from the forum.
    God says wrote: »
    Thank you Mob with that failed defence of a reply, as once again you prevaricate and as per usual lamely counter claim.
    KenFromDublin (banned earlier this week for posting personal insults) and "God Says" are posting from the same IP address and I conclude that they are the same person posting under two names, an immediately bannable offense on boards. Both accounts are now permanently banned from this forum and a request has been made to ban them entirely from boards.

    Yet another fine example of the honesty of 9/11 deniers.

    <shakes head>


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭Chriskavo


    King Mob wrote: »
    Would you like to stick you fingers in you hears and scream lalala too?

    I have already explained how I don't have to prove beyond doubt that she made those calls, only that she could have.
    And since now you've resorted to this childish tactic of yours it's clear that I've already shown that much.

    So answer just one question: Is it possible that she made those calls?
    Yes or no?
    (Oh and if you ignore this question like the others you can't answer, I'll assume the answer is yes.)

    And again I have to ask do you see no irony or hypocrisy in demanding something like that, yet continually ignore my points and questions and requests for sources?

    No it is not possible and the one phone call that she allegedly made and was subsequently disclosed by the FBI at the Massasoui trial reads -'' unconnected 0.00 seconds. No call - FBI admits that therefore they reject Olsens story. Its laughably feeble that all you can muster is a '' could have'' so what is your point exactly? Those calls were allegedly made by Barbara Olsen - if it wasn't her , who was it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    No it is not possible and the one phone call that she allegedly made and was subsequently disclosed by the FBI at the Massasoui trial reads -'' unconnected 0.00 seconds. No call - FBI admits that therefore they reject Olsens story. Its laughably feeble that all you can muster is a '' could have'' so what is your point exactly? Those calls were allegedly made by Barbara Olsen - if it wasn't her , who was it?

    Aren't *you* going to tell us? What point exactly was there 'faking' all these phone calls from people on these flights, what did it achieve, who did it and why?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,815 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    No it is not possible and the one phone call that she allegedly made and was subsequently disclosed by the FBI at the Massasoui trial reads -'' unconnected 0.00 seconds. No call - FBI admits that therefore they reject Olsens story.
    Ok It's getting clear now you are not reading my posts just parroting off nonsense you read on toofer sites.

    In the same slides you posted that show her call lasted 0.00 seconds, also shows 4 connected calls between 9.15 and 9.30 all long enough to match the description of Barbara Olson's phone calls.
    The only one they could trace to her phone was unconnected.
    Maybe she borrowed someone else's phone or that her own phone connected in a weird way that didn't register her number for some reason.
    Is possible that Barbara Olson was at least two of those unidentified calls? (same again, ignore the question and I'll assume you mean yes and just aren't honest enough to say it.)

    The FBI don't say anything at all there about rejecting Olson's story or admitting Barbara couldn't have made the call.
    In fact that looks like something you inferred yourself with nothing to support it..
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    Its laughably feeble that all you can muster is a '' could have'' so what is your point exactly?
    That your argument that the calls where impossible therefore faked therefore indicating that 9/11 was an inside job.

    I have shown it's possible for the calls to be made and that the FBI in no way "Rejects" the story.
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    Those calls were allegedly made by Barbara Olsen - if it wasn't her , who was it?
    What are you talking about? I am saying that they were likely made by Barbara Olson. I'm not positing that it was anyone else.
    What the point of this question other than to throw more confusion into the argument?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    robindch wrote: »
    Both accounts are now permanently banned from this forum and a request has been made to ban them entirely from boards.
    "God Says" has been banned permanently from boards and KenFromDublin's account has received a site-wide ban for one week, after which he/she will be free to post here again (despite a number of abusive and threatening PM's).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭Chriskavo


    robindch wrote: »
    "God Says" has been banned permanently from boards and KenFromDublin's account has received a site-wide ban for one week, after which he/she will be free to post here again (despite a number of abusive and threatening PM's).

    Censoring an opinion on 911 - free speech anyone?

    I have Kens quote here and they certainly not threatening. I hope he gets legal advice for this disgraceful fascistic censoring and abuse of his rights to free speech.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭Chriskavo


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok It's getting clear now you are not reading my posts just parroting off nonsense you read on toofer sites.

    In the same slides you posted that show her call lasted 0.00 seconds, also shows 4 connected calls between 9.15 and 9.30 all long enough to match the description of Barbara Olson's phone calls.
    The only one they could trace to her phone was unconnected.
    Maybe she borrowed someone else's phone or that her own phone connected in a weird way that didn't register her number for some reason.
    Is possible that Barbara Olson was at least two of those unidentified calls? (same again, ignore the question and I'll assume you mean yes and just aren't honest enough to say it.)

    The FBI don't say anything at all there about rejecting Olson's story or admitting Barbara couldn't have made the call.
    In fact that looks like something you inferred yourself with nothing to support it..
    That your argument that the calls where impossible therefore faked therefore indicating that 9/11 was an inside job.

    I have shown it's possible for the calls to be made and that the FBI in no way "Rejects" the story.

    What are you talking about? I am saying that they were likely made by Barbara Olson. I'm not positing that it was anyone else.
    What the point of this question other than to throw more confusion into the argument?

    How do you explain the Ted Olsen story when it reads "unconnected call 0.00 seconds?" Do you believe for one second that your argument that they ''could have" been made from Barbara Olsen would stand up in a court of law?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,815 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    How do you explain the Ted Olsen story when it reads "unconnected call 0.00 seconds?"
    That call was the only one traced to her mobile.
    There are 4 calls that where connected around the time Olson said he received them and lasted for times that match the descriptions.
    She could have borrowed someone else's phone or her own phone might not have been traceable on those call for some reason.

    Are you saying it's impossible for Barbara Olson to have been at least two of these calls?
    If so how do you know it's impossible?

    And is that the only reason you think the FBI reject the story, that one of thier slides said "0.00 seconds"?
    Seriously?

    Can you actually provide anything to actually support that?
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    Do you believe for one second that your argument that they ''could have" been made from Barbara Olsen would stand up in a court of law?
    Yes, if the other side's argument was that she could not have made those calls. Which is your argument which I've show to be crap.
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    Censoring an opinion on 911 - free speech anyone?
    So do your part for free speech and start answering those questions you keep ignoring.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement