Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)

Psychic Christine Holohan on TV Fri29Sep

24

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 24,165 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    You haven't asked me tons of questions but feel free to and I will answer them, I do believe that I have answered of them. As for getting this information of websites - not at all. I have done my own research and read many books on the subject.
    Really, cause alot of these claims are the same old debunked nonsense every site repeats unquestioningly.

    As for questions you're ignoring.
    King Mob wrote: »
    The question have you?
    Can you actually supply anything from that paper that actually shows it was a blueprint for a conspiracy? (Other than that one "Pearl harbour" bit that is always taken out of context.)

    And further more can you explain why they would admit to being involved in such a conspiracy in a document freely available on their own website?


    And this is impossible because?
    How many times where jetliners used as missiles?
    How many times where several jets hijacked at once?
    Did you know that every single other hijacking attempt was dealt with after the plane lands?

    Since you are a skeptic you'll be able to tell us what sort of evidence or reason that would convince you that 9/11 wasn't some vast global conspiracy, right?
    King Mob wrote: »
    So can you explain why an internal police force would be gathering information on someone not in the country?
    Can you explain that if this was a vast conspiracy why don't the FBI fabricate the evidence? Or at lest just say they have it?
    Why would they admit something like this at all?


    But let's ignore reality for a sec and say it was evidence of a conspiracy, why is it on their website?

    You have not even acknowledged these questions.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,165 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    The 911 commision changed its story three times- have you read the piece.

    I did. It seems to mistake general confusion for evil conspiracy. It offers nothing to support it self.
    And again you ignore questions.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭ Chriskavo


    The PNAC Plan:

    Also as a result of the end of the Cold War the Pentagon's funding was being cut because they no longer had an enemy to justify their massive budget. In response Dick Cheney's conservative think tank "The Project for a New American Century," (PNAC) submitted their manifesto, "Rebuilding America's Defenses". This report suggests that although "the United States faces no global rival," (p.i) the U.S. military should prepare "to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars,"(mission outlines) and set up "an enduring American military presence" (p.74) in the Persian Gulf, including Afghanistan and Iraq. Chapter 5 admits this would take a long time,"absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."

    3. First Actions as Vice President:

    Dick Cheney then selects himself to run as George W. Bush's Vice President in a campaign largely funded by Enron. Shortly after the Supreme Court's intervention made Cheney the VP, he reopened the pipeline negotiations with the Taliban but the original financial offer was now accompanied by threats of military action if the pipeline was not allowed. The Taliban was told, "You either accept our offer of a carpet of gold or we bury you under a carpet of bombs!"

    According to Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, in their very first National Security Council meeting Bush and Cheney began brainstorming ideas for how to start a war in Iraq, and Judicial Watch has exposed secret maps drawn up by Cheney's Energy Task Force in March of 2001 detailing Iraq's oil industries size and estimated value.

    4. Ignored Warnings:

    The Bush Administration received dozens of detailed warnings of an impending al-Qaida attack, which included method, likely targets, and names of people involved, from many international and domestic intelligence agencies. Yet all of these warnings were systematically blocked, suppressed, or ignored by the Bush Administration.

    5. Obstructed Investigations:

    Instead of investigating these warnings President Bush signed presidential directive W199I protecting members of the Bin Laden family and telling FBI Agents and defense intelligence officers to back off from al-Qaida related investigations. Although debunkers will argue the validity of the W199I directive, the testimonies of FBI counterterror chief John O'Neill, field officer Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit of the Minnesota FBI, translator Sibel Edmonds, Anthony Shaffer of Able Danger, and prosecutor David Shippers indicate a concerted high level effort to protect domestic terrorists.

    6. Wargame Drills Scheduled for 9/11:

    In May, 2001 President Bush put Dick Cheney in charge of the "Office of National Preparedness" charged with protecting America from domestic attacks involving weapons of mass destruction, and managing training exercises throughout all military agencies in preparation for such an attack. It was later revealed that multiple military exercises, remarkably similar to the 9/11 attack, were scheduled for the morning of September 11, 2001. Although military officials refuse to confirm who managed to schedule these drills during the very time of the real attack, these drills would clearly fall under Cheney's jurisdiction.

    7. Changes in Military Procedures:

    There were already Standard Operating Procedures set in place well before 9/11 concerning how to respond to the hijacking of commercial flights. As soon as any flight goes off course or looses contact with the controllers, the FAA immediately contacts NORAD who scrambles fighters to intercept. This happens on a regular basis. From September 2000 to June 2001, 67 planes steered off course. All 67 times our air defense systems worked as they should, and interceptors were launched.Yet in June of 2001 these procedures are altered to require approval from Secretary of Defense before NORAD could respond with "potentially lethal support", ( launching combat aircraft ), to an emergency call.

    8. Afghan Invasion Plans Finalized:

    Pakistani Foreign Secretary, Niaz Naik, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October despite having no Congressional approval for any military action. September 9, two days before the attack, the final plans to go to war against the Taliban to begin in October were ready for President Bush to sign in to action. It is critical to point out that without the 9/11 attack the Bush administration would not have had justification to use this plan, yet they continue to claim they had no advance warning about 9/11.

    9. Connection to 9/11 Sponsor:

    According to the FBI the chief of ISI -Pakistani Intelligence, Gen. Mahmoud Ahmed, approved over $100,000 in wire transfers to lead hijacker Mohammed Atta as payment for the attacks. During the week of the attack Gen. Ahmed is visiting Washington where he had meetings with Colin Powell, Richard Armatige, CIA Director George Tennant, Porter Goss and other Bush administration officials. The media and the 9/11 Commission both refuse to acknowledge this man who funded the attack or investigate his meetings with Bush officials.

    10. Day of the Attack:

    While the 9/11 Commission fails to mention the military wargame drills in progress during the attack or the changes in NORAD's hijack interception procedures, they also ignore or distort the many other anomalies concerning the day of the attack including the absence of top officials from their posts, the contradicting stories from NORAD and the FAA, the arrival time of Dick Cheney to the PEOC bunker, and the time that shoot down authorization is announced.

    11. Afghanistan Invasion:

    The September 11 attack gave Bush and Cheney the very pretext they needed to use the awaiting war plans under the pretext of getting Osama Bin Laden for the attack. Although the Taliban agreed to apprehend Bin Laden on the condition the U.S. would provide evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in 9/11, the Bush Administration ignores this request and the invasion starts right on schedule in October.

    According to the FBI, to this day the Bush administration has yet to present any hard evidence connecting Osama Bin Laden to the 9/11 attack. This means that the invasion of Afghanistan was unjustified and violates international law.

    Despite the claim that the invasion of Afghanistan was to apprehend Bin Laden, the U.S. military allows Bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora into Pakistan while many al-Qaida soldiers are allowed to escape capture by a Pakistan airlift.

    The Taliban was quickly overthrown and the Bush Administration picks Afghanistan's new president, Harmid Karzai, who was a consultant for Unocal. Less than a year later the 3.2 billion dollar pipeline through Afghanistan began construction.

    12. Obstructed Investigations:

    For 14 months the Bush administration was able to hinder and obstruct any public investigation of the attack. According to Senator Tom Daschle, both the President and the Vice President lobby him for no 9/11 investigation. Dick Cheney even threatens Congressional Democrats with "interfering with the war on terror" if they press for a 9/11 investigation.

    When the 9/11 Commission was finally formed, it was rife with conflicts of interest and severely underfunded. Bush and Cheney refuse to testify unless they are questioned by the commission together, behind closed doors, without being taped, without taking an oath, and with no records kept. The final report is filled with dozens of factual omissions and distortions.

    13. There is no doubt that the Bush Administration has used 9/11 to justify it's policy of military aggression along with an unprecedented level of power and secrecy. They then used false evidence to expand the war into Iraq.

    All of this information taken together builds a compelling case that members of the Bush administration, namely Dick Cheney, at the very least knew the 9/11 attack was coming and took steps to insure it's success for personal and political benefit. Dick Cheney had a clear motive for the attack, was in a position to facilitate the attack, and is implicated by evidence and witness testimony of involvement. One must only ask why this information is not public knowledge and why formal charges have yet be made against him.

    KING MOB :

    Very compelling stuff, and shockingly only a portion of the non-scientific evidence publicly available. We also have the issues of insider trading, FAA tapes and CIA interrogation tapes being destroyed on purpose, dubious evidence relating to the hijackers, the fact that Hani Hanjour, who is said to have flown flight 77 into the Pentagon, and pulled off the most complex maneuvers of the day, was a terrible pilot, the un-Islamic behavior of the hijackers, reports of the airplane black boxes being found at ground zero, which contradicts the official story which says they were not found, reports that the father of alleged lead hijacker Mohammed Atta spoke to him on September 12th, 9/11 family member Patty Casazza stating that whistleblowers told her the government knew the exact day, the type of attack, and the targets, it is just staggering. And I could go on for a bit with more points still.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,292 Mod ✭✭✭✭ robindch


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    I have done my own research and read many books on the subject.
    As a matter of forum policy, there's a fine line between, on the one hand, encouraging Skeptical debate concerning matters of public interest and, on the other hand, allowing people to post pages of unsupported, unscientific views gleaned from crank websites and other staples of the paranoid conspiracy literature. The first is what this forum is for, the latter is best left in the Conspiracy Theories forum.

    So far, you've provided little more than huge chunks of cut'n'pasted quotes that are as free of context as they are of any hint of skepticism. And neither have you replied with anything of any substance to King Mob's questions.

    This isn't a conversation, it's a sermon and does not suggest to me that you have any interest in skepticism. So could I please suggest that you spend some time reading up on on what [url=scientific skepticism is, and then come back to us if you feel it's appropriate.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,165 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    And so we have the perfect example of how conspiracy theorists debate.
    They bring up long debunked "facts" then ignore any criticisms of those facts and throw out even more "facts", out of context quotes and complete non sequiters.

    You've refused to answer any of my questions and instead opted for the usual style of the crank.
    you've inadvertently answer one however.
    Since you are a skeptic you'll be able to tell us what sort of evidence or reason that would convince you that 9/11 wasn't some vast global conspiracy, right?
    It's clear that no amount of evidence or reasoning will change your mind, therefore you are not a skeptic.

    I tell you what though, if you're interested in an actual debate instead of shouting dubious facts at me, how about this.
    You offer one singular point of information you believe is irrefutable and definite proof of a conspiracy and we will both focus on that one point?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭ Chriskavo


    I thought a sceptic was a person who through their own observations and insight questioned what was given as fact. You however, contrary to scepticism follow the official government version of what happened on 911 despite the fact that 6 of the 10 commissioners (and skeptics) dont. The FBI has Obama Bin Laden top of their most wanted list but nowhere is it mentioned that he is wanted in connection with 911. Why?.. and you have not answered that question but throw it back to me in a twist of distortion and prevarication.You cant answer that question - thats why. You deny NIST failure to explain the collapse of WTC7 even though it is stated on their own website.Their are many many more discrepencies in that commissions and ommisions including the fact that some of the alleged hijackers were still alive, Dick Cheneys stand down order,Hani Hanoors poor piloting skills, the refusal to reveal clear comprehensive footage of the plane hitting the pentagon, the passports of some of the hijackers turning up safe and sound despite the fact that we were told that he planes were literally vaporised on impact with the buildings. We also have witness testimony of ' large explosions' being heard in the sub basement areas BEFORE the second plane hit and many many more.The media report of building sevens collapse an hour before it occured. The office of emergency managements call to Rudy Guillianis office telling them to evacuate because a building was going to explode some six hrs before it did- (WTC7) Richard Gage a very respected architect has gotten the signatures of 1000s of scientist, engineers and architects who want to see the investigation reopened. Now as the skeptic you claim to be - how does all of his reason with you. As a skeptic?.. did you believe the Bush government when they said Iraq had weapons of mas destruction? Did you go along willingly when they tried and failed to connect Saddam to the 911 attacks? Okay maybe you didn't and your proven skills of skepticism were on the alert for those ones...yet you are prepared to accept hook line and sinker their version of 911.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭ Chriskavo


    King Mob wrote: »
    And so we have the perfect example of how conspiracy theorists debate.
    They bring up long debunked "facts" then ignore any criticisms of those facts and throw out even more "facts", out of context quotes and complete non sequiters.

    You've refused to answer any of my questions and instead opted for the usual style of the crank.
    you've inadvertently answer one however.

    It's clear that no amount of evidence or reasoning will change your mind, therefore you are not a skeptic.

    I tell you what though, if you're interested in an actual debate instead of shouting dubious facts at me, how about this.
    You offer one singular point of information you believe is irrefutable and definite proof of a conspiracy and we will both focus on that one point?

    The rejection of Ted Olsens story (where he recieved a phone call from his wife from the hijacked plane) by American Airlines, the Pentagon and especially the FBI.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,292 Mod ✭✭✭✭ robindch


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    I thought a sceptic was a person who through their own observations and insight questioned what was given as fact.
    Your definition doesn't distinguish between somebody who adheres to Scientific Skepticism (see my previous email for a rough and ready definition of what that is) and a Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist (somebody who creates what is frequently a very vivid internal mental image of a fictional alternate reality, usually one in which the beliefs of the general population are controlled by a small number of hyperpolitical operators for their own nefarious, and often contradictory, ends).

    In what you've posted so far, I've seen you produce none of your "own observations and insight", but instead, simply pages of text pasted -- I assume pretty much directly -- from somewhere else.

    Even by your own faulty definition, that's not "scepticism".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭ Chriskavo


    robindch wrote: »
    As a matter of forum policy, there's a fine line between, on the one hand, encouraging Skeptical debate concerning matters of public interest and, on the other hand, allowing people to post pages of unsupported, unscientific views gleaned from crank websites and other staples of the paranoid conspiracy literature. The first is what this forum is for, the latter is best left in the Conspiracy Theories forum.

    So far, you've provided little more than huge chunks of cut'n'pasted quotes that are as free of context as they are of any hint of skepticism. And neither have you replied with anything of any substance to King Mob's questions.

    This isn't a conversation, it's a sermon and does not suggest to me that you have any interest in skepticism. So could I please suggest that you spend some time reading up on on what [url=scientific skepticism is, and then come back to us if you feel it's appropriate.

    It was not gleaned from paranoid conspiracy literature - another popular ad hominen attack made against people who dare question 911.I have as I said earlier done my own independent research and read many books and critically acclaimed I might add on the subject. Ans with all respect for fear of being banned - was this not a debate between myself and King Mob? who Is allowed to post links from so called debunking websites.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭ Chriskavo


    robindch wrote: »
    Your definition doesn't distinguish between somebody who adheres to Scientific Skepticism (see my previous email for a rough and ready definition of what that is) and a Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist (somebody who creates what is frequently a very vivid internal mental image of a fictional alternate reality, usually one in which the beliefs of the general population are controlled by a small number of hyperpolitical operators for their own nefarious, and often contradictory, ends).

    In what you've posted so far, I've seen you produce none of your "own observations and insight", but instead, simply pages of text pasted -- I assume pretty much directly -- from somewhere else.

    Even by your own faulty definition, that's not "scepticism".

    Scientific scepticism hmmmm.. and yet you believe a conspiracy which defies all known laws of physics - the collapse of building 7. Perhaps you can enlighten me and answer the question I have posed to King Mobs challenge i.e the rejection of Ted Olsens story by he FBI?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 24,165 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    I thought a sceptic was a person who through their own observations and insight questioned what was given as fact.
    Nope. It's someone who bases their beliefs on evaluation of empirical evidence.
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    You however, contrary to scepticism follow the official government version of what happened on 911 despite the fact that 6 of the 10 commissioners dont.
    1. The offical version is actually support by evidence. And those commissioners didn't say they doubted that the US was attacked from an external threat.
    You were just taking the quotes out of context.
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    The FBI has Obama Bin Laden top of their most wanted list but nowhere is it mentioned that he is wanted in connection with 911. Why?.. and you have not answered that question but throw it back to me in a twist of distortion and prevarication. You cant answer that question - thats why.
    I did, you ignored it.
    The FBI is an internal police force, catching Osama isn't their department, it's the CIA's and the Military's.
    But if they are in on the conspiracy why don't they fabricate the evidence?
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    You deny NIST failure to explain the collapse of WTC7 even though it is stated on their own website.Their are many many more discrepencies in that commissions and ommisions
    So then I take it you haven't actually looked at the website I posted? Which shows the exact opposite?
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    including the fact that some of the alleged hijackers were still alive,
    They weren't, it's a long debunked myth.
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    Dick Cheneys stand down order,
    Never happened, I dare you to provide evidence for it.
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    Hani Hanoors poor piloting skills,
    Another out of context quote. He was crap at landing, taking off and communicating with the tower. None of which he needed.
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    the refusal to reveal clear comprehensive footage of the plane hitting the pentagon,
    And?
    If it was a conspiracy why wasn't this faked?
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    the passports of some of the hijackers turning up safe and sound despite the fact that we were told that he planes were literally vaporised on impact with the buildings.
    So they'll plant this evidence but not other forms?
    And why exactly is it impossible for small light passports to be blown away from the fires?
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    We also have witness testimony of ' large explosions' being heard in the sub basement areas BEFORE the second plane hit and many many more.
    And as we all know witness testimony is always flawless and never wrong.
    But somehow I bet all those people who saw a plane into the pentagon don't count.
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    The media report of building sevens collapse an hour before it occured.
    One I wasn't hours it was 20 minutes. And it was one mention once. During a time when no one knew what was going on.
    And at that stage the firefighters had abandoned the building because they knew it was about to collapse.
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    The office of emergency managements call to Rudy Guillianis office telling them to evacuate because a building was going to explode some six hrs before it did- (WTC7)
    Again complete bull****.
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    Richard Gage a very respected architect has gotten the signatures of 1000s of scientist, engineers and architects who want to see the investigation reopened.
    Richard Gage pretends to be a very respected architect.
    And 1000s of experts disargee with the bull**** theories, but you seem to ignore them.
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    Now as the skeptic you claim to be - how does all of his reason with you.
    Because all the conspiracy nuts have are made up facts, logical fallacies, rumours, pseudo-science and an amazing ability to ignore facts and their own hypocrisy.

    How does it gel with you to ignore all my questions yet still pretend you're interested in the truth?


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,165 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    The rejection of Ted Olsens story (where he recieved a phone call from his wife from the hijacked plane) by American Airlines, the Pentagon and especially the FBI.
    So hang on....

    That's your single piece of evidence that proves 9/11?

    Wow, you must be very easy to convince.

    All I can find about this guy is some pityful out of context quotes and arguments from incredulity

    You might want to pick a subject less laughable.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭ Chriskavo


    They(media) were told the building was going to collapse. Not true and CNN reported its collapse close to an hour beforehand, the BBC about 20 minutes. The fact that no steel structured building had ever collapsed due to fire and the fact that their were other buildings with far worse damage and fire infernoes raging in them - how come the media or anyone else for that matter kno that this particular building was going to collapse. The bankers trust building which was up right next to the south tower recieved far more substantial damage from falling debris and had raging infernoes in a dozen floors yet did not collapse.

    Sceptic - sceptic archaic and US, skeptic [ˈskɛptɪk]
    n
    1. (Philosophy) a person who habitually doubts the authenticity of accepted beliefs
    2. a person who mistrusts people, ideas, etc., in general
    3. (Philosophy) a person who doubts the truth of religion, esp Christianity
    adj
    (Philosophy) of or relating to sceptics; sceptical
    [from Latin scepticus, from Greek skeptikos one who reflects upon, from skeptesthai to consider]
    scepticism archaic and US, skepticism n

    I question and doubt the official 911 theory , that certainly makes me more of a skeptic than you.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭ Chriskavo


    King Mob wrote: »
    So hang on....

    That's your single piece of evidence that proves 9/11?

    Wow, you must be very easy to convince.

    All I can find about this guy is some pityful out of context quotes and arguments from incredulity

    You might want to pick a subject less laughable.

    Answer the question
    - The rejection of Ted Olsens story by A.A, The Pentagon and the FBI is of the utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olsen then their is no evidece that flight 77 returned to Washington. The fact that his story has also been contradicted by defenders of the offical story like yourself provides grounds for demanding a new investigation in my book. That little piece of evidence as you sneeringly put warrants a new 911 investigation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,165 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    They(media) were told the building was going to collapse. Not true and CNN reported its collapse close to an hour beforehand, the BBC about 20 minutes.
    And it's impossible they just got it wrong because.....?
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    The fact that no steel structured building had ever collapsed due to fire and the fact that their were other buildings with far worse damage and fire infernoes raging in them -
    And how many building of that exact size and design where subjected to those exact conditions?
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    how come the media or anyone else for that matter kno that this particular building was going to collapse.
    Because the firefighters told them? And I would hope firefighters know when a building is going to collapse.
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    The bankers trust building which was up right next to the south tower recieved far more substantial damage from falling debris and had raging infernoes in a dozen floors yet did not collapse.
    So it was the exact same building as WTC7?
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    Sceptic - sceptic archaic and US, skeptic [ˈskɛptɪk]
    n
    1. (Philosophy) a person who habitually doubts the authenticity of accepted beliefs
    2. a person who mistrusts people, ideas, etc., in general
    3. (Philosophy) a person who doubts the truth of religion, esp Christianity
    adj
    (Philosophy) of or relating to sceptics; sceptical
    [from Latin scepticus, from Greek skeptikos one who reflects upon, from skeptesthai to consider]
    scepticism archaic and US, skepticism n
    So it's safe to assume you didn't look at that link describing scientific skepticism?
    Particularly the difference between classical metaphysical skepticism and modern scientific skepticism
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    I question and doubt the official 911 theory , that certainly makes me more of a skeptic than you.
    No you parrot the questions and doubt of cranks you bought into without question and doubt.
    Answer honestly, have you even tried to verify any of the nonsense you copy pasted?


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,165 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    Answer the question

    You didn't ask one.
    Is it "why are there inconsistencies in his story?"

    And my points still stand, because you are relying on out of context quotes and arguments from incredulity.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,165 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    Explain to me why the FBI rejects Ted Olsens story - I have given my reason. Give me yours. Should be fun.

    No you haven't given any reasons.

    How do you even know his story is rejected?

    And how does this prove beyond doubt that 9/11 was an inside job?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭ Chriskavo


    King Mob wrote: »
    No you haven't given any reasons.

    How do you even know his story is rejected?

    And how does this prove beyond doubt that 9/11 was an inside job?

    Answer the question
    - The rejection of Ted Olsens story by A.A, The Pentagon and the FBI is of the utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olsen then their is no evidece that flight 77 returned to Washington. The fact that his story has also been contradicted by defenders of the offical story like yourself provides grounds for demanding a new investigation in my book. That little piece of evidence as you sneeringly put warrants a new 911 investigation.

    It was rejected by the FBI at evidence given at the trial of Zacarius Moussaoui - the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of course) lasted “0 seconds.”9 According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone.

    By A.Airlines -A 9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, noticed that AA’s website indicated that its 757s do not have passenger-seat phones. After he wrote to ask if that had been the case on September 11, 2001, an AA customer service representative replied: “That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.”8

    In response to this revelation, defenders of the official story might reply that Ted Olson was evidently right the first time: she had used her cell phone. However, besides the fact that this scenario is rendered unlikely by the cell phone technology employed in 2001, it has also been contradicted by the FBI.

    So King Mob please explain this to me with that unique skeptical mind of yours?


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,165 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    Chriskavo wrote: »
    Answer the question
    Again, you haven't asked one.
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    - The rejection of Ted Olsens story by A.A, The Pentagon and the FBI is of the utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olsen then their is no evidece that flight 77 returned to Washington. The fact that his story has also been contradicted by defenders of the offical story like yourself provides grounds for demanding a new investigation in my book. That little piece of evidence as you sneeringly put warrants a new 911 investigation.
    Well you realise that wasn't the only evidence that Flight 77 crashed into the pentagon right?
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    It was rejected by the FBI at evidence given at the trial of Zacarius Moussaoui - the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of course) lasted “0 seconds.”9 According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone.
    And can you actually back this up in any way? Or are we just to take the word of the nameless website you keep copy pasting from?
    Chriskavo wrote: »
    By A.Airlines -A 9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, noticed that AA’s website indicated that its 757s do not have passenger-seat phones. After he wrote to ask if that had been the case on September 11, 2001, an AA customer service representative replied: “That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.”8

    In response to this revelation, defenders of the official story might reply that Ted Olson was evidently right the first time: she had used her cell phone. However, besides the fact that this scenario is rendered unlikely by the cell phone technology employed in 2001, it has also been contradicted by the FBI.
    Again back this up.
    And it's entirely possible that cell phone work on airplanes. Can you show otherwise?

    But clear up something, are you saying that the phone calls where faked?
    If this is the case then why did they then reject the story seeing as it's the only evidence the plane was over Washington?
    That doesn't make any sense.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭ Chriskavo


    King Mob wrote: »
    Again, you haven't asked one.


    Well you realise that wasn't the only evidence that Flight 77 crashed into the pentagon right?

    And can you actually back this up in any way? Or are we just to take the word of the nameless website you keep copy pasting from?


    Again back this up.
    And it's entirely possible that cell phone work on airplanes. Can you show otherwise?

    But clear up something, are you saying that the phone calls where faked?
    If this is the case then why did they then reject the story seeing as it's the only evidence the plane was over Washington?
    That doesn't make any sense.

    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.Check out the transcripts from the Massasoui trial for yourself , how much more evidence do you need. 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.

    But clear up something, are you saying that the phone calls where faked?
    If this is the case then why did they then reject the story seeing as it's the only evidence the plane was over Washington?
    That doesn't make any sense
    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.

    King Mob - Here is a link including details of calls etc : (http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html).


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 24,165 ✭✭✭✭ 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: 24,292 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: 24,292 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: 24,292 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: 24,292 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: 24,292 Mod ✭✭✭✭ robindch


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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 24,165 ✭✭✭✭ 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.


Advertisement