9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom :: View topic - Genuine conviction, but is it enough?

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

Genuine conviction, but is it enough?
Goto page Previous 1, 2

9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

telecasterisation
Banned
Banned

Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:28 am Post subject:

Mark Gobell wrote:

If I have understood the last bit of your post correctly:

Do you not think that the evidence of controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC7 is completely unassailable ?

I have been clear on this point already. I mean that whatever you supply as evidence for whatever specific topic related to 9/11 that is designed to 'prove' it is a hoax, the government will counter with an expert who will say otherwise. I am not personally saying I doubt the controlled demolition aspect, but the only type of evidence we have can and will be questioned.

The only type of evidence that will prove 9/11 is a conspiracy is that which cannot be challenged. An example would be, forensic evidence stating that thermite charges were used to level the buildings in question. Currently, all we have is a few videos showing what appears to be charges going off a short distance below the floors during the collapse and some expert opinion. Expert opinion would be countered by another expert's opinion as we have no physical evidence. This is what I mean and nothing more.

One other point - someone stated that 'America' wouldn't blow itself up. The general populace had zero input into 9/11 - it was just a few men in room that orchestrated it and to use the terminology 'America' is simply incorrect.
'America' should not be confused with the perpetrators who were just a tiny handful of individuals. This is like France being blamed for not being involved in Iraq - the GOVERNMENT made the decisions and not the people per se. To then blame all French people is then obviously wrong.

Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:57 am Post subject:

Woodee wrote:

3) You try making a phone call from a jet next time your on one Smile

This is something that it is not possible to be definite about. There was quite a discussion on the pprune pilots discussion board when it was suggested it was not possible. A number of pilots said they had left their mobiles on by mistake and picked up calls whilst flying, so whilst obviously there was certainly not a reliable connection, a connection of sorts cannot be ruled out. Also, of course, some passengers were said to have used the Airfones on the aircraft. Interestingly, none of the pilots who had left their phones on reported any interference with the planes electronics!

telecasterisation
Banned
Banned

Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:32 am Post subject:

Andrew Johnson wrote:

MiniMauve wrote:

I don't understand how this has turned into a grilling of the original poster on his beliefs nor do I understand why this thread ever got moved to the critic's corner... .

Here's a reason for you, from his/her original post:

telecasterisation wrote:

The point here is this, unless there is a whistleblower, or a group of those involved in participating in 9/11 who is prepared to come forward – what can ever be done with mere suspicion alone??

Several Whistleblowers have come forward. Kevin Ryan (formerly of Underwriter's Labs) being one, Sybel Edmonds, Richard Andrew Grove, arguably Congressman Ron Paul, John O'Neill.

So, that's why I felt this post qualified for putting here. What's your problem MM? It can still be read and commented on here, can't it?

My point was very clear, I said and I quote from my original post;

‘The point here is this, unless there is a whistleblower, or a group of those involved in participating in 9/11 who is prepared to come forward etc…..’;

You are confusing someone who simply blows a whistle and points at something being wrong, as opposed to someone being actively INVOLVED.

Kevin Ryan was not involved in the certification for the steel used in the World Trade Centers, he claimed to have been given information, both verbally and in writing about UL's involvement in in these activities. UL then simply denied it = so nothing viable there.

Sibel Edmonds was hired as a translator by the FBI shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 because of her knowledge of Middle Eastern languages. She was fired less than a year later in reporting shoddy work and security breaches to her supervisors that could have prevented those attacks, so again no active involvement.

Richard Andrew Grove, again another on the periphery with no actual involvement.

Congressman Ron Paul = even more ethereal stuff on the outside this time involving finance.

The late John O'Neill, arguably the most compelling. However, again he was not actively involved in the deception, in fact far more the other way.

My point about involved whistleblowers is being sidestepped with examples of NON-INVOLVEMENT, surely you can acknowledge the difference? These people were NOT involved.

By ‘whistleblower’ I mean someone/or a group of people, who planted the explosives in the WTC, someone/or a group who was responsible for remotely piloting a plane/missile/whatever – all the people cited above are ancillary to the big picture and consequently can be sidelined because they can be challenged or discredited.

One final point about a question you asked regarding the problem with being moved to Critics’ Corner;

It is about the quality of responses.

The difference is as profound as being in Dirty Dancing as opposed to Dawn Of The Dead – in one you can expect a pleasant evening of like minded companionship, the other is the literary equivalent of being torn into by mindless idiots. You only have to read the tirade by Capt Uppercase earlier in the thread, to comprehend my point.

I asked a pertinent and direct question that I believe you misconstrued and I am not alone in that assertion.

Ally
Moderate Poster

Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned

Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:33 am Post subject:

telecasterisation wrote:

I asked a pertinent and direct question that I believe you misconstrued and I am not alone in that assertion.

nobody cares

telecasterisation
Banned
Banned

Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:18 pm Post subject:

Ally wrote:

telecasterisation wrote:

I asked a pertinent and direct question that I believe you misconstrued and I am not alone in that assertion.

nobody cares

This site exists for the very reason that people do care.

I can however appreciate how people in Yorkshire are more prone to have the view of not caring, so I offer you an understanding nod in recognition of your predicament.

Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster

Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:22 pm Post subject:

telecasterisation wrote:

You are confusing someone who simply blows a whistle and points at something being wrong, as opposed to someone being actively INVOLVED.

Maybe - but it sounds to me like you are debating the evidence about 9/11 being an inside job. Fair enough. But we (this campaign) are not primarily here to debate the evidence - as a whole we say 9/11 was an inside job - even if people disagree about bits of evidence (which they do).

If we were still debating evidence, there wouldn't have been about 100 campaigners outside the US embassy yesterday, opposite armed police, holding various placards saying "9/11 Was an Inside Job! Wake Up!"

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/09/350486.html

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/09/350521.html

So my justificaion for moving your post here (where it can still be debated) seems to have been borne out - exactly by the statements you made above.

I would say that The majority of us support the majority of what the above whistleblowers etc have said - people who don't can post their thoughts here, just as you have done.

I hope this makes things a little clearer.
_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!

telecasterisation
Banned
Banned

Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:56 pm Post subject:

Andrew Johnson wrote:

telecasterisation wrote:

You are confusing someone who simply blows a whistle and points at something being wrong, as opposed to someone being actively INVOLVED.

Agreed, that is why the campaign exists - but the General Thread room does NOT exist just for that purpose and that is where I posted my legitimate question. This was alongside such deep seated obviously dedicated 9/11 topics as David Icke and the IRA.

You have already attempted to debate the subject with another user who clearly sees me as not being a critic, so I am not alone. How exactly does my 9/11 question not fit the criteria of a General discussion room?

I will concede that given the current company, perhaps my use of 'opinion' is inappropriate. However, in the context of where it would most definitely matter - a new investigation forum - experts would be called upon to give testimony to prove points beyond reasonable doubt - this would be expert 'opinion' and that is what I refer to and that is what it is termed.

In 1990 I was medically retired from the Metropolitan Police after fourteen years. During that time, I was involved in perhaps 20 or so cases where experts were called to give testimony based upon solid scientific findings. On every instance without exception, they were asked questions akin;

'Are you of the opinion that....?'

'In your expert opinion.....?'

I am not in any way questioning/debating/criticising/attempting to decry any of the foundation beliefs of The Truth Movement - BUT all we have so far is the WRONG type of evidence. Unless there is a dramatic change in what we can present to an investigation, we will simply remain 'theorists' to a wider audience, for that is all we can present.
I am closely following Russell Pickering's work at The Pentagon where he is minutely picking over eye-witness testimony - but whilst it is highly commendable, to identify that lamp posts are bent the wrong way or the flypath was to the right of the gas station not the left, when it comes down to it, it really will not sway the thinking of anyone that really matters.

I am not trying to be awkward or argumentative - but my points have been clear. I find your moderating highly questionable and your justification quite meaningless. I posted in a general discussion area with no criticism of anything or anyone.

So to answer your question if your explanation helps?

No.

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:58 pm Post subject:

Woodee wrote:

3) You try making a phone call from a jet next time your on one Smile

Right, the flight attendants would object. Unless the plane is being hijacked, that is.

Can you think of a reason a phone call wouldn't work if the plane was in range of a microwave tower on a clear day?

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:09 pm Post subject:

Woodee wrote:

look up flight 93.... no wreckage or bodies found on site... just a big hole. The coroner officially said he stopped being a coroner after 20 mins, because there was nothing to do.

No wreckage? Nothing very large, of course, and no intact bodies. Why would you expect any different when an object weighing many tons crashes into the ground at 500 mph?

Quote:

The only reason we know that "passengers stormed cockpit and stormed the plane" is these mysterious phone calls... and again, these phone calls are hard to make from jets apparently

Your standards of evidence are appalling. Because "phone calls are hard to make from jets apparently", it couldn't have happened?

If I knew I was going to die, I wouldn't care how hard it was to get a call through; I would keep trying until I got through. What else would I do? Read a magazine?

I won't even mention the fact that the cockpit voice recorder supports the theory that the passengers stormed the cockpit. (Wouldn't you, if you knew it was either that, or die? )

We also know from the "hijacker's manual" found with Mohammed Atta's possessions that the plan called for crashing the plane at the first opportunity if anything went wrong.

blackcat
Validated Poster

Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376

Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:15 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Can you think of a reason a phone call wouldn't work if the plane was in range of a microwave tower on a clear day?

1 Speed of the plane

2 Lines were jammed because so many people were using their phones after the planes hit the towers. It was extremely difficult to get a connection even in the normally routine ground locations.

Add the difficulty of making and holding a call from a plane to the extra traffic that morning and it is stretching credibility to expect all those calls could have been made. Not that it will be an impediment to trolls who believe just about any fairy tale the authorities come up with.

"Wireless communications networks weren't designed for ground-to-air communication. Cellular experts privately admit that they're surprised the calls were able to be placed from the hijacked planes, and that they lasted as long as they did. They speculate that the only reason that the calls went through in the first place is that the aircraft were flying so close to the ground"
( http://www.elliott.org/technology/2001/cellpermit.htm )

Expert opinion within the wireless telecom industry casts serious doubt on "the findings" of the 9/11 Commission. According to Alexa Graf, a spokesman of AT&T, commenting in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks:

"it was almost a fluke that the [9/11] calls reached their destinations... From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops. Although calls are not reliable, callers can pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain altitude"
( http://wirelessreview.com/ar/wireless_final_contact/ )

SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster

Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988

Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:15 pm Post subject:

telecasterisation wrote:

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:

Does the thread starter accept the official 9/11 story is a conspiracy theory and can he/she provide cast iron proof of it it being the truth beyond reasonable doubt?

Being the thread starter, this is levelled at me.

Do I accept the official 9/11 story is a conspiracy theory? No I do not.

I believe the official 9/11 story is a fabrication, not a conspiracy theory.

Those who DISbelieve the official 9/11 story say it is a conspiracy.

Those who accept the official story believe that to be factual.

You cannot believe the official story and say it is theoretical too - you appear confused as to terminology and its application.

I also believe that those who accept the official story, label those who do not as conspiracy theorists.

Are you sure the question is phrased correctly?

I have not however seen any positive proof (that which could stand scrutiny without challenge), of it either being, a conspiracy, or as we are officially told. I accept there are many compelling items that point to it being a hoax (which I believe it is) - but nothing, no 'evidence', that is completely unassailable.

You believe the official story is a fabrication? I'm confused, if you feel the 911 commisions conclusions were a fabrication, what side of the arguement are you on? why else would they fabricate a story other than to conceal the terrible truth?
Was motive a factor during investigations in your former police career?
My biggest 'smoking gun' after WTC7 and the refusal to release all the Pentagon CCTV 911 footage (after they claimed there was none) and the confiscated private business and freeway camerafilm of whatever hit the Pentagon 911,are those mystery pre impact/impact point flash/explosions that occured on both twin towers 9/11, they couldn't have been static or reflections and the let's roll' web site proved they were pre-impact and not caused by the collision, you've studied what occured 911, do you have a unassailable explaination for these flight school failure terrorists flying their "hijacked" aircraft directly into these mystery explosions with uncanny identical timing in both towers?

MiniMauve
Moderate Poster

Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220

Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:47 pm Post subject:

Sheriton, Andrew, Ally, others? - although tele can obviously speak for himself, I feel I need to back him up in the face of this misunderstanding. No where does tele say that he doesn't accept the main points of the 911 truth campaign. What he does say is that the evidence for these points would be easily countered in a court of law by simply producing 'experts' to cast doubt on the evidence, thus the need for a true whistleblower (i.e. someone with direct involvement in the conspiracy who comes forward w/ specific information). Opening the question further, what is the best way forward? He didn't bring this up as a criticism of the campaign but, by my interpretation anyway, as a legitimate and worthy topic for discussion. I didn't see it as adversial in any way. Personally, I think it's an apt question, at least, if we want to have any greater purpose than that of a high school debating club. _________________ Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not.

Woodee
Moderate Poster

Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Posts: 159

Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:14 pm Post subject:

aggle-rithm wrote:

Woodee wrote:

look up flight 93.... no wreckage or bodies found on site... just a big hole. The coroner officially said he stopped being a coroner after 20 mins, because there was nothing to do.

No wreckage? Nothing very large, of course, and no intact bodies. Why would you expect any different when an object weighing many tons crashes into the ground at 500 mph?

Quote:

The only reason we know that "passengers stormed cockpit and stormed the plane" is these mysterious phone calls... and again, these phone calls are hard to make from jets apparently

You missed the point I was making. I read an article testing out making phone calls from the alledged height that the planes were travelling at... and there was little or limited reliability. Along with an article I saw last week in the Daily Mail about Ryanair (i think) only JUST introducing technology this year that would mean you could make phone calls up to 10,000ft. Way below the altitude that the planes were aledgedly cruising at.

About the wreckage... I couldn't give a nonsense how fast the plane was going... it doesn't just leave a big hole. There was no evidence of scorch marks, nor burning jet fuel. Does this mean the jet went vertically downwards and dug that hole?

telecasterisation
Banned
Banned

Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:19 pm Post subject:

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:

telecasterisation wrote:

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:

Does the thread starter accept the official 9/11 story is a conspiracy theory and can he/she provide cast iron proof of it it being the truth beyond reasonable doubt?

I will apologise in advance for I find your question/s highly convoluted in delivery and consequently, if I don't answer them satisfactorily, or if indeed I misunderstand them - please ask again with a judicious rewording.

Yes I believe the official version is a fabrication.

I don't however view the 9/11 commission as the purveyors of the official version, the official version being that what we were told in the weeks following 9/11. Up until this point, the commission was not mentioned in your previous posts. I agree nonetheless, that if the commission fabricated their findings, it would appear to be for the reasons you suggest.

Which side am I on? I really thought I had made my stance crystal clear and by that I mean that whilst I believe that the official 9/11 story is untrue, I am unable to be certain as to the exact facts. I therefore do not automatically subscribe to all the 'evidence' that is quoted as the bulk is unquestionably based upon opinion, albeit expert opinion based upon findings from research.
Agreed, Scotty eloquently informed us from the engine room of The Enterprise that you can't change the laws of physics, but we are dealing with a highly unusual set of circumstances involving a raft of previously unexplored events.

Was motive a factor in police investigations?

I would have to say that it was always more of a 'who?' than a 'why?'. Although it is possible that motive may play a part in an investigation, for example, a pensioner being robbed for her purse may point to a habitual drug user needing a fix - hence it may help narrow your lines of enquiry. In the main, the answer would be no, but there are so many factors that tend to make that difficult to answer. In addition, policing in the 1980's is a world away from policing today.
I was also in Special Patrol Group for five years and Diplomatic Protection Group for two which did limit my exposure to day to day crime quite a bit.

So to your final point about the WTC and the questionable aviation skills of the 'hijackers' and their successful levelling of the WTC.

I am unsure what 'mystery explosions' you refer to, I was not aware that the planes flew into anything mysterious in the way of explosions? Do you refer to 'The Pod/missile launch' idea?

I agree, given the facts as presented, it is highly questionable how could such bad pilots manage to negotiate large commercial airliners so acccurately?

I would point out however that given the 'evidence' that a number of the hijackers are alive and well and living abroad, can you with any certainty say who was flying any of the planes? With stolen identities and no real way of knowing exactly what transpired, an experienced pilot may indeed have been at the controls - if the plane was not remote controlled - this is the only other alternative.

It makes no sense to concoct a story where your key players are simply physically unable to carry out the roles they are set to play.

Perhaps this is all just part of the greater picture of confusion designed to muddy the waters. There is almost certainly a great deal of evidence just waiting to be released at the right time designed to discredit The Movement.

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:50 pm Post subject:

blackcat wrote:

1 Speed of the plane

Unless it was moving close to the speed of light, which is how fast radio waves move, I don't think that was a factor.

Quote:

2 Lines were jammed because so many people were using their phones after the planes hit the towers. It was extremely difficult to get a connection even in the normally routine ground locations.

In New York, lines were jammed because of the large number of people involved and because land lines were damaged in the attack. Do you have evidence that other parts of the country were affected the same way? I didn't notice any problems with either phone service or internet access that day.

Quote:

Add the difficulty of making and holding a call from a plane to the extra traffic that morning and it is stretching credibility to expect all those calls could have been made. Not that it will be an impediment to trolls who believe just about any fairy tale the authorities come up with.

The calls that were made may have been a small percentage of the calls that were attempted. I'm sure everyone who had a cell phone (and who doesn't, these days?) tried to reach someone. And, of course, there were also the for-charge phones provided on the plane. Most people don't like to use them because they're so expensive, but if you're about to die...why not?

Quote:

"Wireless communications networks weren't designed for ground-to-air communication. Cellular experts privately admit that they're surprised the calls were able to be placed from the hijacked planes, and that they lasted as long as they did. They speculate that the only reason that the calls went through in the first place is that the aircraft were flying so close to the ground"
( http://www.elliott.org/technology/2001/cellpermit.htm )

A lot of surprising things happened that day. That doesn't mean there was a conspiracy, merely that circumstances pushed things to previously untrod territory.

Quote:

Expert opinion within the wireless telecom industry casts serious doubt on "the findings" of the 9/11 Commission.

Why would you trust these experts and not the ones that disagree with your world-view?

Quote:

According to Alexa Graf, a spokesman of AT&T, commenting in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks:

"it was almost a fluke that the [9/11] calls reached their destinations... From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops. Although calls are not reliable, callers can pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain altitude"
( http://wirelessreview.com/ar/wireless_final_contact/ )

I disagree that this casts serious doubt on anything. It is unlikely that every passenger who tried to reach the ground succeeded -- we simply don't KNOW about those that didn't reach anyone. Also, at least some of the passengers were not able to reach their loved ones, so they spoke instead to whoever they could reach (for instance, Todd Beamer spoke with a GTE operator). Finally, taking into consideration that the planes were flying at low altitudes, it's not surprising that some of the calls got through.

Display posts from previous:

	9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum