3292 replies to this topic

[Czero 101]

Liquid Gardens, on 14 November 2012 - 11:23 PM, said:

If nothing else, I'll just note also that the last time I saw Betty Ong and the staged calls discussed, the moderators had to bring out the snipping shears

The temporary ban hammer was brought out, too, but I'm sure BR remembers that...





Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 14 November 2012 - 11:35 PM.

[Liquid Gardens]

Czero 101, on 14 November 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

The temporary ban hammer was brought out, too, but I'm sure BR remembers that...

I wasn't aware of that, although I noticed not long ago I didn't see any posts from him.  That's the last thing I want to happen; if BR or anyone enjoys posting here I want them to be able to continue to do so.  I'm not a believer in the 'heckler's veto' and don't want to imply that I personally get upset by these kind of topics either.  I probably shouldn't have even brought it up.  I'm usually totally a 'no harm in discussing almost anything' kind of guy, but I just remember reading a few comments into conversations about 'hijackers & boxcutters' and staged calls, saw how it was based on the utterly crappiest evidence I think I've ever seen on any topic here, and just felt disgusted as for some reason I had a flash of the real tragedy and grief involved with what actually happened on the planes, and I felt embarrassed in a way that I was even participating in the thread at all, even in disputing it.  But that was just my subjective reaction, I don't mean to impose it on anyone else, that's entirely invalid.  (But I'm simultaneously not sorry that I felt that way either, in a way I think that's how I should feel sometimes, and I definitely don't want all this detailed minutiae we discuss here to ever block entirely the tragedy involved).

And because I don't like to be a downer, I encourage anyone who hasn't checked out the Raptors thread that is linked to in boony's signature to check it out.  Best thread on UM I've seen so far; good, fun, light hilarity, and some crazy photo editing skills on display (I'm looking at you boony).

[Czero 101]

LG... It has been my experience here that it typically takes a lot more than just one person's report to bring out the Ban Hammer (I was actually quite surprised it was used), and you weren't the only one that had issues with that particular topic.






Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 15 November 2012 - 01:41 AM.

[booNyzarC]

Liquid Gardens, on 15 November 2012 - 01:09 AM, said:

I wasn't aware of that, although I noticed not long ago I didn't see any posts from him.  That's the last thing I want to happen; if BR or anyone enjoys posting here I want them to be able to continue to do so.  I'm not a believer in the 'heckler's veto' and don't want to imply that I personally get upset by these kind of topics either.  I probably shouldn't have even brought it up.  I'm usually totally a 'no harm in discussing almost anything' kind of guy, but I just remember reading a few comments into conversations about 'hijackers & boxcutters' and staged calls, saw how it was based on the utterly crappiest evidence I think I've ever seen on any topic here, and just felt disgusted as for some reason I had a flash of the real tragedy and grief involved with what actually happened on the planes, and I felt embarrassed in a way that I was even participating in the thread at all, even in disputing it.  But that was just my subjective reaction, I don't mean to impose it on anyone else, that's entirely invalid.  (But I'm simultaneously not sorry that I felt that way either, in a way I think that's how I should feel sometimes, and I definitely don't want all this detailed minutiae we discuss here to ever block entirely the tragedy involved).

Well, I'd like to thank you for addressing this latest round.  I went through three drafts of attempted responses and had to delete all of them because I just knew that it would have a not-so-positive result...  I'll leave it at that...

Liquid Gardens, on 15 November 2012 - 01:09 AM, said:

And because I don't like to be a downer, I encourage anyone who hasn't checked out the Raptors thread that is linked to in boony's signature to check it out.  Best thread on UM I've seen so far; good, fun, light hilarity, and some crazy photo editing skills on display (I'm looking at you boony).

Thanks!

Yes, that thread is a heck of a lot of fun with a heck of a lot of talent.  I enjoy every single artistic contribution in there.

I just might see an Apocalypse Raptor in my future...  

[Crumar]

skyeagle409, on 14 November 2012 - 05:54 PM, said:

Let's try #2704.

And  yet, I posted confirmation from those who received the cell phone calls.

Let's take another look.

Now, what did you imply when you said; "...the possibility of the cell phones working on the planes were unlikely...?"

Post #2780 reading comprehension is not your strong suit I already answered your question but you never want to answer mine.  Here let me highlight my own quote:

Crumar said:

Wow even as far back as that quote I kept insisting you are cherry picking quotes to suit your agenda and look there it is again with you not posting my full quote.  You were adamant that most calls came from airfones and not cell phones and I explained that cell phones working was unlikely because of the technical issues I discussed in regards to them getting a connection and then disconnecting I did not say they did NOT work or were not able to get a signal period.  Unlikely does not mean not working it means the cell phones will not function normally like you would find on the ground and in addition I went further on in other posts to continue to say cell phones could work but the signal would degrade and disconnect if a connection was made.  Keep on trying to discredit me it will not work with your misleading tactics.

Skyeagle409 said:

Once again, that is besides the point because the cell phone calls were verified by those who received them.  In addition:

What is your point continually posting the same thing over and over when I already said both air phones and cell phones were used on the airplanes in post #2707 and onward?  What I keep telling you is that they did not work like you think they work in 2012.  They got a lot of disconnections and signal degradation and poor quality signal and the FBI had a hard time figuring out where they came from via the signal towers because the calls were “unknown” and could not be traced.  I have already said this time and again so what is your point?  Let me answer that question since you keep dancing around it for you.  Your point is that all that doesn’t matter so long as the cell phone was able to connect to make a call.

It doesn’t matter to Skyeagle that the cell phone calls failed after a minute or 2 or that the quality was poor all it matters to him is that the calls were made.  Remember the chance of these calls even going through was 1-100 depending on their location, air speed, altitude, weather patterns, so many factors had to be involved for them to get a connection.   Remember that the FBI has a hard time to track where exactly these calls were made on which towers because the signal was probably on multiple towers because of altitude and rate of speed and the signature of the signal came in as unknown for its location but that doesn’t matter to Skyeagle.  So long as the calls were made that is all that matters.  Let us not discuss the possibility that the calls were unknown or where they originated from (I am not suggesting these calls were staged at all so don't even go there) let us just concentrate on the fact that the cell phone calls were made from a moving plane at altitude or that a lot of the calls were made from air phones which Skyeagle kept beating that point and now is focusing on cell phones.

Skyeagle409 said:

Which brings us back as to why you said: " possibility of the cell phones working on the planes were unlikely."

You don’t have to post twice to make a point but since you are do I have to post the above answer twice again?  Just look up and read what I wrote already and understand it or I will start posting it twice to get it into you once and for all.

You still have yet to post that link where you got your information for post #2756 here let me post it again for you since you are avoiding answering the question yet again.

Skyeagle409 said:

'We Have Some Planes'

At 8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, a man named Lee Hanson received a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son told him: "I think they've taken over the cockpit-An attendant has been stabbed- and someone else up front may have been killed. The plane is making strange moves. Call United Airlines-Tell them it's Flight 175, Boston to LA."
At 9:00, Lee Hanson received a second call from his son Peter:

'It's getting bad, Dad-A stewardess was stabbed-They seem to have knives and Mace-They said they have a bomb-It's getting very bad on the plane-Passengers are throwing up and getting sick-The plane is making jerky movements-I don't think the pilot is flying the plane-I think we are going down-I think they intend to go to Chicago or someplace and fly into a building-Don't worry, Dad- If it happens, it'll be very fast-My God, my God.'"

"Separately, a businessman, his wife and young child aboard a United flight that left Boston and crashed into the World Trade Center twice called his father in Connecticut as his plane was being hijacked, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the victim's father told the FBI his son made two calls, and both times the phone cut off. In the first call, the businessman said a stewardess had been stabbed. In the second call, the son said his plane was going down.

The man was identified as former Easton, Conn., resident Peter Hanson. A minister confirmed the cell phone call to his father, Lee Hanson, an official in Easton, a small town near Bridgeport."

http://www.boston.co...st_words .shtml

Where is the proper link for the above?  The quote you posted does not match the link at all.

Why have you not answered my other questions in regards to using your cell phones at altitude, speed, location of call, the year, type of plane used, and duration of call?   Oh right it doesn’t matter to you because so long as the phone call was made you don’t need to provide that information to anyone yet you expect others to provide answers to your questions regardless if it matters or not.

I expect an answer to the above questions I posted if you continue to refuse to answer these questions don’t expect the same treatment when you pose questions in the future.

Edited by Crumar, 15 November 2012 - 10:24 AM.

[Q24]

Crumar, on 15 November 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

Post #2780 reading comprehension is not your strong suit I already answered your question but you never want to answer mine.

Crumar, on 15 November 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

What is your point continually posting the same thing over and over

Crumar, on 15 November 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

You don’t have to post twice to make a point but since you are do I have to post the above answer twice again?

Crumar, on 15 November 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

The quote you posted does not match the link at all.

Crumar, on 15 November 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

Why have you not answered my other questions

Welcome to the world of ‘discussion’ according to skyeagle – best avoided if you value your sanity.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 15 November 2012 - 01:09 AM, said:

I'm usually totally a 'no harm in discussing almost anything' kind of guy, but I just remember reading a few comments into conversations about 'hijackers & boxcutters' and staged calls, saw how it was based on the utterly crappiest evidence I think I've ever seen on any topic here, and just felt disgusted as for some reason I had a flash of the real tragedy and grief involved with what actually happened on the planes, and I felt embarrassed in a way that I was even participating in the thread at all, even in disputing it.

I agree that it is distasteful to suggest without good evidence that the victims, family members or members of the public knowingly took part in an operation.  However, I don’t see this conclusion necessary, as BR has suggested, for the hijackings to be staged or the phone calls to be faked.  It is worth remembering that Bill Doyle, head of the 9/11 family coalition, estimated that half of those members he represented believed in some form of conspiracy or government cover-up.  It was only due to the persistence and pressure applied on the government by the Jersey Girls, who all lost husbands on 9/11, that we got an investigation at all – Bush opposed it until then.  Even Marion Kminek, whose daughter died in the Flight 77 event, has questioned whether terrorists could achieve the result and whether a plane impacted the Pentagon at all.  That’s not a conclusion I agree with, but the point is, if it is good enough for her and all of those other family members to question and demand answers as to the precise circumstances surrounding the fate of their loved ones, then it should be good enough for us.

As a side note, should I ever meet my demise in the slightest of unusual events, I’d want everyone to question the nature of what occurred – all theorising welcome if that generates discussion which may help to bring the truth closer.  If anyone implied questioning of my end distasteful and not really for discussion, then I would actually feel brushed under the carpet and betrayed.  It is my belief that understanding all of the circumstances surrounding 9/11 actually honours memory of the victims.

[Babe Ruth]

Liquid Gardens, on 14 November 2012 - 11:23 PM, said:

You're welcome.



If you think it was fallacious then you misunderstand me.  Not all appeals to emotion are fallacious unless you think there's something logically wrong with marriage proposals.   Here's an instructive quote from 'fallacyfiles.org' concerning appeals to emotion:  "So, one distinction between relevant and fallacious appeals to emotion is based on the distinction between arguments which aim to motivate us to action, and those which are intended to convince us to believe something. Appeals to emotion are always fallacious when intended to influence our beliefs, but they are sometimes reasonable when they aim to motivate us to act. The fact that we desire something to be true gives not the slightest reason to believe it".  I have made no appeal to emotion that I'm aware of to try to convince you that you are incorrect about 'hijackers and boxcutters' and staged phone calls; I've already stated previously the reasons why those arguments are terribly reasoned and insufficiently evidenced.  I didn't try to convince you that you are wrong on those two points because it's potentially offensive to the victims and their loved ones, that would be fallacious. I suggested to you that maybe there are some potentially sensitive topics concerning 9/11 that might require a higher level of certainty prior to stating it as a conclusion and might not be the kind of things to just shoot the breeze about.  I don't think anyone thinks that there are sensitivities to discussing things that are probably not really well supported in general, such as the use of energy weapons to bring down the towers, that implies nothing about the victims.  Things like the two points above and others like 'the passengers are alive in Witness Protection and the family knows it" do say something negative and offensive about the victims and I think all your ducks should be in a row before making those suggestions.  I don't know who's reading this forum, I could have sworn I had read a poster who knew someone who died in WTC, not positive if it was here, and I know I'd feel stupid if challenged on statements that legitimately offend them by trying to justify it with a feeble, 'Do I positively know that? Heck no.'.  That's something I'd want to be positive about before opening my mouth.  If nothing else, I'll just note also that the last time I saw Betty Ong and the staged calls discussed, the moderators had to bring out the snipping shears (which may well have been my fault).

But that's where I was coming from, might have just been my mood at the time I probably wouldn't even bring it up if it were posted today, even though I don't really think it's cool without having a very strong case.  Not my forum, and I don't think you should be edited or anything and it doesn't cause me any distress, I just think it can be viewed as being in bad taste; to each his own.  I think I mainly reacted that way because I haven't kept up on your postings and I was disappointed to see those two points indiscriminately added to your 'the only thing I know is that the official story is a lie' boilerplate post that seems to be on an eternal carousel here.  But again it's not my forum, I'm wrong to even be implying that you shouldn't talk about or say whatever you want and for that I apologize, so have at it, knock yourself out.

Yes, it came across that you were somehow invoking shame or scorn against me because you see me as being disrespectful to the surviving families because I do not believe the official story.

By using the emotion of shame and guilt, it seemed that you were attempting to get me to believe the official story, out of sympathy for the surviving family members.

Just the way it came across, and it's not just you.  Such efforts are rather common on the internet if a person suggests there were no airplanes at Shanksville or the Pentagon.  It amuses me.  It does not anger me, and I am not offended by such "reasoning."

I do appreciate your honest style, though we disagree on certain facts.

[Babe Ruth]

Q24, on 15 November 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

I agree that it is distasteful to suggest without good evidence that the victims, family members or members of the public knowingly took part in an operation.  However, I don’t see this conclusion necessary, as BR has suggested, for the hijackings to be staged or the phone calls to be faked.  It is worth remembering that Bill Doyle, head of the 9/11 family coalition, estimated that half of those members he represented believed in some form of conspiracy or government cover-up.  It was only due to the persistence and pressure applied on the government by the Jersey Girls, who all lost husbands on 9/11, that we got an investigation at all – Bush opposed it until then.  Even Marion Kminek, whose daughter died in the Flight 77 event, has questioned whether terrorists could achieve the result and whether a plane impacted the Pentagon at all.  That’s not a conclusion I agree with, but the point is, if it is good enough for her and all of those other family members to question and demand answers as to the precise circumstances surrounding the fate of their loved ones, then it should be good enough for us.

As a side note, should I ever meet my demise in the slightest of unusual events, I’d want everyone to question the nature of what occurred – all theorising welcome if that generates discussion which may help to bring the truth closer.  If anyone implied questioning of my end distasteful and not really for discussion, then I would actually feel brushed under the carpet and betrayed.  It is my belief that understanding all of the circumstances surrounding 9/11 actually honours memory of the victims.

Exactly right sir, and that seems to be the same motivation for the Jersey Girls in the documentary Press For Truth.

[skyeagle409]

Crumar, on 15 November 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

Post #2780 reading comprehension is not your strong suit I already answered your question but you never want to answer mine.  Here let me highlight my own quote:

You said that the cell phone calls were "unlikely," yet they occurred.

Quote

Why have you not answered my other questions in regards to using your cell phones at altitude, speed, location of call, the year, type of plane used, and duration of call?

I was at 5500 feet, cruising at 142 knots between San Francisco and Sacramento and an Eastern heading. The calls lasted as long as it took me to tell the callers I was airborne and that I would call back later.

Quote

It doesn’t matter to Skyeagle that the cell phone calls failed after a minute or 2 or that the quality was poor all it matters to him is that the calls were made.

It doesn't take a minute for a person to tell another person that his or her aircraft is being hijacked by terrorist.

Quote

Families hear heroism on 9/11 calls from planes


CNN learned that calls from just two people -- flight attendants Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney, both on American Airlines Flight 11 -- were played during the three-hour briefing.

http://www.cnn.com/2...alls/index.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, we now know from the conversations that terrorist were involved in the hijackings of their aircraft.

Quote

Stewardess ID'd Hijackers Early, Transcripts Show


Twenty-three minutes into her blow-by-blow account, Ong's voice abruptly ceased. "What's going on, Betty?" asked her ground contact, Nydia Gonzalez. "Betty, talk to me. I think we might have lost her."

http://www.ratical.o....A.Sweeney.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

United 93

Passengers and crew began making phone calls to officials and family members starting at 09:30 using GTE airphones and mobile phones. Altogether, the passengers and crew made 35 airphone calls and two cell phone calls from the flight.

http://en.wikipedia....lines_Flight_93

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ed Felt

This is passenger Ed Felt, originally assigned to seat 2-D. On this call he utilized his personal cell phone. At the time when he dialed 911, that phone was received by the Westmoreland County 911 dispatch center.

Ed Felt reported to the dispatch center that there was a hijacking in progress, that he was on United Airlines Flight 93. He provided his name and his cell phone number. He also reported 11 he was calling from the bathroom on Flight 93. The phone then

http://www.911myths....ril_11_2006.pdf

The majority of calls were made from Airfones, not cell phones.

Quote

Post #2780 reading comprehension is not your strong suit I already answered your question but you never want to answer mine.  Here let me highlight my own quote

Actually, I am looking at certain keywords that indicate where you are going. Why did you bother to write such a thing when it was evident the calls were connected?

Edited by skyeagle409, 15 November 2012 - 07:46 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 15 November 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:

Welcome to the world of ‘discussion’ according to skyeagle – best avoided if you value your sanity.

Let's just say, reality. To prove that case, where is the evidence that implicates the U.S. government in the 9/11 terrorist attack? And remember, thermite is not an explosive.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 15 November 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

However, I don’t see this conclusion necessary, as BR has suggested, for the hijackings to be staged or the phone calls to be faked.

What did BR say about the involvement of nukes in the 9/11 attacks on the WTC buildings? What did he say in regards to a P700 anti-ship missile on the attack on the Pentagon? Do you agree with BR that an anti-ship missile struck the Pentagon?

How about explosives for knocking down the light poles leading up to the Pentagon or an aircraft passing north of the gas station despite evidence the aircraft passed south of the gas station? Do you agree with BR in that regard? What did he mean when he said; "no Boeings" were involved at the Pentagon and Shanksville crash sites?  Do you agree with BR that no aircraft struck the Pentagon?

The point is, there are those who intend to cloud the 9/11 attacks with trash.

Edited by skyeagle409, 15 November 2012 - 07:34 PM.

[DONTEATUS]

Are we still beating this dead wet dog into the ground ? Its really about time we Locked this thread,We need reality to set in for a few of these peeps ! IMO

[Crumar]

skyeagle409, on 15 November 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

You said that the cell phone calls were "unlikely," yet they occurred.

Skyeagle let us stop with this please I already have confirmed numerous times that cell phone calls were made I never once disputed that fact you are taking the unlikely quote out of context even after I explained it to you I don't understand why you keep pushing this point.  I already explained it to you I will not continue to do so if by now you refuse to read it and see it in that light so be it.  We will just have to agree to disagree.

Quote

I was at 5500 feet, cruising at 142 knots between San Francisco and Sacramento and an Eastern heading. The calls lasted as long as it took me to tell the callers I was airborne and that I would call back later.

  

Thank you for at least finally answering part of my question, I would love to know what year this call took place and I can understand why your call did not last long because of you are concentrating on flying at the time even though it would be tempting to prove a point I will just leave it at that.

Quote

It doesn't take a minute for a person to tell another person that his or her aircraft is being hijacked by terrorist.

My issue with this entire conversation between you and I was in regards to how cell phones worked back in 2001.  Cell phone calls were made on 9/11 but you made it seem like it was a common thing to get a cell phone to connect like in 2012.  That is why we are at odd ends with each other in regards to this topic.  We both agree that cell phone calls were made but what we cannot agree on is the technical aspect of the discussion.

Quote

So, we now know from the conversations that terrorist were involved in the hijackings of their aircraft.

The majority of calls were made from Airfones, not cell phones.

That was never disputed by me in fact I agreed that that was the case so I still don't understand why you are hung up on the unlikely quote.  The airfones had no problem with connections where as the cell phones back in 2001 did that is what we are again at odds with.  Connections with cell phones were made but they never lasted long and had technical problems that is why I said it was unlikely that those calls were made like they would be now in 2012 they had technical problems and this was confirmed even by the stuff you still posted.

Quote

Actually, I am looking at certain keywords that indicate where you are going. Why did you bother to write such a thing when it was evident the calls were connected?

If you have to ask this question by now after everything I posted for the last week then I don't know what to write anymore.  Did you even read anything I wrote or just looked for key words?  I again explain it above for you in short one sentence answers so you don't have to go through reading paragraphs I hope that clears it up and if not well I am not going to keep repeating myself over and over.  I already tried to explain it to you in different ways.  Hope you have a great day.

Edited by Crumar, 16 November 2012 - 12:13 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Crumar, on 16 November 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

Skyeagle let us stop with this please I already have confirmed numerous times that cell phone calls were made I never once disputed that fact you are taking the unlikely quote out of context even after I explained it to you I don't understand why you keep pushing this point.  I already explained it to you I will not continue to do so if by now you refuse to read it and see it in that light so be it.  We will just have to agree to disagree.

There was a bit of a problem when you posted this.

Crumar, on 07 November 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

The cell phone records from United and American can be easily fabricated because the FBI were unable to pin point where the calls came from, they don't have a record of which tower the signal was on, they have it listed as unknown and they are only going off voice data to say the calls were made from the plane.  Those calls could have been made from the ground for all we know and there is technology via computers back in 2001 that could duplicate someone's voice too.

When phone call records paint a different picture.

Quote

Additionally, we have confirmation from family members and others on the authenticity of the cell phone calls.

Quote

http://www.911myths....CeeCeeLyles.pdf

http://www.historyco...item=a958edfelt

http://www.archives....taff-report.pdf

Question is, why are 9/11 conspiracist spending much time trying to debunk the cell phone calls, which have already been authenticated, when the majority of calls were made on Airfones?