Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
lliqerty

911 Pentagon Video Footage

3,304 posts in this topic

Once again Skyeagle you are misleading people where did I once say that making a cell phone call in an airplane was impossible?

Question is: Were the cell phones in question, made?

Fact: Skyeagle is NOT on expert on cell phones nor has any understanding of how they actually worked in 2001.

That is moot by the fact that we are talking about the cell phone calls during the 9/11 attacks. It doesn't make any difference whether I am expert or not, because the argument surrounds whether the cell phone calls were made or not.

Fact: Skyeagle keeps accusing me of saying that cell phones do not work in airplanes, and I explained to him in 2001 that cell phones after 2000ft had problems maintaining connections even though they might still be able to get a signal because the wave length of the signal begins to degrade as you go higher.

Another moot argument. My point was, that the cell phone calls in question occurred. Are you denying that?

]Fact:[/b] You assume to much I know what I am talking about because I dealt with the technical side of phone signals on towers using iHLR in 2001. The program could show you where the signal was stuck, and how to fix the problem which I dealt with numerous times.

Ring the moot bell again. Answer the question so Babe Ruth can read it loud and clear;

Were the cell phone calls in question, made? Yes or no.

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cellphone calls were staged, somehow or other, but it is through them that the Official Conspiracy Theory was born.

Another false claim! You have been asked to provide the evidence, so where is it?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question is: Were the cell phones in question, made?

That is moot by the fact that we are talking about the cell phone calls during the 9/11 attacks. It doesn't make any difference whether I am expert or not, because the argument surrounds whether the cell phone calls were made or not.

Another moot argument. My point was, that the cell phone calls in question occurred. Are you denying that?

Ring the moot bell again. Answer the question so Babe Ruth can read it loud and clear;

Were the cell phone calls in question, made? Yes or no.

Thank you for proving my point again you answer my questions with questions and evading on purpose. Your main argument was that I said that cell phones call could not be made on airplanes and now that I proved you wrong you are changing the subject. Now your new argument is weather cell phone calls were made on planes in 9/11 which I already answered your question in post #2707 and numerous other posts including the post above you are being biased and selectively picking what I write in my posts. I want people to notice that he is cherry picking quotes and not fully quoting people when they post it is evident in everything he posts just take a look at many of the above examples Skyeagle posted to date. You are a lost cause you are completely biased and misleading people on purpose. For those who want to read with an open mind I applaud you and for those like Skyeagle well nothing nice can be said so I will leave it at that. Finally it makes a big difference when expert opinion is brought forth in arguments and you are not one yet you seem to think you have all the facts and try to pander your assumptions as expert facts by posting links and making it your view point that support only your claims. But when other testimony contradicts what you presented you ignore it as CT falsehood even though independent tests were done outside of the CT field to confirm some of their findings. If you refuse to answer my questions Skyeagle why should I answer yours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another false claim! You have been asked to provide the evidence, so where is it?

And you have been asked numerous times for your claims that your own cell phone worked on the plane you were flying yet you have yet to provide the information I asked now 5 times regarding this issue so where is your response and why should he provide you with anything if you yourself will not do the same when asked.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You must take what Sky says with a fairly large grain of salt Crumar. He tricked me last year with some fake video of an F-18 hitting a building.

He is very skilled with pictures and links, but is not exactly trustworthy in his claims.

Babe Ruth, how many times do you intend to falsely accuse skyeagle regarding that video? Have you not yet come to realize that you are only proving to everyone how incredibly unobservant and forgetful you are? Forgotten about this already?

The cellphone calls were staged, somehow or other, but it is through them that the Official Conspiracy Theory was born. Hijackers and box cutters. Close analysis of the transcripts of the supposed conversations reveals that they are unnatural and improbable.

You have some gall to accuse skyeagle and others of dishonesty and then immediately follow it up with this unsubstantiated codswallop which you've been corrected on so many times before.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for proving my point again you answer my questions with questions and evading on purpose. Your main argument was that I said that cell phones call could not be made on airplanes and now that I proved you wrong you are changing the subject.

Now your new argument is weather cell phone calls were made on planes in 9/11 which I already answered your question in post #2707 and numerous other posts including the post above you are being biased and selectively picking what I write in my posts.

Let's take another look at what you have said in post #2404

I already explained to you why the possibility of the cell phones working on the planes were unlikely yet you still did not even read precisely what I wrote but instead cherry pick my posts to suit your own agenda.

Now, let's review statements stated by others.

Ted and Barbara Olson

Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters.

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

Flight attendant made call on cell phone to mom in Las Vegas

"Renee May, a flight attendant who a source said made a call on a cell phone from the hijacked American Airlines plane that crashed into the Pentagon, left behind a mother in Las Vegas.

The mother, according to the source, received a phone call Tuesday from her daughter after 6 a.m. Renee May asked her mother to call American Airlines to let them know Flight 77 had been hijacked. Her mother called the airline, the source said.

"She told her mother they were all told to move to the back of the plane," said the source, who declined to share other personal details about the phone call."

http://www.reviewjou...s/16989631.html

______________________________________________________

'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

Since it has been shown that the cekk phone calls were not faked and verified from other sources, would you care to clarify when you said this in post 2404?

I already explained to you why the possibility of the cell phones working on the planes were unlikely...
Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boo

Yessir, I know that Sky admitted it was fake. I missed a few posts in there, but I did not realize it was fake until I challenged him on that point, having seen the identical footage at some other site.

The point is Boo, that he presented it as being true. Why else even provide the video? Is it really honest posting to put something up that is fake, and then after the post admit that it is fake?

No sir, it is not honest, and that is the point I was conveying to Crumar. Once bitten twice shy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it really honest posting to put something up that is fake, and then after the post admit that it is fake?

No sir, it is not honest, and that is the point I was conveying to Crumar. Once bitten twice shy.

One could also ask BR if it is honest to continually repeat the same assertions as if they had not already been rebutted to the point that you were no longer able to defend them. Like Wally Miller. Like 'hijackers and boxcutters'. Like 'close analysis of the transcripts of the supposed conversations reveals that they are unnatural and improbable.'

The last two points I personally find, maybe 'dishonest' isn't exactly the correct word, maybe it's just best summarized as 'not cool'. Both of those points implicitly carry with them uncomplimentary assertions about the victims and/or the victims' families, and the 'evidence' I've seen provided for these two points is pathetic and almost 100% opinion-based, and provides nowhere near the degree of certainty that I think should be required prior to even suggesting these points. I'm of the opinion that short of you having a good scientific case for either of these, they shouldn't really be mentioned. I'm not going to argue either point with you, I doubt that the 'case' for these assertions has changed since the last time they were brought up, and I had to be edited by the moderators as I went over the top a little in my responses the first time these obnoxious points were raised. But I do hate to see you continue to mention them as I do honestly think those two points are beneath you, if not just from an evidentiary standpoint than from the negative implications it necessarily includes concerning the victims or their loved ones. Just my opinion.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm certainly not happy about the negative implications either LG. No sir, the negative implications are downright depressing.

Sadly, considering all of the evidence, it is rather difficult to avoid negative implications. I'm not happy that my government has deceived the public, but I know that those cell phone calls were impossible. Further, I did not write the conversations and I did not record them. Read them yourself and you will see the unnatural character of some of them, Betty Ong's conversation with Ops, in particular.

From the aviation perspective and from other perspectives the story is a mass of deceptive statements. The coverup is the icing on the cake.

Regarding the victims and families and such, an appeal to emotion is what you've just made. You are suggesting that I should not be asking certain questions or making certain statements out of respect for the families.

Respect is one thing, but pointed questions and critical thinking are quite another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm certainly not happy about the negative implications either LG. No sir, the negative implications are downright depressing.

Then, why did add nukes to the argument when there was no such evidence in the first place?

Sadly, considering all of the evidence, it is rather difficult to avoid negative implications. I'm not happy that my government has deceived the public,...

But, many of the reports were from companies and individuals with no connections to the government.

... I know that those cell phone calls were impossible.

But, the overwhelming evidence and records have already trashed that claim.

From the aviation perspective and from other perspectives the story is a mass of deceptive statements.

Considering that recovery crews and investigators confirmed the crash sites of American 77 and United 93, the mass deceptions has been flowing from those conspiracy websites.

The coverup is the icing on the cake.

Once again, you have failed to provide evidence, and in fact, the evidence on hand dismissed conspiracy claims of a 9/11 government conspiracy.

Regarding the victims and families and such, an appeal to emotion is what you've just made.

Considering the families of the victims who have confirmed the loss of their family members, what more is there to say? Simply, the truth is not with the 9/11 conspiracist nor does the evidence support them.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fine BR, I didn't think you'd get it anyway. I have read and heard these conversations you deem 'unnatural and improbable', I see and hear nothing unusual about them. I am suggesting that you not make certain negative statements out of respect for the families and the victims, unless and until you are very sure that your statements are actually correct. Determining such vaguely defined and immeasurable things like 'unnatural and improbable' in reference to conversations isn't exactly scientific, I don't know what 'critical thinking' you could be applying to it that doesn't involve first presuming immodestly that your personal analysis is infallible. I personally find the idea that you and whomever has done this 'analysis' know better than the victims' families whether or not they were actually talking to one of the victims to be entirely unjustified and grotesque.

There is nothing wrong with an appeal to emotion unless it is used fallaciously, which I haven't, so I don't know why you even mentioned it. I'm not appealing to emotion anyway, I'm trying to appeal to a sense of tact and couth, not because I find the discussion upsetting or anything but because I think it reflects on you negatively. But whatever, I wasn't really expecting any different of a response, as you were, carry on.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it really honest posting to put something up that is fake, and then after the post admit that it is fake?

Apparently, you've claimed to be a pilot, but your missteps and blunders on aircraft maneuvers, airframes, FAA regulations, and pilot associations tell a completely different story and as a result, people saw through your deception routine.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact, that there is still a debate on the 9/11 situation proves (or should) that something is not quite right.

SkyEagle, I respect your passion to debate, but I don't understand why, or how your entirely convinced your Government is telling you the truth.

Consider the possibilities, is perhaps the best advice I can give at this point. Just realise that everybody has the option to either tell the truth, or tell a lie.

Peace.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact, that there is still a debate on the 9/11 situation proves (or should) that something is not quite right.

Does the fact that people who know that the world is round still debate members of The Flat Earth Society prove any measure of legitimacy of Flat Earther claims?

Does the fact that people who are well aware of the atrocities involved with the Holocaust still debate Holocaust Deniers prove any measure of legitimacy for the suggestion that there was no Holocaust?

You may want to double-check your logic.

Edit: Second sentence didn't make sense.

Edited by booNyzarC
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact, that there is still a debate on the 9/11 situation proves (or should) that something is not quite right.

SkyEagle, I respect your passion to debate, but I don't understand why, or how your entirely convinced your Government is telling you the truth.

Consider the possibilities, is perhaps the best advice I can give at this point. Just realise that everybody has the option to either tell the truth, or tell a lie.

Peace.

The government is not the only source of information concerning the 9/11 attacks and remember, there are non-government sources as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does the fact that people who know that the world is round still debate members of The Flat Earth Society prove any measure of legitimacy of Flat Earther claims?

What the hell are you talking about?

What you speak of is a different subject. You cannot compare that topic to this one because the subject matter is entirely different. Therefor, irrelevant to 9/11.

Does the fact that people who are well aware of the atrocities involved with the Holocaust prove any measure of legitimacy for Holocaust Deniers? You may want to double-check your logic.

Again, entirely different subject. How can you possibly compare those scenarios with 9/11? Nonsensical.

Fact is, there are conflicting arguments on both sides regarding the September 11th attacks. That right there, tells you something isn't right. Somebody in the know is lying about something. Otherwise there wouldn't be this power-struggle between "Truther's" and the US Government. Thats my point.

That struggle exists because one side is trying to reveal the truth and the other side is trying to conceal it. Something is not right.

I think thats easy enough to comprehend. Also, thanks for the suggestion, but I think you should take your own advice.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only truth is the facts of what happened that day ! Four Jets hit un moveable objects,Lots of real people died ! Where can anyone not get this ? :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The government is not the only source of information concerning the 9/11 attacks and remember, there are non-government sources as well.

There are probably other non-Government sources that tell the same thing the US Government is claiming, right. I get that.

Doesn't necessarily mean it's true. For if it was, there wouldn't exist a conflict between "Truther's" and the US Gov.

Also, and humbly I say unto you, you didn't answer as to why you hold onto the belief that the US Gov can seemingly do nothing wrong. All Human's are flawed, including those who work for the Gov. What convinces you they are telling the truth?

Peace out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the hell are you talking about?

What you speak of is a different subject. You cannot compare that topic to this one because the subject matter is entirely different. Therefor, irrelevant to 9/11.

Again, entirely different subject. How can you possibly compare those scenarios with 9/11? Nonsensical.

I'm talking about your failed logic. I'll try to explain because clearly you didn't understand.

You said this:

The fact, that there is still a debate on the 9/11 situation proves (or should) that something is not quite right.

This indicates that in your opinion the very fact that people are debating the subject of 9/11, it suggests that there is some kind of legitimacy to the claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement. From a minimal standpoint, you're suggesting that there is something "not quite right" simply because some people say there is something "not quite right" and other people engage in discussions with those people; therefore validating the claimant.

This is a complete failure of logic. The fact that people may debate about claims made regarding a topic does not in itself offer any credibility to the claims themselves.

The examples I provided mirror, and therefore illustrate, the exact same failed logic.

Do you understand?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are probably other non-Government sources that tell the same thing the US Government is claiming, right. I get that.

Did American Airlines and United Airlines report their aircraft crashed during the 9/11 attacks? Did the Boeing Aircraft Co., supply important information needed for the investigation? In addition, you have the American Society of Civil Engineers and the American Institute of Architects in addition to demolition experts from companies such as, Protec Services confirming the WTC buildings collapsed due to fires, and yet, they are not government agencies.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't hold your breath, booNy... your first examples were perfectly clear and understandable, and if Insaniac didn't get those simple examples, I doubt "dumbing it down" any further will help...

Cz

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm talking about your failed logic. I'll try to explain because clearly you didn't understand. This indicates that in your opinion the very fact that people are debating the subject of 9/11, it suggests that there is some kind of legitimacy to the claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement. From a minimal standpoint, you're suggesting that there is something "not quite right" simply because some people say there is something "not quite right" and other people engage in discussions with those people; therefore validating the claimant.

The idea was to wake people up as to realise something is suspicious. If the Government's "truth" is exactly that, why are we still debating?

I'm suggesting something is not right because I feel that way within my heart. Thats my number one reason. I feel something is wrong and doesn't add up in my mind regarding 9/11.

Also, neither of us are perfect, remember. None of us.

This is a complete failure of logic. The fact that people may debate about claims made regarding a topic does not in itself offer any credibility to the claims themselves.

Look, something is suspicious regarding 9/11. That much is clear.

It doesn't take a genius to notice.

One can either turn a blind eye to the truth, or face the issue with an open mind. Your choice.

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See?... :rolleyes:

Cz

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boo

Yessir, I know that Sky admitted it was fake. I missed a few posts in there, but I did not realize it was fake until I challenged him on that point, having seen the identical footage at some other site.

How is that his fault?

The point is Boo, that he presented it as being true. Why else even provide the video? Is it really honest posting to put something up that is fake, and then after the post admit that it is fake?

No sir, it is not honest, and that is the point I was conveying to Crumar. Once bitten twice shy.

Clarification was provided in my post which immediately followed his original post, and then acknowledged by him in the very next post.

How does your failure to read that sequence of three posts (648, 649, and 650... the second and third of which were extremely short...) and then his further clarification addressed directly to you in post 653 equate to skyeagle being dishonest?

I say again, the whole sequence simply illustrates that you were unobservant, not that skyeagle was being dishonest. At this point, it also appears to illustrate that you may be learning impaired based on the fact that you continue to bring this up even though it has been pointed out to you multiple times now. You might want to do your nearly non-existent credibility a favor and stop bringing it up.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did American Airlines and United Airlines report their aircraft crashed during the 9/11 attacks? Did the Boeing Aircraft Co., supply important information needed for the investigation? In addition, you have the American Society of Civil Engineers and the American Institute of Architects in addition to demolition experts from companies such as, Protec Services confirming the WTC buildings collapsed due to fires, and yet, they are not government agencies.

I've also heard Demolition Experts explaining fires cannot totally destroy steel, also stating the buildings were brought down due to controlled explosions - hence the concrete turning into dust.

How do we know the corporations that you listed, do not truly work for the Government? Just because they said so?

I'm willing to believe it's a possibility they don't, however I have my doubts. The Government is notorious for it's lies. Theres plenty of evidence for that.

I hope to share with you the following: Don't allow anyone to convince you. Always think these things through for yourself. Otherwise, you could easily be decieved and mislead.

Take care, and peace out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.