you know what's astonishing?

[i!!ustrious]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

black triad zionist + islamofascists unholy alliance, imho. remember, some u.s government authorities are corrupted, but not all of them (it's impossible), verily. the just still hold sway... despite the treason in some high places. we can't possibly know what all goes on in that echelon of power, but we can have fugitive intuitions of a select # of it's moves -- if we use logic, reason and common sense.

[floridaorange]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

remember, some u.s government authorities are corrupted, but not all of them[/I].

indeed

[Miroslav]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

^^ authorities are often corrupt, but I just think they're generally not as stupid as these conspiracy theories suggest.

[floridaorange]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

^depends on your definition of corrupt. I think it's easy to point the finger at elected politicians who are backed by corporations...does that mean they are all bad immoral SOB's, no it does not. Are non-corrupt politicians a dying breed? That's a topic I'd be interested in discussing.

websters dictionary for corrupt 1 a : to change from good to bad in morals, manners, or actions; also : bribe b : to degrade with unsound principles or moral values

[Miroslav]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

My point is that if you're for instance stealing a bunch of money...it's not in your best interest to announce in a public speech that you're stealing a bunch of money. Unless you're an idiot. Who does that?

Also, if everyone just watched you fly big planes into the WTC buildings...then what exactly would you have to gain by shooting something else into the Pentagon and mounting this elaborate cover-up plan to convince everyone that it was a plane? Why would you needlessly complicate things and change the plot up just for the Pentagon? To give armchair conspiracy "experts" a lot to masturbate over? It doesn't even make sense.

And if your objective is to blow run a plane into the Pentagon or blow it up somehow... do you really need to fuck around with the light poles and get some barely coherent cab driver involved?

That is all.

[yesme]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

What can I say? Maybe you should do more research, because there were a whole lot more than 20 witnesses - and they were independent, unrelated, and geographically diverse. I'm not saying that all of them say the plane all the way to the end as it hit the building, but lots of people saw the plane come in.

And I don't need research to know that your claim about not being able to see the plane at 500 mph is completely misleading. It depends on your length of visual perspective of the plane's incoming trajectory, right? Come on, Mr. Research...

If you happened to be focused on the last 20 feet or so, like that camera was, then no, you're not going to see shit.

If you happen to see a much greater distance of the flight as the plane is coming in, then you'll have time to notice that it's a plane, even at 500 mph (even if you won't have time to document every single detail about it).

again, we can round and round all day with witnesses, funny you like the pentagon witnesses, but the wtc witnesses(the 500 or so who heard bombs) you think must of heard something else..lol.

anyway, lets just leave all eyewitnesses out of it, and deal with hard evidence.

Oh give me a break, now you're a studied expert on "classic propaganda ploys", too? Congratulations, your ego really does know no bounds.

Man, I thought I had this all researched... damn! Why didn't I think of those "classic propaganda ploys" in the eyewitness evidence (even though there is no credible evidence for any)?

yeah, i have studied many things in my quest for the truth, proaganda ploys and techniques are just some of the stuff i have been researching these last 8 years, and while i dont have a degree in any of the subjects, you will find it quite interesting that if you read 20 books on any subject field, your are in the top 10% in that field. 100 books on any subject field, makes you an expert.

now have i read close to 20 books on propaganda tech like npl and conversational hypnosis?

yes i have, along with films,lectures and the such, the internet is great for studying new subjects.

If you're so willing to label everything from the conventional story as "classic propaganda ploys", then how come you're never willing to consider that same label for anything on the conspiracy story side? Everything is always so reliable on that side. Hmmm. Interesting how that works.

right, which is why i have not agreed the molten metal, etc,etc

there are a ton of mistakes the truthers have done, and like most good researchers, if it dont fit, it goes out the door.

unlike you guys, cause when it dont fit, ah, who gives a damn anyway? they did not need that cab driver anyway right? so what if his story is crap, he planted HIMSELF there, and made up a huge lie, because,because.

well because we cant think of anything else.

Yes, this is your best point yet (you also had a good point about the WTC fire), although it is still far from sufficient to debunk the argument that a plane did hit the Pentagon that day.

hold up sonny, can you quote me saying a plane did not hit the pentagon?

no, you cant, so lets stop with the strawman arguements shall we?

a plane did hit the pentagon, just not a 757.

I will say that the government didn't say that the calls didn't take place; they simply said that they cannot conclusively determine the identities of the caller and the receiver. They do, however, say that there are records of 4 calls from the plane that they can only best describe as "unknown". But this is not the same as having disproven that she placed the calls...

can i call bs now or later?

did you dl and check out the flash presentation from the government trial of the 20th hi jacker?

it's really simple, if they used an airfone(which we have already confirmed did not exist on 757's on that day) we would have had a credit card transaction before they could of even dialed(so a record of WHO used the phone), if it was a cell phone(again impossible due to how high and fast they were flying) then there would of been a cell phone charge(very easy to check who was calling and who was anwsering).

..besides, if it's the government that we're accusing of planting evidence here, don't you think they could have forged evidence that showed that it was her, for the sake of their plot?

um, they did forge evidence, clearly thats what the calls were in the first place, to go back later and admit that she did not call is no big deal really, as most people wont take the time to research it or like you, even care much about it to say, well i dont know what happened, so who cares!

But here is what I do feel confident in stating:
There were many calls that day that family members and spouses received from the airplanes and many of them were actually made from seat-back phones, which did exist in some of the planes at that time (not saying they existed in Flight 77 - I really don't know). And it is also plausible for the cell phone calls to have worked for a brief duration of time if the plane is at a sufficiently low altitude. There is evidence on this, and I could also post up a storm - but I'm sure in all of your thousands of hours of research you've already seen it.

i've seen them debunked, if you want to do a discussion on phone calls as well, i'm down.

It is far beyond common sense plausibility to believe that the government could have gotten all of those different relatives of the dead to participate in their plot, and I also don't believe that the government could adequately faked all of the voices and mannerisms of peoples' spouses, daughters, sons, etc. to fool people who knew them for a lifetime. There really isn't evidence for that.

it's quite easy to fake someones voice, if you have a voice to fake(i.e. a recording, like on their cell phones or home phones) but as far as mannerisms and such, you are correct, maybe thats why mark used his first and last name when talking to his mom(like thats believeable in ANY way)

mark: hi mom this is mark(stop right there, she hears and knows it's her sons voice)and then he says his last name(confused here, how many sons named mark does she have and do they have different last names?)

did he think him calling her mom and saying it's mark that she would somehow not know it was her son unless he added the last name?

who am i kidding, we all call up our moms and are like, whats up mom, it's your son george david henson the 2nd, you remember me right?

So even if the Olson call didn't take place, that doesn't at all suggest to me that none of the calls took place. And I'd still need more than that to overturn all of the eyewitnesses, DNA evidence, and debris evidence from the plane that crashed into the Pentagon.

the barbera olsen call is very important in the 9-11 tale, let me ask you something, if barbera did not call, how the hell did the us government KNOW that the terrorists used boxcutters before the last plane was even on the ground?

what kind of a man, after hearing his wife just died, goes and holds a press conference?

I thought I already answered it like a zillion times. When a plane crashes into a heavily reinforced building like the Pentagon and explodes, it tends to burn and fall into little pieces. Depending on the physics of the crash, planes can actually structurally disintegrate quite significantly. They don't necessarily tend to stay in one piece, you know?

let me ask you something, do you know what sar missions are? do you know who does the most sar missions in the usa? i'll give you a hint, i did 150+ sar missions for them, the letters are c.a.p.

have you seen 150+ planes crashes up close? everything from a cessna to large sac/mac aircraft?

and just a fyi, cobalt and titium engines dont burn and fall into little pieces.

but lets say that the plane hit the wall, exploded into little pieces.

what caused all the damage inside?

there are NO engine holes in the outside wall, are you expecting us to believe a hollow aluminum tube, made it thru 6 reinforced walls(remember it went thru 3 rings), but yet, the engines just fell apart and burnt up?

really?

Here is just one recent example - maybe you heard of this tragic plane crash in Iran that crashed out in the open (not even hitting another reinforced structure). Was this a government conspiracy cover-up, too? Be sure to look at the pictures.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/...h/#cnnSTCPhoto

Here's some more, unrelated.
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/crashdebris.html

the first ones pics are all close up, see if you can find a wide view of the debris area.

2nd link, the f-4 is different in so many ways it's laughable people still use this as evidence.

Have you ever considered the fact that maybe you're not quite the aviation and physics "expert" that your research apparently leads you to think you are?

nope, again, as with most researchers, if it dont fit, i throw it out, learning is always an ongoing process, i know you have been taught that it's only cool to be an expert in one subject, most likely your career, but i was taught knowledge is power, and i can read a 700 page book in 24 hours, so i pick up new research when ever something gets my attention.

i also look at both sides, do independent research and then come to a conclusion.

i would be more then happy to tell you whats wrong with every 9-11 debunking site you can google my friend.

cause i read them all. i dont go around to sites that share my views and then pat myself on the back for doing some research.

You make this claim with such certainty of hairline fracture exactly here and there

again, first hand looks at how wings react shows me that what they said can not be true, but i understand for you, you dont have a clue. so lets go about getting you the information to make a good decision on this wing matter.

lets take your example of a site link, and it's "debunking of the wings"

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/missingwings.html

notice how they try, let me repeat, try to debunk my guys site

http://web.archive.org/web/20040802235744/http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3

by picking one of 4 points on what could of happened.

lets see whats wrong with this shall we?

Reason 3, which asks if the explosion of the fuel tanks could have fragmented the wings, ignores the possiblity that the impact itself could have shredded the wings. The F-4 crash test described on the crash debris page suggests that the crash of a 757 into the Pentagon would have shredded the wings into confetti. The wings of the F-4 in the crash test contained no fuel, but were entirely reduced to confetti.

notice it links to the same page you did, with that busted ass f-4 story, let me expand on my knowledge of the phantom shall i?

the f-4, are most popular and successful fighter of all time, is mostly engine...



now lets get on with it.

1. in the video of the f-4, it does not show the aftermath, just the plane hitting the 10 foot thick block. while it says it turned the plane into dust, and while i do believe it, because the f-4 is tiny compared to a 757, the fact remains that they DONT show us the evidence.

2. i did not think i needed to bring this up as my evidence was good already, but for you sir i will.........the pentagon face was LIMESTONE, a baseball going 500mph would of left a mark on the face of the building, much less a 757 wing with a 6 ton engine on it.

now lets take some knowledge from my link, lets start with a picture..

Of course, the force in question would not have been vertical, but horizontal. This makes the folding even more improbable, as the force of impact would be acting along the only possible fold axis, rather than at right angles to it. Try folding any material, say a piece of cardboard, by applying it's edge (not it's surface) to a tabletop. Folding horizontally is not an option, since all the spars would be lined up in opposing (momentarily) the folding force. Being locally rigid, the spars would simply snap within milliseconds of the impact against a support column that did not yield to their impact; they would fail as soon as the force of impact exceeded the elastic limit of the material. If they did not fail and if the support columns did not give way, the only remaining possibility would be for the aircraft to remain almost entirely outside of the Pentagon.

there is some knowledge for you homie.

when the wings hit, either the columns or the wings gave out, and since the columns did not.................

you get the point.

What's your basis for being able to make those claims with such certainty? Do you really have the data to be able to determine the exact probability of when and how the wings would react in the final moments before impact as they struck a variety of objects, not just the light poles (also a generator, also possibly one of the wingtips struck the ground...)?

Or are you claiming this on the same data-driven basis that you used to claim that the eyewitnesses were paid off in a "classic propaganda ploy"?

to me my basis is common sense, but since some people did not grow up around aircraft, it's not to them.

also it's a classic propaganda ploy to place agents into crowd to direct thought...."oh my god, did you see that 757 go into the pentagon?"

etc,etc.

I'm sorry, but I am not buying your "expertise" in this regard. I would accept the argument from a large panel of well-qualified, experienced physics PhDs and other experts who really know their stuff, and I haven't seen that.

hundreds have gone on record, and most people dont have the time to do the serious research, busy lives and all, government will keep my back safe, you know.

also there is some kind of attitude like if you did not go to school and have a degree in a subject, your opinion is somehow invalid on it or something.

physics911 is a good start, lots of phd's on there.

but, we can also get alot deeper, we can call up some aircraft mechanics and see what they think about lightpoles and wings.

Why aren't all of the airline pilots of the world, the physics professors of the world, and the structural engineers of the world all saying "this is impossible"? Were they all paid off as part of the plot?

no, but they also know the way of the world. people who have spoke out are shunned, fired and threatened in some cases. why come out with what you know, when the masses are already to brainwashed to believe it.

also humans are creatures of comfort, to be shunned in a country club lifestyle is toxic to some, why come out with what you know, when no one will believe you and you will ruin your life, with nothing ever being done about it.

yeah, i have no clue why more people are not jumping at that chance either brother.

[yesme]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Get me a real panel of experts who all say that, and I will accept it. All I would tell you is that you should take a better look at some of those other photographs of air crashes out in the open that I posted before and tell me where you see the wings?

i dont suppose you know the difference between earth and limestone facing do you?

Hey, sounds more realistic to me than your story, which apparently is:

Rumsfeld, in a moment of rare honesty, decides for some reason to publicly tell people in a speech that he is currently stealing 1/5th of the national GDP.

man, you cant even get this part right, after me telling you like 10 times already.

how about a month after calls for a audit

http://scout.wisc.edu/Reports/ScoutR...inthenews.html


AP, BBC, and CNN report on the upcoming audit and findings thus far. Charles Grassley has issued a press release on the issue, and the GAO has placed their testimony about the San Diego findings online. Readers can also visit the Department of Defense site or read their April 13 report in which they confess that "current DoD financial, accounting and feeder/operational management systems do not provide information that could be characterized as relevant, reliable and timely."

he then tells us the dod can not account for some 2.3 trillion(somewhere over the course of many years)dollars that more then likely ended up in defense contractor hands that they would come to sit on the board of directors and such.

i mean you do know how it works right?

And I know you've claimed that they hit the Pentagon to hide evidence of their money laundering, but come on...in this day and age of electronic records, you really think that there isn't an easier way to fake the records? It just all seems needlessly complex and unrealistic for a plot.

huh?

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, December 20, 2001: "One Army office in the Pentagon lost 34 of its 65 employees in the attack. Most of those killed in the office, called Resource Services Washington, were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. They were at their desks when American Airlines Flight 77 struck."

The Arlington County After-Action Report noted that the "impact area included both the Navy operations center and the office complex of the National Guard and Army Reserve. It was also the end of the fiscal year and important budget information was in the damaged area." And Insight Magazine editorialized that "the Department of the Army, headed by former Enron executive Thomas White, had an excuse . In a shocking appeal to sentiment it says it didn't publish a "stand-alone" financial statement for 2001 because of "the loss of financial-management personnel sustained during the Sept. 11 terrorist attack."

moving on

Then, literally hundreds of independent eyewitnesses all around the area see a plane fly into the Pentagon, but you claim that this is not possible and no plane was ever there?

never said no plane was ever there, i said no 757 could of been there.

Finally, you think that the government, with all of its resources and expert capabilities, messed up the manner in which the light poles fell in their plan...and then somehow recruited some poor taxicab driver to be there just at the right time at the time of the explosion so as to give their story some sort of special credibility that you think it needed?

on the flip side, you think floyd stopped his cab, got out bashed his window in and said it was a lightpole instead?

just for shits and giggles?

Man... I just think this story has a long way to go. Much farther than a group of terrorists hijacking planes and running them into things - and there is historical precedent for terrorists hijacking planes and for blowing shit up...so it's not that much of a stretch for me to accept this.

funny, cause the us government has along history of stuff like this as well, as does mossad. levon affair ring a bell?

Look...I completely support your right to believe whatever you want, but I'm just not buying it without some seriously new evidence. If that happens, then I will come back here and publicly admit that I was wrong. But...for now, we're gonna have to agree to disagree, ok?

sure, i never expected you to change your mind no matter what i brought to the table, hell i could of told you i was in on it in some way and you would not of believed it.

94% of people dont believe new information even if it is the truth.

Mr. Gilovich says ". . . there are inherent biases in the data upon which we base our beliefs, biases that must be recognized and overcome if we are to arrive at sound judgments and valid beliefs." The cost of these biases is real and severe. This book explains why people are prone to wrong thinking, and ways they can counteract this.

Here are points that Mr. Gilovich made:

1. Seeing Order in Randomness - We all have a natural tendency to see order in data, even when the data is totally random and irregular. We do this even when we have no personal reason to see order. This happens especially when we remember facts from the past. Our memory plays tricks on us by emphasizing any possible patterns, and forgetting irregularities that might refute the patterns. For instance, basketball players often think that if they make one successful basket, then they are more likely to make the next basket - because they remember times when this has happened to them. "When you're hot, you're hot." However, objective statistical studies done on when successful baskets are made show that, if anything, the opposite is true.

This natural tendency to misconstrue random events is called the "clustering illusion." Chance events often seem to us to have some order to them, but when the law of averages is applied objectively, this order disappears. This error is compounded when our active imagination tries to create theories for why there should be order. Because of this, we need to be careful when we draw conclusions based on a sequence we think we see in some data.

2. Looking for Confirmation - We all have a natural tendency to look for "yes" instead of "no." If we have an idea, we tend to look for evidence that will confirm our idea, not evidence that will disprove it. This is true even when we have no personal attachment to the idea.

Some researchers believe this tendency results from our need to take an extra neurological step when we try to understand negative or disconfirming evidence, in contrast to positive or confirming evidence. To understand a negative proposition, we may need to translate it into a positive one. Therefore, we subconsciously look for easy positives instead of more difficult negatives. This does not promote objectivity and good science. If we want to do good science, then we need to force ourselves to look for negative evidence that contradict our ideas.

3. Hidden Data - When we search for evidence, often there is data that we unintentionally overlook. For instance, if we receive a bad impression about a person from the beginning, we may avoid them, and by avoiding them, they may never have a chance to show us the better side of their personality. But if we receive a good impression, we may get to know that person better, and thereby gather more positive data, and falsely confirm in our mind that first impressions are reliable. The way we collect data may filter out important categories of data, and this may cause us to confirm our wrong ideas. We need to avoid search strategies that show us only a distorted side of an issue.

4. Mental Corner-Cutting - We all cut corners with our mind. We often use mental strategies - inductive generalizations, etc. - to understand the world around us more quickly and easily. These strategies are very useful. But they come at a cost. These corner-cutting strategies can cause systematic errors or blind spots in our thinking. We need to be aware when we have not been thorough; therefore, we need to look out for signals that we are drawing a wrong conclusion.

5. Objectivity is Not Always Useful - We shouldn't expect everyone to reevaluate their beliefs every time a new piece of evidence comes along. "Well- supported beliefs and theories have earned a bit of inertia. . ." However, we should draw a distinction between a belief that is well supported by evidence over time, and a belief that only has traditional or popular support. Some scientists believe the complex mental processes that give us biases and preconceived notions are some of the same processes that make us intelligent beings - superior to computers or animals. Our biases are useful, but also dangerous. We need to be consciously aware of our biases.

6. Reinterpreting Evidence - When people are presented with ambiguous information, they often interpret it to support their established beliefs. When people are presented with unambiguous information that contradicts their beliefs, they tend to pay close attention to it, scrutinize it, and either invent a way of discounting it as unreliable, or redefine it to be less damaging than it really is.

For instance, gamblers tend to remember their losses very well - remember them better than their winnings - but they remember their losses as "near" wins that provide clues about how to win next time. But gamblers aren't the only ones who do this. We all do this from time to time in our own way.

7. Remembering Selective Evidence - Charles Darwin once said that he ". . . followed a golden rule, namely that whenever a new observation or thought came across me, which was opposed to my general results, to make a memorandum of it without fail and at once; for I had found by experience that such facts and thoughts were far more apt to escape from the memory than favorable ones."

Darwin's golden rule is not a normal tendency among people. People do not necessarily only remember evidence that supports their beliefs. Rather, they tend to remember events that cause them pain or difficulty, events that they predicted would happen, or events that otherwise drew their attention. They tend to forget events that follow the normal course of things.

For example, some people think that they always end up needing things that they threw away. But this is only because they remember all the things that they threw away, but later needed; while they forget about the many more times when they threw something away and never needed it again.

Another example is how people often say they wake up and their digital clock reads something like 1:23 or 12:12. This seems to be more than a coincidence - how come they wake up at these special times? However, they are simply forgetting the many more times when they woke up and the clock read 3:54 or 10:17. Certain types of events stick in our memory. We need to be careful that our selective memories do not bias our thinking.

8. The Wish to Believe and the Lake Wobegon Effect - The vast majority of people think of themselves as above average in qualities that they think are important. This is called the "Lake Wobegon Effect" after the fictitious community where "all the women are strong, the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average."

For instance, a survey of high- school seniors found that 70% of them thought that they were above average in leadership ability, and 60% thought they were in the top 10% of amiable people. 94% of college professors think they were better than their colleagues are.

One way that people try to confirm their beliefs is to search for evidence until they find something that supports them. They may do a very detailed, in-depth study of something, but they do not stop and evaluate what they have when they uncover evidence against their beliefs. Instead, they continue on and stop only when they've found enough evidence to support their side to relieve their conscience.

Often when we look evidence that supports what we believe, we only ask that it leave the door open for our beliefs. But when we find evidence that contradicts what we believe, we hold it to a higher standard. We ask that it prove its findings beyond a reasonable doubt. We hold others to a higher standard than we hold ourselves. This may be the most important point in this book.

For example, people who believe in a particular stringent health diet may look around for evidence that their diet is working, while people who eat more permissively find solace in studies that say that it doesn't matter what we eat. Conservatives tend to read conservative periodicals and not liberal ones, and therefore they are only exposed to evidence that encourages their convictions. Liberals do the same. What we need here is to search in an even-handed way for supporting evidence and contradicting evidence, and weigh each side objectively.

9. Telling Stories - Much of what we know about our world we heard from others. But second-hand information is often simplified and "cleaned up" as it is told. As we relate stories, we often exaggerate them, or make them happen to a friend instead of to an unknown person, or try to make the story more understandable. We do this subconsciously because we want our audience to be entertained or impressed.

Instead, we need to temper what we hear by: (1) considering the source of the message, (2) putting more credence in actual statements of fact and not predictions, (3) scale estimates down by accepting the less drastic if two numbers offered to us, (4) not allow our personal feelings towards someone deceive us into thinking that they are an example of a widespread phenomenon.

10. Correction from Others - Our friends and acquaintances can bring an objective perspective to our habits and beliefs. For instance, young children are good at correcting silly behaviors in each other, such as a funny way of walking, or eating with your mouth open. But, as we get older, we tend to associate with people who agree with us or share our habits, and therefore we have fewer opportunities to meet corrections. If we have adopted a defective belief, then we may never encounter the correction we need.

11. Strategies - If we all have innate tendencies to reason wrongly, what can we co to combat this? We can train our minds to compensate for our shortcomings: (1) We should be aware of how our minds try to see order even when there is no order. (2) We should be aware of how our minds remember things in a very biased way. (3) We should actively search for data that we may have missed, and especially search for data that contradicts our theories or beliefs. (4) We should ask ourselves how someone who disagrees with us would look at this data? (5) We should remember that stories that we hear may come from an unreliable source, or they may be exaggerated by the storyteller to make a point.

The more we understand and compensate for these errors, the more confidence we can put out beliefs that we have more carefully validated.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Know-What-Isnt-Fallibility/dp/0029117062

[Miroslav]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

again, we can round and round all day with witnesses, funny you like the pentagon witnesses, but the wtc witnesses(the 500 or so who heard bombs) you think must of heard something else..lol.

That's because if you think about it, it's a lot easier to believe that many witnesses who saw a plane crash into the Pentagon (not even saying what model) could not have seen anything else than to believe that many WTC witnesses couldn't have confused "bombs" with a lot of other noise and shit going down during a time when planes had hit the WTC buildings, fires were burning, shit was getting ready to fall, etc.

yeah, i have studied many things in my quest for the truth, proaganda ploys and techniques are just some of the stuff i have been researching these last 8 years, and while i dont have a degree in any of the subjects, you will find it quite interesting that if you read 20 books on any subject field, your are in the top 10% in that field. 100 books on any subject field, makes you an expert.

now have i read close to 20 books on propaganda tech like npl and conversational hypnosis?

yes i have, along with films,lectures and the such, the internet is great for studying new subjects.

Wow! You're just a genius ninja tough guy, huh? What CAN'T you do? Did you like Zeitgeist?

hold up sonny, can you quote me saying a plane did not hit the pentagon?

no, you cant, so lets stop with the strawman arguements shall we?

a plane did hit the pentagon, just not a 757.

Hey, you're the first conspiracy theorist I've even heard admit that a plane hit the Pentagon! Now if only someone had a good explanation for why the government would care to crash whatever they crashed into the Pentagon in broad daylight and go to such great lengths to try to convince everyone that it was a 757?...

i've seen them debunked, if you want to do a discussion on phone calls as well, i'm down.

I've seen your debunking debunked.

it's quite easy to fake someones voice, if you have a voice to fake(i.e. a recording, like on their cell phones or home phones) but as far as mannerisms and such, you are correct, maybe thats why mark used his first and last name when talking to his mom(like thats believeable in ANY way)

mark: hi mom this is mark(stop right there, she hears and knows it's her sons voice)and then he says his last name(confused here, how many sons named mark does she have and do they have different last names?)

did he think him calling her mom and saying it's mark that she would somehow not know it was her son unless he added the last name?

who am i kidding, we all call up our moms and are like, whats up mom, it's your son george david henson the 2nd, you remember me right?

Maybe you should have done more research and listened to this interview with Alice Hoglan, Mark Bingham's mother (about 1:50 - 2:15):
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z96MZOZyilo[/YOUTUBE]

"Once in a while he would say that, he would call up up... he was a young business man and used to introduce himself on the phone as Mark Bingham when he was trying to be strong and level-headed and strictly business: 'Mom, this is Mark Bingham'..."
-- Alice Hoglan, Mark Bingham's mother

So actually, it was a mannerism that his mother recognized - and there were many other intimate mannerisms and things that people told their family on that day from the planes.

But let me guess... his mother was bribed, right? She's part of the conspiracy?? Or is that not his mother at all...it's another government expert name-faker who is pretending to be her in that interview?

See...it's things like this that lead me to be much more fastinated with your enormous ego than your claimed "expertise" in everything under the sun.

let me ask you something, do you know what sar missions are? do you know who does the most sar missions in the usa? i'll give you a hint, i did 150+ sar missions for them, the letters are c.a.p.

have you seen 150+ planes crashes up close? everything from a cessna to large sac/mac aircraft?

and just a fyi, cobalt and titium engines dont burn and fall into little pieces.

What can I say... Does being in the Civil Air Patrol make you an expert pilot or aerodynamics/physics expert? Do you have that much experience in studying major airliners crashing into standing structures?

I haven't been in the Civil Air Patrol, and I also haven't ready 70 books on hypnosis in 24 hours, or whatever. But I think that the many pictures that show very small debris in the aftermath of certain crashes all around the world don't really lie.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/compare/jetcrashdebris.html

Do you also think it was a conspiracy that they didn't find all that much of flight 93 either after it crashed into the ground at high speed?

I gotta go, but a few more things....

there are NO engine holes in the outside wall, are you expecting us to believe a hollow aluminum tube, made it thru 6 reinforced walls(remember it went thru 3 rings), but yet, the engines just fell apart and burnt up?

2. i did not think i needed to bring this up as my evidence was good already, but for you sir i will.........the pentagon face was LIMESTONE, a baseball going 500mph would of left a mark on the face of the building, much less a 757 wing with a 6 ton engine on it.

Thanks! And for YOU, sir, I will bring up the fact that the entire outside facade of the building where the plane crashed fell about twenty minutes after initial impact. This is what it ended up looking like:


So it's kinda hard to want to look for evidence there of some engine holes, cut out like some Looney Toons cartoon running through a wall. The whole damn thing collapsed (I know, probably part of the "classic propaganda ploy", right?).

2nd link, the f-4 is different in so many ways it's laughable people still use this as evidence.

I actually agree here, I don't care about the F-4. I was more interested in the pictures of the debris fields to the right.

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Maybe you should have done more research and listened to this interview with Alice Hoglan, Mark Bingham's mother (about 1:50 - 2:15):
[YOUTUBE]Z96MZOZyilo[/YOUTUBE]

So actually, it was a mannerism that his mother recognized - and there were many other intimate mannerisms and things that people told their family on that day from the planes.

Miro your not starting to believe them faceless YouTube & Google videos now are you? What they should of done was actually run the test instead of just writing words on a YouTube video. Get in a plane and fly the route and try and make the calls at the same altitude.

The CIT have been asking for volunteers who saw the Pentagon plane crash to come forward and and explain what they saw and the route the plane took on camera at the Pentagon. So far no one has come forward and verified the official route the plane is supposed to of took. The people who did come forward all claimed the plane took a different route, and none of them wanted to talk once they realised the ramifications of their accounts.

[Miroslav]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Miro your not starting to believe them faceless YouTube & Google videos now are you? What they should of done was actually run the test instead of just writing words on a YouTube video. Get in a plane and fly the route and try and make the calls at the same altitude.

That "faceless" person just so happens to be THE GUY'S MOTHER directly quoted and interviewed, who probably knows him a lot better than you or I do. I'm not even talking about the rest of the video or any claims they make, just that part where she was interviewed. I can probably dig around and find the original source for it. Seems to me like you should answer to it if you're going to claim "Mark Bingham" as proof that a government imposter called her instead of her son.

And guess what? Mark Bingham used a seat-back airphone to call his mother, not a cell phone. So now tell me how that "couldn't work"?

And guess what? According to the FBI report, there were 64 phone calls. You know how many of them came through cell phones? ONLY TWO.

And I've read Dewdney's little study on cell phones. That's the same moron who put forth the highly "scientific" argument that an A-10 Thunderbolt jet shot down Flight 93. He empirically tested cell phones in flight to see how well they worked at various heights and determined that it's basically impossible over 8,000 feet and "statistically unlikely" below.

Reasons why the Dewdney Study is retarded:

1. His flight path ensured that he continuously flew around low output / low range cell phone towers. The guy flew in a circle over London, Ontario. The claim is that the area was richly supplied with cell phone towers, but guess what? In urban areas, each tower can only serve a limited amount of users. As there are many users in a small area, it makes sense to have many lower power towers than out in rural areas (which is where the alleged cell phone calls took place). Rural towers have significantly greater ranges out of necessity, so that makes a big difference.

2. The two Flight 93 phone calls (Ed Felt, CeeCee Lyles) came at 9:58 am, at which time the plane was around 5,000 feet - an altitude at which calls are much more likely to go through for a brief period of time (even in Dewdney's study).


3. There are many other anecdotal and study-based examples of people successfully using cell phones for brief periods of time at low altitudes.

Contrary to Dewdney's findings, we have received reports that cell phones do work from aircraft. Other evidence that cell phone calls are possible from jetliners in flight comes from a study by Carnegie Mellon researchers that monitored spectrum frequencies generated by cell phone transmissions during commercial passenger flights. They found that an average of one to four cell phone calls are made during a typical flight. 1

http://www.carnegiemellontoday.com/article.asp?aid=334

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/unsafe-at-any-airspeed/2

There are many other 9-11 debunking pages out there filled with cases of brief cell phone use in low-altitude flight.

So Dewdney can go suck it.

The CIT have been asking for volunteers who saw the Pentagon plane crash to come forward and and explain what they saw and the route the plane took on camera at the Pentagon. So far no one has come forward and verified the official route the plane is supposed to of took. The people who did come forward all claimed the plane took a different route, and none of them wanted to talk once they realised the ramifications of their accounts.

Look, how many people do you really think remembered the exact entire flight path of the aircraft? If you had been there, you probably wouldn't remember it. Each eyewitness was at a certain geographic point where they couldn't have necessarily seen the entire flight path, and the damn thing was flying fast. Different perspectives can be misleading - but not so misleading as to lead hundreds of independent witnesses to mistakenly see a big jet heading for the Pentagon.

So it's perfectly plausible that they could recall seeing an airplane streaking towards the Pentagon, but they might not be able to tell you its exact altitude, where and when it turned and how much, etc. Come on...that's a bit silly.

[Miroslav]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

...and moving right along... It's a good thing I just had my wisdom teeth removed and I have all this free time to do this.

um, they did forge evidence, clearly thats what the calls were in the first place, to go back later and admit that she did not call is no big deal really, as most people wont take the time to research it or like you, even care much about it to say, well i dont know what happened, so who cares!

Don't you think that if they were going to forge the evidence, they'd just go ahead and forge it a bit better? Like put in names, times, etc.?

i also look at both sides, do independent research and then come to a conclusion.

i would be more then happy to tell you whats wrong with every 9-11 debunking site you can google my friend.

cause i read them all. i dont go around to sites that share my views and then pat myself on the back for doing some research.

Yeah, right.

there is some knowledge for you homie.

when the wings hit, either the columns or the wings gave out, and since the columns did not.................

you get the point.

Or maybe you should read the study that Purdue University did on this to get a better sense of how this mass of mainly fuel behaved at high speed, "homie".

The software tool is unusual because it uses principles of physics to simulate how a plane's huge mass of fuel and cargo impacts a building. The plane's structure caused relatively little damage, and the explosion and fire that resulted from the crash also are not likely to have been dominant factors in the disaster, Sozen said.

The model indicates the most critical effects were from the mass moving at high velocity.

"At that speed, the plane itself is like a sausage skin," Sozen said. "It doesn't have much strength and virtually crumbles on impact."

But the combined mass of everything inside the plane – particularly the large amount of fuel onboard – can be likened to a huge river crashing into the building.

I'm just saying...maybe they know something you might not (if that's even possible)??

also it's a classic propaganda ploy to place agents into crowd to direct thought...."oh my god, did you see that 757 go into the pentagon?"

etc,etc.

Maybe it's a "classic propaganda ploy" of you to claim silly things like this. Many people who saw the plane weren't in any "crowd". Nice try, though... I wonder how much research you had to do to come up with that.

no, but they also know the way of the world. people who have spoke out are shunned, fired and threatened in some cases. why come out with what you know, when the masses are already to brainwashed to believe it.

also humans are creatures of comfort, to be shunned in a country club lifestyle is toxic to some, why come out with what you know, when no one will believe you and you will ruin your life, with nothing ever being done about it.

yeah, i have no clue why more people are not jumping at that chance either brother.

Or maybe most serious aviation experts, pilots, and aerodynamics experts actually find it plausible and don't agree with your version of the "truth"?

I think that's more likely.

i dont suppose you know the difference between earth and limestone facing do you?

I don't suppose you know that the Pentagon is also a heavily reinforced concrete structure and that only the outside facade is made of limestone? And that it fell down 20 minutes after impact, as I've already stated?

man, you cant even get this part right, after me telling you like 10 times already.

how about a month after calls for a audit

he then tells us the dod can not account for some 2.3 trillion(somewhere over the course of many years)dollars that more then likely ended up in defense contractor hands that they would come to sit on the board of directors and such.

i mean you do know how it works right?

I do, but maybe you don't.

First of all, they do audits all the freaking time. Nothing new there. And it's also not at all surprising to me that government agencies have weak internal controls and inefficient processes. This is always happening, and not just in government organizations. And that link you provided cites like $68 million, which is orders of magnitude off of $2.3 trillion.

And you still don't understand that "$2.3 trillion transactions" doesn't at all mean "$2.3 trillion cash outflow". I suggest you go research some accounting (I have ).

Oh, by the way...I'll let you in on a little secret: There is a place where the government really does steal a lot of cash - it's called the National Deficit, and they do it with the US Treasury. Its much more efficient than doing it through the military


la dee da.... the dance goes on...

[yesme]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

i really can not believe i'm going to reply but ihave a couple of days off, so here goes.

And guess what? Mark Bingham used a seat-back airphone to call his mother, not a cell phone. So now tell me how that "couldn't work"?

The Chad Kinder Email:

One piece of evidence was brought to our attention by a member of the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forums who goes by the alias “Kesha.” Using one of these forums, “Kesha” reported that the following email exchange had been posted February 17, 2006, on a German political forum. A person using the alias “the Paradroid” had sent this email to American Airlines:

Hello, on your website . . . there is mentioned that there are no seatback satellite phones on a Boeing 757. Is that info correct? Were there any such seatback satellite phones on any Boeing 757 before or on September 11, 2001 and if so, when were these phones ripped out?

This was the reply received by “the Paradroid” (except that his real name has been crossed out):

Dear Mr. XXXXXXXX:

Thank you for contacting Customer Relations. I am pleased to have the opportunity to assist you.

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. However, the pilots are able to stay in constant contact with the Air Traffic Control tower.

Mr. XXXXXXXX, I hope this information is helpful. It is a privilege to serve you.

Sincerely,
Chad W. Kinder
Customer Relations
American Airlines


This exchange, if authentic, would provide very strong evidence for the conclusion that Barbara Olson could not have called her husband, as he claimed, from a passenger-seat phone. But was the exchange, which came from a second-hand source, authentic? We received three types of confirmation that it was.

In the first place, DRG, after obtaining from RB the email address of “Kesha,” asked the latter if he could “vouch for the authenticity of the letters” to and from Chad Kinder. In an email of June 2 (2007), “Kesha” replied: “I am able to vouch for the authenticity of the mentioned correspondence; the person who initiated it in February 2006 is reliable. I know ‘Paradroid’ from endless debates in our German 911 forum. His opinions are strictly based on facts.”

In the second place, after locating the correspondence between Kinder and “the Paradroid” on the German forum in question,23 DRG read several other contributions by “the Paradroid,” thereby seeing for himself that he is a serious, well-informed student of 9/11.

In the third place, RB, after some difficulty in discovering whether American Airlines actually had an employee named “Chad Kinder,” was able to contact him by telephone on May 31 (2007). After reading the two letters to Kinder, RB asked if he had indeed written the reply. Kinder answered that he could not specifically recall having written it---he writes so many letters, he explained, and this one would have been written over a year earlier. But, he added: “That sounds like an accurate statement.” Kinder indicated, in other words, that it was a letter he might well have written, because what it said---that AA 757s in 2001 did not have onboard phones, so the passengers on AA 77 had to use cell phones---was, to the best of his present knowledge, accurate.

The 757 Aircraft Maintenance Manual: Besides learning about and confirming this letter from Kinder, we also obtained another piece of evidence supporting the conclusion that passengers on AA 77 could not have used onboard phones. One of RB’s colleagues sent him a page from the Boeing 757 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (757 AMM) dated January 28, 2001. This page states that the passenger phone system for the AA 757 fleet had (by that date) been deactivated.24 According to the 757 AMM, in other words, the onboard phones had been deactivated at least seven and a half months prior to 9/11.

now miro, would you like me or you to call mr kinder and record the conversation?

And I've read Dewdney's little study on cell phones. That's the same moron who put forth the highly "scientific" argument that an A-10 Thunderbolt jet shot down Flight 93. He empirically tested cell phones in flight to see how well they worked at various heights and determined that it's basically impossible over 8,000 feet and "statistically unlikely" below.

please dude, you keep getting into subjects you have no clue about.

1. in 2001 it was impossible to make cell calls from high altitude,fast moving planes. cell sites are pointed out, not up, and then their is the problem of the "handshake". do you have any clue how many cell sites you would hit going 500 mph?

In suburban areas, masts are commonly spaced 1-2 miles apart and in dense urban areas, masts may be as close as ¼-½ mile apart. Cell masts always reserve part of their available bandwidth for emergency calls.

wow, a couple of miles apart eh? so you think the phones had enough time to make a handshake and procede with the call before it had to handoff again?

the high speed trains also have this problem with the handoff. you should do some research into it.

btw, the A-10 warthog is one bad ass machine, i saw it's gun test fired at eglin, and i also got a couple spent shells. did not know about his theory of it shooting down a plane. link please.

Reasons why the Dewdney Study is retarded:

1. His flight path ensured that he continuously flew around low output / low range cell phone towers. The guy flew in a circle over London, Ontario. The claim is that the area was richly supplied with cell phone towers, but guess what? In urban areas, each tower can only serve a limited amount of users. As there are many users in a small area, it makes sense to have many lower power towers than out in rural areas (which is where the alleged cell phone calls took place). Rural towers have significantly greater ranges out of necessity, so that makes a big difference.

wtf are you talking about?

To overcome this limitation, it is necessary to repeat and reuse the same channels. Just as a station on a car radio changes to a completely different local station when you travel to another city, the same radio channel gets reused on a cell mast only a few miles away. To do this, the signal of a cell mast is intentionally kept at low power and many cases tilting downward to limit its area.

i have to run, be back in the morning.

[floridaorange]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

So the cell phones that were used on the highjacked planes, that was a lie you say?

[yesme]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

So the cell phones that were used on the highjacked planes, that was a lie you say?

yes

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

We had already been in Iraq once before without knocking down a bunch of buildings...was it really necessary to go through this whole complicated operation just to find reasons to do that again? .

I think the first time Iraq invaded Kuwait