Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Cell Phone Experiments in Airliners by Germer Rudolf

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-11-04 07:13 PM
Original message
Cell Phone Experiments in Airliners by Germer Rudolf
Cell Phone Experiments in Airliners http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7

By Germar Rudolf - July 2003

Since the topic discussed above seems to be of utmost importance, I decided to make my own experiments while traveling from Chicago, IL, to Burlington, VT, to a family anniversary of a friend.

Phones
Audiovox CDM 9000 with Verizon Wireless network.
Nokia 8260 with Cingular Wireless network.
Travel Data
1. Trip: Aircraft: Airbus A320. United Airlines Flight 568. Take off from Chicago O'Hare on Friday, July 18, 2003, nominal take off at 18:05 central summer time. Weather conditions: sunny, only a few clouds at both start and arrival in Burlington, VT, at 20:54 eastern summer time.

2. Trip: Aircraft: Airbus A319. United Airlines Flight 397. Take off from Burlington, VT, on Sunday, July 20, 2003, 17:40 eastern summer time. Weather conditions: sunny, only a few clouds at both start and arrival. Arrival at Chicago O'Hare at 19:00 central summer time.




Experiments
While starting, only the Audiovox phone was used. While the plane was still accelerating on the runway, I dialed into my voice message box and received a clear and immediate connection just when the plane took off. I hung up right away and dialed again. As the plane ascended quickly, I received another immediate and clear connection, but this time I entered my PIN number waiting for the message service to grant me access to my messages. However, the connection was lost, and any attempt to reestablish a connection failed. After another minute, the phone complained with a loud alarm tone that no service was available. According to a later inquiry with the pilots, the plane reached an altitude above ground of 15,000 ft (4,575 m) within five minutes.

During this high altitude flight at 37,000 ft, no service was ever available. As soon as the plane started to descend toward Burlington, both cell phones were switched back on in an attempt to get any service. As soon as the phones gave up on searching service, they were turned off and turned on again so that the phones would again search for service. Several minutes before the pilot put out the landing gear at 20:49 EST, both phones indicated that they had found service, but any attempt to get any connection to the voice message boxes with either of the phones failed. On 20:51, two minutes after the landing gear was pulled out, a clear and stable connection to the voice message system could be established by both phones. This connection could be reestablished at will until the plane touched down at 20:54. Asked for his assistance, the pilot explained that he had put out the landing gear at an altitude above ground of 2,000 ft (610 m) at a speed of 200 knots (230 mph/371 km/h).

Since no information could be gained about the exact altitude above ground for the exact time when a cell phone connection gets interrupted during take off-not even this point in time is exactly known-no experiments were done at take off from Burlington.

When descending toward Chicago, the Nokia/Cingular Wireless phone could not establish any service at any time until after the aircraft had landed. The Audiovox/Verizon cell phone managed to get service just as we flew in over Lake Michigan from the east at an estimated altitude above ground of around 6,000 feet. However, none of the uninterruptedly made attempts to get a connection was successful. This cell phone signal was lost again as we flew out toward the center of the lake, and was reestablished as we approach the west coast of Lake Michigan. Uninterrupted attempts to establish a connection to the mailbox continued to fail until one minute after the pilot had pulled out the landing gear some 6 to 8 miles west of the coast of Lake Michigan at 18:56. The first successful connection appeared at 18:57. The second one established right thereafter was immediate and clear until the plane touched down at 19:00. According to the pilot, the landing gear must be pulled out when flying at an altitude of 1,500 ft at the latest (457.5 m). He could not remember exactly at which height he actually pulled the gear, but stated that it was well above that mark, probably at some 2,200 to 2,500 ft (671-762.5 m) at a speed of some 200 knots (230 mph/371 km/h).

Whereas the Nokia phone user was seated one seat away from the window in both descends, the Audiovox user was seated two seats away from the window during the first descent toward Burlington, but right at a window during the descent to Chicago. As a matter of fact, this cell phone was held only 10 cm away from a window to ensure best reception.

Conclusion
Burlington, VT, lies within a more rural area, whereas Chicago is the third largest city of the U.S. with one of the best developed cellular networks. In spite of this, the results were similar in both cases for the Verizon Wireless network, which prides itself on being the best developed in the U.S. The reason why the second phone failed to establish any service in the Chicago area until after landing is unknown.

Cell phones traveling in airliners can get a service signal at heights up to some 6,000 ft, but it is not possible to make a connection, at least not while traveling at the usual cruising speed of a normal airliner (500-550 mph). Since in all cases (if at all) connections could only be established well after the pilots have pulled out the landing gear at some 2,000 ft and at a cruising speed of 230 mph or less, it seems safe to conclude that in summer of 2003, no connection could be made with a cell phone from an airliner flying in the U.S. when above an altitude above ground of 2,000 ft (610 m) and when traveling with a speed over 230 mph. Considering the fast descent of the planes and the fact that they kept slowing down as they approached the runway, the height at which a connection could be established might actually be as low as 1,500 ft (457.5 m), and the speed around 200 mph.

The reason why a connection could only be established at some 1,500 ft above ground despite the fact that a signal was present already at some 6,000 ft may be that the speed of the traveling aircraft was too high at higher altitudes. It seems safe to say that the speed must be under 230 mph in order to establish a stable connection, a speed which an airliner can reach only during landing, with landing gear, air brakes and flaps all the way out.

It is generally agreed upon that all the airliners that crashed on September 11, 2001, flew at a high cruising speed of 500 mph and more until they crashed. Thus, it seems safe to say that no cell phone of any type could have established any stable connection to any cell site at that speed, no matter which height the planes flew at. This is particularly true for United Airlines flight 93, which did not only fly at high speed but also at a relatively high altitude during the time when the alleged cell phone calls were placed.

Appeal to All Readers
Anybody who is willing to provide his own input on this problem by testing his cell phone's capability to make connections from aircrafts during descent is more than welcome. We will publish such data either with the name of the experimenter or anonymously if indicated. Please provide the following data:

type of phone, network used;
plane flown, airline, flight no., date and time of take off (nominal) and landing (actual);
weather conditions prevailing when landing;
exact times when you did what or when you succeeded to establish a connection, and since pulling out the gear is a nice reference point, make a note of this as well and ask the pilot while deplaning at what height he pulled the gear.

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

See also Main Page on Cellphone Calls
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
soothsayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-04 12:20 AM
Response to Original message
1. I thought I was the only one who scoffed at the notion that you can use a
cell phone on an airplane. I've never seen it done...!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lithos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-04 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I personally have done it
Several times, including one trip from NYC. So I believe it could easily have happened.

L-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-04 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. elevation?
At what elevation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lithos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
56. 15-20,000 feet, maybe 25,000 feet
In several locations. DFW, Chicago, NYC, S. Francisco and even N. Missouri

L-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-04 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
3. This IS only data on two flights, using 2 different phones.
The author makes that clear and calls for more data, but it's still hardly a comprehesive test.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NecessaryOnslaught Donating Member (691 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-04 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Mercuito,
staunch defender of the official "incompetence" theory, strikes again with his hard hitting analysis. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-04 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. If you're going to insult me, at least spell my name right...
You're going to argue the point? It is, in fact, hardly a comprehensive test. What issue could you possibly have with what I said?

...or were you just taking a cheap shot?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-04 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Which part do you feel is an insult to you?
A.) Saying you're a staunch defender of the Official Story?

B.) Referring to your post as another "hard-hitting analysis"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-04 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. I believe it was the "eyerolls" that followed those two statements.
Edited on Sun Jun-13-04 12:33 AM by MercutioATC
Any more questions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NecessaryOnslaught Donating Member (691 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-04 04:32 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. I'll admit it..
Edited on Sun Jun-13-04 04:36 AM by NecessaryOnslaught
I was taking a cheap shot. I'll also agree that this report, in and of itself, is not conclusive. But I ask you, have you ever successfully used a cell phone while in flight? Ever gotten a cell call from someone in flight? Know anyone who has? I haven't and I don't. Next time I fly I will have at least two types of cell phones with me and will test this theory out myself. Perhaps anyone who cares for truth will do the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-04 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. I haven't, but my best friend has made calls at 6000' over the
Sandusky Basin (Lake Erie) in a smaller plane.

I'm also wondering how much of the story was later changed by people to include "cellphones" when perhaps "airphones" were used. I know that's not what was said, but stories, unfortunately, do change as they're told multiple times.

I know cell phone call from the air are possible. I don't know the parameters. I'd imagine they fall within a certain range based on location, altitude and the type of phone and carrier used. Beyond that, I don't have any first-hand experience.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paradise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-04 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
10. look, i can be really dumb at times, so give me a break, but
didn't family members say they received calls from their relatives on, at least,
the plane that crashed (or was shot down) in pennsylvania? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-04 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. That's true, paradise
...but you see, all of these people were decieved by voice-morphing technology, so they only think that they were talking to their loved ones.

That is, at any rate, the answer that you are going to get from the CT crowd.

By the way, the voices of people from all four planes were recognized by family members, whether they spoke with them on the day or not. Ong's family was particularly memorable during the 9/11 Commission's playing of Ong's phone call.

And Mark Bingham's mother has put her recognition of her son's voice in no uncertain terms.

One wonders, in the face of such clear evidence, why people continue to publish willful evasions of the truth here at Democratic Underground. They say they're after truth, but they turn a blind eye towards such obvious truths as the calls from the 9/11 planes. Why are they so determined to clear Osama bin Laden's name? Who do they see as the ultimate culprit?

Hmmm?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-04 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Its the pod....
Speaking of willful evasions...reaquaint yourself with the POD on 175...one that 93% of those who viewed it agree on its existence when exposed to the photos of it on Phil Jahlen's recent travels to Ground Zero.You blantantly misrepresent those who see it differently than you do as willfully exonerating Osama's name. Bullshit. Don't besmirch my integrity.It's every bit as honorable as yours.dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #13
24. Well, it's certainly a result of your theory, isn't it?
I understand exactly where you are coming from. I know that you really believe the things you are posting here, you really really do.

But you are so hopelessly wrong about these things that you must be made aware of what you are doing.

Exonerating Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda is what you are doing, whether you are doing it willfully or not. (And willfully is not what I said - you're once again putting words into my mouth. Try to deal with the words I actually say - not what you think I said, not what you believe me to be saying, not what you'd expect me to say. Deal with what I'm actually saying.)

Whereas exonerating Bush is exactly what I am not doing, because I see Bush as a incompetent little douchebag who got handed his ass on 9/11.

Your theories overstate Bush's true blame in this attack, and this gives real disinformation artists like Limbaugh cover for discrediting all real examinations into the events of 9/11.

So not only do wacko conspiracy theories (Flight 77 denial, controlled demolition, completely idiotic pod-theories) help to exonerate the true culprits of 9/11 (al-Qaeda), but they ultimately allow Bush to avoid what real blame he has in the attacks of 9/11.

And one wonders why people come to this website. dedicated to getting Bush and the Republicans out of power, and work to exonerate al-Qaeda and provide cover for Bush for his failures as President.

Are you doing it because you really think you're getting at the truth? Fine. But expect me to be here, trying to bring you back to reality for the duration, because I care about the upcoming election and I want to see Bush out of power for good, forever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #24
34. Speaking of wacko CTs: Selling CavePeople as 9-11 Masterminds!
The United States Government said shortly after 9-11 that OBL was responsible for the attacks, and that they would soon release proof to back up the charges against him.

To date, no proof has been forthcoming. Which raises the very fair question: Why do you persist in trying to sell a story that you surely know has no basis in fact?

Are you doing it because you really think that the Big Lie technique is an appropriate strategy to use in a relatively open forum like DU? Are you doing it because you have faith that President Bush will one day keep his word and reveal some evidence that OBL is responsible for 9-11?
If so, you'll be an old man before that happens. And, it can only happen if evidence is manufactured (a very real possibility, I grant you).

It's such an absurd notion to think that a cave dweller with a pair of bad oil filters could possibly plot, plan, and carry out such a sophisticated operation as 9-11. To promote such a fantastical CT, you'd almost have to be in the entertainment business, don't you agree?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. Let me introduce to the "caveman" Osama bin Laden, Abe
From Frontline:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/

From Wikipedia:

http://people.howstuffworks.com/bin-laden1.htm

Osama got about $300 million from his inheritance. The man's personal fortune is estimated right now at $25 million. Since he's not spending his money on a mortgage, what do you think it's all going to?

$275 million will get you a lot of planning ventures like 9/11, if that's how you're inclined to spend your money - and will anyone here deny that Osama's being planning terrorist attacks for years?

The absurdity is trying to pass Osama off as a caveman, Abe. He's a rich religious fanatic with a grudge against America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NecessaryOnslaught Donating Member (691 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #39
43. "I think" Judith Miller may be on to something.
Why should we think that this attack of September 11, 2001, was an attack directed by Osama bin Laden?

"I think"...."I think"...."I think"...."I think".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/interviews/miller.html

What do you think about Iraq's WMD's Judith?

By the way, what's this? Looks like molten steel to me...

Thanx Bolo :hi:






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. Judith Miller isn't the only source in the Frontline video, NecessOn
And there's the Wiki article too...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #39
44. "After this, then therefore this"
Coincidental Correlation
(post hoc ergo propter hoc )

OBL got $300 million.
Now, he's down to $25 million.

Therefore, he must have spent the difference on 9-11.

That's not only fallacious (but sneaky) reasoning. It's totally absurd.
btw - Do you deny he's a cave dweller? If so, why didn't you warn your
______ before so much U.S. money & resources were devoted to cave searches, and blowing up caves...in the bogus search for Osama?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. You continue to misrepresent what I say, Abe
I didn't say Osama spent $275 million on 9/11.

There are plenty of other terrorist attacks that Osama sponsored, and plenty of terrorists trained in camps sponsored by Osama.

If he's living in caves, then he's a building engineer with a hell of a lot of money living in a cave. And he's sponsoring religiously motivated acts of terror.

He's a menace. He was involved in the planning of 9/11 (he's on tape admitting this). And it's another demonstration of Bush's negligence that Osama's still out there sponsoring terrorism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. Very true.....

Bolo tells us.....
"He's(Bin Laden) a menace. He was involved in the planning of 9/11 (he's on tape admitting this). "

Quite true Bolo,quite true
But the question is which one?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. The WCT addiction to crappy video comparison...
...is beyond measure.

Do you ever wonder why only one shot of Osama from the discovered video tape is EVER used by your side? It's always the same shot!

Why don't you ever link to a feed of the video? I know why: because when you watch the video tape, it's clearly Osama. Again and again we walk the same roads. Look, there's a signpost up ahead, our next stop? The "Fat" Osama.

Go back and look at the video, not one crappy captured frame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #47
51. Being a Patsy is the extent of OBL's "involvement" in 9-11
A Patsy is a menace only to those who set him up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. And Osama's previous and continued involvement in acts of terror...
...doesn't bother you at all, is that correct?

A Patsy is a menace only to those who set him up.

Is this a veiled threat, Abe? What does Osama have planned for those who "set him up?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. Osama is a good Company man. (or Patsy, to be more accurate)
Just like Lee Harvey Oswald.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. Okay, wait.
Osama is CIA, meant to be a patsy for 9/11, right?

Is it your position that Osama knew he was going to be a patsy? Since he's a good Company man, he was in on the plan, is that right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. Osama: Willing Patsy, or Framed to the gills?
I think the boy was framed to the gills.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. In 9/11 alone?
You do admit that the man has planned and funded terrorist acts before and after 9/11?

I mean, you'd have to. He's definitely admitted to that. Correct?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. CIA Asset [Osama bin Patsy]
You do admit that the man is a long-time CIA Asset, right? Even though he's always denied any involvement with 9-11, and didn't stand to gain anything from it. 9-11 is the latest "Gulf of Tonkin", "Northwoods", "Pearl Harbor", "Remember The Maine" etc. I mean, that's rather obvious. You wouldn't try and dispute that. Correct?

I'm guessing Osama now feels like he was betrayed by his CIA handlers. He's probably a little upset about what all has happened since, and might feel like he isn't receiving the respect he probably feels he deserves. I don't know. Maybe his CIA contacts do. I'm sure THEY know what he's up to and how he feels about the poor treatment he's received in the Western media.

Think he's still "free"? Think they're gonna put him on TV sometime this summer...or right before the election? What's YOUR guess?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. "Was" a long time CIA asset
That's what I'd agree to. 9/11 functioned as the initiating attack that started a conflict between the United States and another entity.

However, you conflate several disparate events.

One of these isn't even an event. Operation Northwoods is a rejected military plan. The Joint Chiefs came up with it. The civilian leadership (JFK) rejected it. So that didn't even happen.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html

Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack. I know you think Roosevelt knew. But he didn't. History shows this is true.

http://hnn.us/articles/107.html

The Maine was most probably sunk by a small mine. I know, you think it was a fortuitious accident, or that it was done on purpose. It wasn't.

http://www.mainepbs.org/ussmaine/ussmaineinfo.html

The Gulf of Tonkin isn't what you'd like it to be either. The North Vietnamese had attacked a US ship on August 2, thinking it was a South Vietnamese ship. They were soon relieved of the burden of that ignorance. It was the August 4th night "battle" that was blown completely out of proportion by LBJ, so that he could increase military involvement in Vietnam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution

So by conflating all of these with 9/11 and asking me if I would dispute characterizing them all the same, you've lost me.

Now for your Osama talk:

Didn't stand to gain anything for it? Osama's been busting his chops to get the US out of Saudi Arabia for a long time, and Bush did it. Sounds like he could use a "Mission Accomplished" sign that Bush isn't using anymore...

But you're saying that Osama remains in contact with his CIA handlers? That's why you call him a good Company man - present tense?

If he's been framed and he's still a CIA asset, then why wouldn't he get in line with the program? Claim responsibility, be the bogeyman? That's his job, isn't it? If you're right, and I know you think you are, then why isn't Osama doing his job?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #44
52. What's up with the "cave-dweller" references?
So what if he's in hiding? Does that prevent him from being intelligent and well-funded?

Hell, NORAD's underground (in a "cave") and they could blow up pretty much anything they wished.

It's a cute phrase, but it doesn't make any sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #39
46. You want us to believe something from J. Miller? Please.
She writes fiction, based on ideas given to her by unreliable, biased sources. Is SHE where you get most of the notions you post here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. Judith is one of many sources in the Frontline video
It's apparent that you'd rather talk about Judith Miller than Osama bin Laden.

Why are you always letting Osama off the hook, Abe?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #48
59. no one off the hook
We're not letting anybody off the hook including the US government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #59
61. We?
Abe has completely exonerated Osama bin Laden in the 9/11 attack. Says he was framed to the gills.

So Osama is off the hook and off the table of discussion as quickly as Abe can type, "Judith Miller."

Are you saying as well, demodewd, that Osama bin Laden had nothing at all to do with 9/11? Or is the jury still out for you on that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. Not as it was truly played out.
As 9-11 was truly played out..a well planned coup at the very top levels of the Executive/Intelligence/Air Force, I don't believe bin Laden was a player.He may have had financial ties to some of the alleged Arab hijackers who were played out as dupes. But if caught we can bring him to trial. Maybe I'll be proven wrong. I doubt it. I doubt that he'll be captured alive. Well probably hear of his demise when he outlives his usefullness as a CIA operative. Al Qaeda is certainly infiltrated, a necessary organization as a scapegoat for Western Intelligence terror in an effort to keep the Middle East pot boiling and the DOD coffers full. Not that Osama/Al Qaeda haven't commited terrorist acts. I don't doubt that they(and I use the word AlQaeda loosely)have. But how many did the CIA,Mossad,MK16/? know about before hand? How many car bombs etc are attributed to AlQaeda under a false flag operation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-17-04 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #39
82. How much did the 9/11 attacks cost to pull off?
The plot cost an estimated $400,000 to $500,000, not including the hijackers' training in Afghanistan. The hijackers spent about $270,000 in the United States, mainly on flight training, travel, housing, and vehicles.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/index.html

Well within the range of the "caveman" Osama bin Laden, who's still sitting pretty on top of $25 million.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-17-04 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #82
83. Oh...
Oh.. I'm convinced now. He had enough money to do it therefore he did it. Reference www.bolologic911.org
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-17-04 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #83
84. Straight ahead demodewd. bolo is on the spinning wheel, again.
bolologic responds to "OBL didn't have the resources to pull off 9-11"
by trying to define/frame the issue of "resources" as merely adding up the cost of flight schools, apartment rentals, etc. --
and then concludes that OBL could have afforded that, and therefore OBL did it.

Prediction: bolologic will deny that OBL needed anything to pull off 9-11 that he couldn't get with his walking around money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-17-04 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #84
85. No, Bolo was showing that OBL did, in fact, have the resources.
I didn't hear him claim that "therefore OBL did it". It's a pretty straightforward statement.

Spin? Who's spinning here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-17-04 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #85
86. OBL had: A warm cave, satellite phone, and a good astrologer
Folks, BE lieve it or not -- that's almost all they needed. Well, a few box cutters, but what do they cost?

The MAIN resouce they needed as they sat down in the cave to plot this thing out, was the date of those "planned" NORAD/CIA?FEMA "exercises" and simulations. That's what the astrologer was for, don't you know.
The astrolger did some advanced work with tranists and progressions, and came up with the date: 9-11. Rumor is, the asrologer got a huge bonus for correctly pin-pointing the best date and time for the Big Show.

See, it just isn't true that Osama had a mole in the CIA who told him (via satellite phone to cave #911 -- stop snickering, it was a coincidence) when those simulated attacks exercises were going to take place. If it hadn't been for the astrologer, they just wouldn't have been able to pull it off (no offense to Larry Silverstein). It just wouldn't have gone down the way it did.

Coincidences: Don't Leave Your Cave Without A Whole Bunch Of Them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-17-04 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #86
87. Oh, and millions of dollars, international connections and CIA training...
...those must have slipped your mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-17-04 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #87
88. Yep, OBL IS a longtime CIA asset -- but that wasn't the key...it was
the Astrologer. Otherwise, they wouldn't know the correct date for exercises that provided the cover they needed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-17-04 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #88
89. Okie Dokie....
:tinfoilhat:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-17-04 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #86
90. "planned" NORAD/CIA?FEMA "exercises" and simulations.
I asked this once before - and got no answer.

So I'll try again.

In what way does any simulations, excersizes, etc create an advantage for the 9/11 planners?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dinyc Donating Member (48 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #13
54. Do you have a link
for this awesome, very scientific I'm sure, experiment that you are alleging took place?

93% of those who viewed it agree on its existence when exposed to the photos of it on Phil Jahlen's recent travels to Ground Zero.

I believe PODGUY Phil JAYHAN spells his name like this JAYHAN. Or is that his alias? So hard to know these days.

Anyway, on any given day the majority of people hanging around Ground 0 are either tourists or people like Phil JAYHAN, but 93% is a pretty impressive number. I'm looking forwary to seeing some data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-04 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. bolo: Why are you STILL trying to clear Ted Olson's name?
"they turn a blind eye towards such obvious truths as the calls from the 9/11 planes."

"What should I tell the pilot to do?" "Hello, this is Mark Bingham."

Why is it that some people continue to try & convince the public that Osama bin Laden is behind the 9/11 attacks, even though these same people know there is zero evidence of his involvement?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paradise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-04 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. I don't trust this administration one bit, ever, never will, and wouldn't
put anything past them!

But you see, this is what happens, anywhere in the world, when an election is stolen,
and citizens are lied to, with impunity. That's it in a nutshell, and, now, we know how
the peoples of other similarly-oppressed countries feel, and we are one with them.

Thanks bolo. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-04 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. Who do they see as the ultimate culprit?
Edited on Sun Jun-13-04 04:04 PM by LARED
Interesting question.

I'm guessing the CT'ers think if they can clear OBL name, then it bolsters their MIHOP fantasy.

I used to think the CT'ers willful ignorance resulted from an over zealous hatred towards Bush, but I'm not so sure anymore as any objective measure of the 9/11 evidence points to at worst incompetence. Something that is not exactly surprising with this administration. The CT'ers are plainly intelligent people, cognizant, articulate folks whose positions cannot logically be explained by a simple hatred of an individual.

On the other hand many true believers associate themselves with or at least mimic the positions of extreme groups. It seems the main proponents of the new 9/11 revisionist movement are very closely tied to other revisionist movements - groups that seem to be a blend of left and right-wing wacka-doddles.

As for the who they see as the ultimate culprit?

Don't ask me, I'm an engineer not a therapist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-04 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. "they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than a little one"
In this they proceeded on the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others; yes, even when enlightened on the subject, they will long doubt and waver, and continue to accept at least one of these causes as true. Therefore, something of even the most insolent lie will always remain and stick - a fact which all the great lie-virtuosi and lying-clubs in this world know only too well and also make the most treacherous use of."
~ Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-04 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Fascinating demodewd
Edited on Sun Jun-13-04 09:04 PM by LARED
I claim that

On the other hand many true believers associate themselves with or at least mimic the positions of extreme groups.

and you respond with an Adolf Hitler quote.

:scared:

I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.

In case you are unaware quoting Hitler is not typically considered a good way to build a credible position

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-04 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Trying to sell the idea that a cave man is responsible for 9-11...
is definitely not an effective way to build a credible reputation for
interest in knowing what really happened on 9-11. (Yes, I realize it works with "merc" and "bolo" -- but they're hardly unbiased truthseekers)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-04 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Why are you an advocate that
Osama Bin Laden is innocent?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-04 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. See, "lared", there's this basic principle in Anglo American jurisprudence
that a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty. I'm not an advocate for Osama (he is, after all, a CIA asset)...but unless and until there's some evidence to support his guilt with regard to 9-11, I think the most that can be said about him is that there are some people here (and elsewhere) who want him to be thought of as more than a useful Patsy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 03:53 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. It's funny you should mention evidence
Lets leave the fact the OBL and members of his group have claimed responsibity alone.

You honesty cannot speak about evidence. You completely ignore the existing mountain of evidence that the OS is basically true in order to push a revisionist agenda. You hand pick evidence that is largely immaterial and attempt to spin it as if it has great meaning.

You have nothing other than gross speculation. Truth is not important to the agenda being humped.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NecessaryOnslaught Donating Member (691 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 06:04 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. Come with it lared
Edited on Mon Jun-14-04 06:10 AM by NecessaryOnslaught
Bring on this mountain of evidence. Fuck it, bring on a hill, bring something, anything. You, the hobbit and the tinpusher get together and provide one piece of credible evidence supporting the caveman theory. Living hijackers and korans in rental cars don't count. This should be an easy one. You've got the FBI, DOJ,CIA, etc etc, every mainstream media outlet etc etc on your side. Don't sing it, bring it.

"Osama bin Laden has denied any involvement in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.

United States President George W Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell have both confirmed bin Laden is the "prime suspect" for the attacks.

"The US is pointing the finger at me but I categorically state that I have not done this," bin Laden said.

"Those who have done it, they have done it in their personal interest," bin Laden said in the statement, which AIP said had been sent to them by bin Laden aide Abdul Samad."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2001/09/item20010917010639_1.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #29
33. Don't hold your breath, "necessaryonslaught". "lared" doesn't do evidence
You're talking about an agitator, maybe. Disinfo agent wannabe, maybe. Evidence provider? Next in line, please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #29
38. There is a problem with your request
To date, no evidence (no matter what the source) meets the CT definition of credible if it doesn't support their pet theory. Of course any tidbit from any whacked out source is deemed very important and beyond reproach if it fits the CT'er premise.

The CT crowd is the one that needs to establish credible evidence. In over two years all you guys have ever provided is half baked speculation and sophistry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. There's a problem w/YOUR CT, "lared"
Your conspiracy theory involves a B757 crashing at or into the Pentagon (the OBL CT crowd goes back & forth between "at" and "into"). There's a problem with that CT: B757s have more than one engine, and only ONE ENGINE was foudn at the Pentagon. How do you account for that, "lared"?
And, while you're busy trying to spin your way out of that one, kindly explain what you want us to believe about the one and only "seat" that was found at the Pentagon. Are you claiming it was from a commercial airliner? If so, was it a pilot's seat or a passenger seat? Or __?

Go ahead -- step up to the plate and for once, explain the "lared" CT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #26
31. It's odd that anyone would think you might be in PR
Amateur disinfo agent is more like it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #31
35. Amateur disinfo agent is more like it
Edited on Mon Jun-14-04 10:53 AM by LARED
Coming from an old pro like you I'll take that as a compliment even though it is not even remotely true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-04 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. Yeah.
Yeah. Just what I expected. The typical PC censorship ala LAREd. It's most applicable to all you Osama Thumpers. Take it to heart...it might be the beginning of a great awakening!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 03:39 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. HaHaHaHa
Edited on Mon Jun-14-04 04:23 AM by LARED
Censorship? There ain't censorship here by me. It's not my fault you are quoting Hitler to defend your position? I'm willing to bet the old Fuhrer said lots of things you deem valuable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 05:41 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. Freep on Freeper
If you can't understand the statement and how it ABSOLUTELY applies to YOU, you're as dense as the Ardennes forest.And you are ...believe me. You don't get it and you don't get me. But you're so enamored with your inane Osama stupid fantasy I don't expect anything less from you. Anybody who still believes in the Oswald explanation of JFK is truly ill informed.Most Freepers even get that one right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 05:53 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. Personal Attacks????
Very compelling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 06:14 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. a low blow
Quit misrepresenting me and I'll lighten up. Just because I quote Hitler doesn't make me Hitlerian. That is a low blow. And I rightly take it as such.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. Maybe he's a disinfo agent wannabe
Probably believes in the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, and Santa Claus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #32
37. Well Abe if I believed in Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and
Santa Claus, I would believe the fairy tales from the CT crowd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. "lared", the ONE Engined 757 fairy tale is from the CT crowd.
How does believing in THAT fairy tale make you feel?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #42
65. Abe, ever seen a car accident?
Multiply that by 5 and tell me you'd find all of the pieces intact.

Nobody's claiming that a 757 doesn't have two engines. The particular 757 in question, however, crashed. If one 757 engine was found, is it more likely that the other engine was just destroyed in the crash or that a "small single engine airplane" was somehow using a 757 engine?

You can't seriously be arguing this point...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-15-04 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #65
66. ATCer: You can't be serious. Or else, you don't know basic logic.
There are all kinds of people with all kinds of motivations on Internet forums like this one, so it's hard to know if you really believe what you're saying, or if there is some other explanation for why you continue to defend and promote the indefensible.

You are making a fool of yourself if you honestly believe what you're saying, and you are insulting an awful lot of good people. Give it up, Mercutio. It's time to put that one to sleep. Forever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-15-04 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #66
67. There are all kinds of people with all kinds of motivations
Very good. You said something logical.

So what motivate you? Something motivates you to create some much sophistry, so many silly distractions, so few facts, so little critical thought. Sound like a good definition of a propagandist to me.

What are you? Is it done just to stir the pot? What motivates the propagandist? Money, ideology, or both?

Who pays you to do this and why?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-15-04 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #67
68. It's voluntary. The only people it upsets are obnoxious people.
Enjoy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-15-04 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #68
69. Are you trying to tell me you're upset? (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-15-04 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #69
70. What I do to upset fools is strictly a public service.
Why can't you contribute anything substantive? You've been making yourself obnoxious long enough; it's time for you to make up for all that.

Here's a good one to start off with:

Tell DUers the "lared" Conspiracy Theory of 9-11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-15-04 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #70
71. Actually Abe, it would be far more fascinating
to hear your version of what happened. As I've said quite a few times I believe the O.S. represents something pretty close to the true.

On the other hand the only nonsense you manage to spout is the "caveman didn't do it" and "flight 77 never hit the pentagon." Never once offering anything substantive to back up those claims.

Well, if your "caveman" wasn't part of it, and flight 77 was no where near the Pentagon, what are you told to say really happened?

A good propagandist should be able to back up their claims with something that at least sounds convincing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-15-04 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. Correct; so when can we expect you to do that?
"A good propagandist should be able to back up their claims with something that at least sounds convincing."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-15-04 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. Abe, you are the master
propagandist. You should go first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-15-04 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. "lared" --- YOU are the master
Disinfo agent (apologies to the others), so you really should step up to plate & earn your paycheck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-15-04 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #74
75. Abe, stop avoiding the question
You already know my position. The problem is no one (perhaps not even you) knows yours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-15-04 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. My position
Is that the "Wacky Cavepeople Did It By Themselves" is crazy. It's propaganda made up by the government and the media for disinformation agents to use in convincing weak-minded people to not ask any questions.

As far as the details of how the conspirators (U.S.- sponsored) carried out the mission, I don't know for sure. THAT'S the very reason why I'm here. Unlike propagandists and disnfo agents who have prepared sales pitch to sell, most of us here haven't formed a solid theory of the case, because the Gov't hasn't released enough helpful evidence.

It didn't take long for most thinking people to realize that the Official Story ("Wacky Cavepeople Did It, Acting Alone") is a lie.

Trying to piece together plausible scenarios is made all that more difficult because of people like you. Impressed? Really. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm telling you the truth.

You can believe the "Cavepeople Did It" Conspiracy Theory if you want to, but we're in a country where the demonstration of good manners is expected in forums like DU, where posters who question the motivation of
obvious disinfo agents, are subject to being banned, so how about you either show a little maturity, or just get the Hell out of here and leave us alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-17-04 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #77
91. Amazing hubris
Trying to piece together plausible scenarios is made all that more difficult because of people like you. Impressed? Really. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm telling you the truth.

Sure Abe, If I'm such a trouble, all you and other need to do is hit the ignore button. The problem you face is that I poke holes in your theories. Something that is intolerable to the CT crowd. If you were after the truth you would thank me.

but we're in a country where the demonstration of good manners is expected in forums like DU, where posters who question the motivation of obvious disinfo agents, are subject to being banned, so how about you either show a little maturity, or just get the Hell out of here and leave us alone.

Advice that you should consider given your ill mannered outbursts and non-stop sophistry. It's rather tiring and boring to hear the constant "Linkman Whine" about disinfo agents based on the silly notion that someone is a disinfo agent if they believe flight 77 ACTUALLY hit the Pentagon or the OBL is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. A mature individual respects others views without resorting to name calling.

so how about you either show a little maturity, or just get the Hell out of here and leave us alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-15-04 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #66
76. Actually, YOU'RE the one failing to use logic.
If a 757 didn't crash at the Pentagon, how did its engine get there?

It's really that simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-15-04 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #76
78. Osama snuck it in there.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-15-04 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #78
79. Seriously, Abe, by your "logic", a plane didn't crash there at all...
...everybody knows that planes have two wings and two wings weren't found.

...neither was a missile found, so it couldn't be a missile.

...a detanator wasn't found, so it couldn't have been a bomb.

If 757 parts were found, why would you believe that anything other than a 757 crashed there? If it didn't, where did the 757 parts come from?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-15-04 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #79
80. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-15-04 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #80
81. Some people resort to personal attacks when they don't want to answer
a question. I understand that.

Rather than make new observations (about me), how about answering one or two of the simple questions I've repeatedly asked?

1) If a 757 didn't crash at the Pentagon, where did the 757 parts come from? If it was a "small single engine plane" that crashed there, as you've claimed, why weren't small plane parts found?

2) You've spent a great deal of bandwidth questioning and making light of my profession; a profession that has provided me with information about systems and procedures pertinent to some facets of this discussion. What qualifications or specialized knowledge do you possess?

...If I had to define "lightweight", it would be somebody who repeatedly evades very simple questions and attempts to steer the dialog toward something a bit flashier (like personal attacks) when they feel uncomfortable.

I've answered all questions put to me as honestly and completely as I've been able. I'd hope that everybody else here would do the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #30
36. I have not misrepresented you n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-04 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #36
41. ignore author
Ignore author
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paradise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-04 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
16. So well worth reading...
It covers every premise, everything (including the phone calls or non-phone calls),
with facts, as well as rationales, and source-bibliography.

"The New Pearl Harbor:
Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11
by David Ray Griffin"

Brilliant in content and context. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC