View Full Version : United 93
If you havent already seen this film then I can highly recommend it. Just watched it and it is quite moving without being gung ho like your typical American movie about actual events. I think the fact that all the actors are unknowns coupled with the fact it sticks to the known facts makes it really gripping, the director obviously did his research.
For me the fact that the people onboard fought back means a lot, I would like to think that in that situation I would have done the same, but who knows.
September 11 2001 seems a long time ago now so this film should serve as a reminder of the victims on these aircraft and their families who still suffer. A wise man once said that .. "For Evil to triumph Good Men just need do Nothing" .. (cant remember who !!), although they were unsuccesful in their attempt to regain control of their aircraft at least the Passengers on United 93 went out fighting .. may they Rest in Peace.
landmarker
23-Jun-06, 23:30
I intend to see this. I have listened to the director and he seems earnest and serious, and not at all gung-ho.
Sounds like it moved you Nello. Do you think it's best seen in the cinema on a large screen? How will it translate to dvd?
luskentyre
23-Jun-06, 23:37
Thanks for the recommendation Nello - I intend to go and see it sometime next week. I'm glad the film focusses on the least "dramatic" flight of that day and instead focusses on the human element. I think it'll be quite moving.
I intend to see this. I have listened to the director and he seems earnest and serious, and not at all gung-ho.
Sounds like it moved you Nello. Do you think it's best seen in the cinema on a large screen? How will it translate to dvd?
I just watched it on DVD (naughty me) but it would be much better at the cinema, the scenes where the relatives realise what is happening but are powerless to help are quite powerful, the director never lets you forget these are real people and never portays them as Heroes and thats what got me. Plus it is factual and has no chest beating scenes although the bit where Todd Beamer just says "Lets Roll" is very tense. I was quite dubious about it but people should see it.
connieb19
24-Jun-06, 04:13
Is it on in the Thurso Cinema just now?
"For Evil to triumph Good Men just need do Nothing" .. (cant remember who !!),
It was Edmund Burke, a British Politician in the 1700s, born in Ireland.
orkneylass
24-Jun-06, 07:42
Hi - so glad to see a positive thread on this subject as I feel that many in the UK have lost sight of who they are and what they should defend. Yes, the USA has made many mistakes but at the end of the day, we are all part of western democracies that offer opportunities and freedoms through free markets, state education etc etc that many in the world can't even imagine. We do have a way of life worth defending and are perhaps so priviledged that we forget this. The day after Sept 11th, there was a few minutes silence observed. I sat in my car in brilliant sunshine overlooking a glorious view in Orkney and wept for what I saw as an attack on me, my culture, my lifestyle. And I also am inspired and humbled by those who fought back because they did it for all of us, just as we should think about what sacrifices we should make for others if called on to do so. Sorry to sound pompous but nobody seems to want to talk about this aspect of what Sept 11th meant.
Hi - so glad to see a positive thread on this subject as I feel that many in the UK have lost sight of who they are and what they should defend. Yes, the USA has made many mistakes but at the end of the day, we are all part of western democracies that offer opportunities and freedoms through free markets, state education etc etc that many in the world can't even imagine. We do have a way of life worth defending and are perhaps so priviledged that we forget this. The day after Sept 11th, there was a few minutes silence observed. I sat in my car in brilliant sunshine overlooking a glorious view in Orkney and wept for what I saw as an attack on me, my culture, my lifestyle. And I also am inspired and humbled by those who fought back because they did it for all of us, just as we should think about what sacrifices we should make for others if called on to do so. Sorry to sound pompous but nobody seems to want to talk about this aspect of what Sept 11th meant.
We arn't the only ones in the world with a way of life we want to protect Orkneylass, our way of life isn't even under threat. Terrorists don't have planes, bombs, tanks, missiles and huge armies, they could never occupy a western country, we arn't defending anything.
People talk about 9/11 like it was the start, it wasn't, we'd been doing far worse in their countries for a long time, in Iraq we have flattened entire towns, killed millions.
If you are at all interested in learning the truth there is a BBC documentary called "Why we fight" at http://www.indybay.org/olduploads/why_we_fight.ram . In it you can hear what people inside the American government say, you can hear what someone who lost their son on 9/11 has to say, it explains what happened and why, it gives the full picture.
Alternatively you could just concentrate on Hollywoods version of one tiny piece of the puzzle and pretend that's all there is.
Niall Fernie
24-Jun-06, 11:00
TV movie, worth a watch but not worth a cinema excursion. If you like American daytime soaps you'll love it. (its not really as bad as that - worth a dvd rental when it comes out)
just reading the posts above.. and it saddens me.. because everytime this subject comes up.. we always hear about who is to blame .. they did this they did that.
im not blind to the attrocieties that we as a "civilised" people do.
however we really do need to stop and think.. that the majority of casualties in this war.. as in all others are the normal everyday people just like you and me.
its not the soldiers.. or the goverments.. or the men behind the destruction.. its the mothers.. and the children.. the fathers.. and brothers and sisters and grandparents..people just going about their everyday lives.. trying to love and live.
in todays world the weapons are so much bigger and better.. than they were years ago. how easy is it to kill people from a distance when you dont have to snuff out the spark of life with your own hands.
murder is murder no matter how you dress it up.
does might really make right?
does GOD really want us to fight holy wars?
it breaks my heart every day to see the corruption and evil in the world.
and i do think.. what kind of future does my family have?
we have lived in peace for a while now.
how much longer before.. the war is in our backyard.. on a daily basis..
I commend those people onboard flight 93 .. they knew that they were going to die.
and they choose to go out fighting..
to try and stop any more people from being hurt.
that is what we have to remember.. they didnt die fighting for their country or gov.
they died to try and stop a massacre much greater than what had already happened.
they could have held back .. in hope that they could have survived..
but in true human spirit.. they took up the slack.. told their loved ones goodbye.. warned the world as best they could and took the bull by the horns. to save lives..
no one is right in this mockery..
but at least they did not die in vain.. they ultimatly saved human life.. and that is what we remember them for.
not whose fault it was or why the planes were hijacked.
but simply they faught for life. just as the firemen in new york and the others thruout history who have fought tyrany.. not just in the west but everywhere else.
there will always be those who are power hungry .. and corrupt and hold life in little regard.. and there will always be those who will give their lives to save others.
does GOD really want us to fight holy wars?
Now Bush knows God is on his side and AlQuaeda is fighting the infidels in the name of God. Either one of them has got it wrong, and God is not on their side or He is two faced, backing both or He is just "our" excuse to commit atrocities as has happened so many times in History.
I am sure that the fim in question is a good human interest story. I would suggest that everyone also watch Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11. Money does make the world go round....or at least has launched a thousand battles.
PS: I believe that religion is just the excuse. I don't believe in what we (as Human beings- not cristian, muslim, Hindu or whatever) potray as God.
"Only the dead have seen the end of war" Plato.
"A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny." - Alexander Solzhenitsyn
think...all the places people struggle to get a mobile signal driving around Caithness & Scotland for that matter (even only standing in the basement of a building?) I'm still amazed at the incredible mobile technology they must have in the states that you can get multiple, crisp, identifiable signals above 30,000 feet, travelling 350 mph, encased in an aluminium, highly insolated pressurised cage.
"A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny." - Alexander Solzhenitsyn
think...all the places people struggle to get a mobile signal driving around Caithness & Scotland for that matter (even only standing in the basement of a building?) I'm still amazed at the incredible mobile technology they must have in the states that you can get multiple, crisp, identifiable signals above 30,000 feet, travelling 350 mph, encased in an aluminium, highly insolated pressurised cage.It's called "Line of Sight" and is no more difficult to understand than an indoor TV aerial not working very well in a basement or a car radio not working in a tunnel.
It's called "Line of Sight" and is no more difficult to understand than an indoor TV aerial not working very well in a basement or a car radio not working in a tunnel.
That might be so but nobody else seems to be able to get a cell phone to work on a plane above 5,000ft and flight 93 was at 35,000 ft according to air traffic control.
Thats because they were using the phones installed aboard the aircraft which are integrated into the aircrafts systems. Mobile phones can interfere with the aircrafts systems and affect the displays in the cockpit (which is why American aircraft are fitted with these "Skyphones") which are installed with protective systems to ensure they do not have such an effect.
That might be so but nobody else seems to be able to get a cell phone to work on a plane above 5,000ft and flight 93 was at 35,000 ft according to air traffic control.
I don't know the exact range but even in Caithness the range is more than 5000 feet. If it wasn't there would have to be Mobile Phonemasts at less intervals than every two miles for there to be coverage. You wouldn't be able to move without tripping over one, the place would be buried under them.
George Brims
27-Jun-06, 01:09
It's not so much that the Sky Phones "have protective systems" it's that they're built into the plane and have an external antenna. They are turned off during takeoff and landing.
all avionics are protected from stray electromagnetic signals.. it is a myth that a mobile phone can interfere with with the sensitive systems in an aircraft. also, not all the calls were made from the Sky phones.. many from mobile phones.
It is not a matter of IF you can get a signal above 10,000 ft. the fact is you probably can every once in a great while.. touch and go situation depending if you are flying in an area where there are lots of masts. but, then.. the speed you are going causes the phone to use several masts to send signals....if available (this is why they don't allow mobile phone usage on planes.... would jam up loads of the masts if everyone did this... as you're using several masts to send a signal rather than just one.)
and an aircraft is built of metal... a few layers of. metal blocks out significant amounts of the electro field.. won't touch the magnetic field but, would definately weaken the electro fields; therefore the entire signal.
The hijackers attacked at 9:28. While travelling 35,000 feet above eastern Ohio, United 93 suddenly dropped 700 feet. Eleven seconds into the descent, the FAA’s air traffic control centre in Cleveland received the first of two radio transmissions from the aircraft. During the first broadcast, the captain or first officer could be heard declaring "Mayday" amid the sounds of a physical struggle in the cockpit.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2131056,00.html
Admittedly this is from the official report but there is a huge difference between 35,000 feet, 10,000 feet and 700 feet.
I wonder how the plane was supposed to have crashed and how so many of the relatives of those who died were tricked into believing they had been speaking to their loved ones?
Mobile phones CAN interfere with avionic systems onboard an aircraft .. a Puma Helicopter landing at Aberdeen had a failure in the pilots displays caused by a passenger down the back making a call on a mobile phone. It does happen. Also I dont know who told you that the reason you are not allowed to use Mobile phones on board aircraft is because .. "it uses up all the masts" .. just not true I am afraid. Your Mobile phone at 35000 feet doesnt have the power to reach the mast below but it does have the output to affect systems close by such as avionics, As for the metal of an aircraft blocking the signal (if true how do they speak to Air Traffic Control ??) not much store there as receiving a signal of any kind is all about line of sight and signal power (unless you use HF which bounce off layers in the atmosphere to cover large distances) mobile phones lose signal when shielded as they lose line of sight, Radar is a prime example as only a slight fraction of the output is reflected back as it makes two journeys (there and back) while the Electro Magnetic Pulse from a nuke would instantly fry the systems on any aircraft if not shielded from it (one way trip!!) this is why AWACS aircraft shut down the radar totally before air to air refuelling as the radar pulses could possibly ignite fuel vapour in the tankers tanks.
The BBC H2G2 site give, amongst the dangers to the aircraft equipment the following information on the reasons for not using mobile phones of planes,
An aircraft could be carrying 500 cell phones. While passing directly over a city and thus unhindered by buildings, these phones could be in the line-of-sight of hundreds of base stations and could try to register with all of them. This would impose a temporary but extreme load on the network. The speed of the plane passing over the small inner-city cells would also result in an unusually rapid handover from cell to cell, possibly far in excess of the network's design limits.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A6821318
The hijackers attacked at 9:28. While travelling 35,000 feet above eastern Ohio, United 93 suddenly dropped 700 feet. Eleven seconds into the descent, the FAA’s air traffic control centre in Cleveland received the first of two radio transmissions from the aircraft. During the first broadcast, the captain or first officer could be heard declaring "Mayday" amid the sounds of a physical struggle in the cockpit.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2131056,00.html
Admittedly this is from the official report but there is a huge difference between 35,000 feet, 10,000 feet and 700 feet.
I wonder how the plane was supposed to have crashed and how so many of the relatives of those who died were tricked into believing they had been speaking to their loved ones?
If a plane is flying at 35,000ft and it drops 700ft then it is flying at 34,300ft, the plane later climed to over 40,000ft.
Research in Canada after 9/11 proved the probability of a cell phone connecting from a commercial airliner at cruising altitude to be less than 1%, there were 10 cellphone calls reported from flight 93, one lasting 13 minutes.
Something doesn't add up.
Terrorists don't have planes, bombs, tanks, missiles and huge armies, they could never occupy a western country, we arn't defending anything.
.......in Iraq we have flattened entire towns, killed millions.
.
So terrorists dont have bombs or missiles, Fred? Hmmm, so obviously the London bombings were really someone with a big paper bag maybe? And the British helicopter shot down in Basra last month just ran in to a pigeon.....!!
And which particular towns have we entirely flattened in Iraq?
Killed millions?
........Think you've been watching too much Hollywood!
If a plane is flying at 35,000ft and it drops 700ft then it is flying at 34,300ft, the plane later climed to over 40,000ft.
Research in Canada after 9/11 proved the probability of a cell phone connecting from a commercial airliner at cruising altitude to be less than 1%, there were 10 cellphone calls reported from flight 93, one lasting 13 minutes.
Something doesn't add up.
Perhaps somebody should ask the pilot. If the official version is wrong then what did happen?
So terrorists dont have bombs or missiles, Fred? Hmmm, so obviously the London bombings were really someone with a big paper bag maybe? And the British helicopter shot down in Basra last month just ran in to a pigeon.....!!
And which particular towns have we entirely flattened in Iraq?
Killed millions?
........Think you've been watching too much Hollywood!
Don't worry PhilR, just think of a number and add add two or three notes on the end.
You can add four Russian Embassy staff to the total. Presumably they too were beheaded by insurgents because Russia invaded Iraq.
So terrorists dont have bombs or missiles, Fred? Hmmm, so obviously the London bombings were really someone with a big paper bag maybe? And the British helicopter shot down in Basra last month just ran in to a pigeon.....!!
And which particular towns have we entirely flattened in Iraq?
They don't have bombs of the type dropped from planes in large numbers and they don't have cruise missiles or intercontinental balistic missiles which if you look at the context of the rest of the sentence is obviously what I meant. Or are you another one who thinks it's clever to argue semantics?
How about the city of Falluja, over half of the 39,000 homes damaged and over a quarter destroyed completely, makes anything the terrorists can do pale into insignificance doesn't it?
We were told that a heavy battle attack of Falluja would break the back of the resistance. What happened instead was that we made 300,000 people homeless by flattening their city with little or no impact on the resistance. In fact, the violence rapidly spread to other major cities.
Statement by Congressman George Miller 15th March 2005
Then there was Tal Afar, Al Qaim, Haditha and more.
Killed millions?
........Think you've been watching too much Hollywood!
No, I've been reading the UNICEF reports.
I started this thread as a way of letting people know that United 93 is what I conside to be a well made film about a tragic loss.
But the thread has now been hijacked and turned into a discussion on the war in Iraq. I have served in the Gulf and been in Iraq and If Fred thinks we killed millions and anything we do makes the terrorists actions pale "into insignificance" I am the perfect person to set him straight. I was involved in the "Air" side of things, please pm me with any queries instead of dragging a thread about what I think is a good film into a political discussion based on what you are told by the media
pultneytooner
27-Jun-06, 23:44
I liked the film, nice bit of fiction but it was well acted.
I have just seen the film on the big screen. Can anyone say that they can 'enjoy' a film of this nature much like schindlers list and the Mission?
It was certainly thought-provoking though and not one bit of hollywood glamourisation was seen to boot. I fully recommend it.
pultneytooner
28-Jun-06, 00:10
If a plane is flying at 35,000ft and it drops 700ft then it is flying at 34,300ft, the plane later climed to over 40,000ft.
Research in Canada after 9/11 proved the probability of a cell phone connecting from a commercial airliner at cruising altitude to be less than 1%, there were 10 cellphone calls reported from flight 93, one lasting 13 minutes.
Something doesn't add up.
All the material presented by the 9/11 Commission has been "tampered with" and the real evidence "has been removed from the public eye".
All the "evidence" that you obtain from the internet is the unadulterated truth.
Fred, I have a bridge over the thames that I'd like to sell you.;)
All the material presented by the 9/11 Commission has been "tampered with" and the real evidence "has been removed from the public eye".
All the "evidence" that you obtain from the internet is the unadulterated truth.
Fred, I have a bridge over the thames that I'd like to sell you.;)
Remember last year when Katrina hit, all the reports in the news about armed gangs taking over the Convention Center, the murders and rapes in the Superbowl, bodies lying in toilets and being stacked up in freezers, 20 rapes a night one of them a 7 year old girl.
Guess what, they removed four bodies from the Superbowl only one of which died of gunshot wounds and he was dead when he got there. No victims of any rape has come forward, no eyewitness of any rape, no eye witness of any shooting.
How much do we actually know about flight 93? How much hard evidence is there? About the only thing we can say for certain is that cell phones don't work at 35,000ft.
I started this thread as a way of letting people know that United 93 is what I conside to be a well made film about a tragic loss.
But the thread has now been hijacked and turned into a discussion on the war in Iraq. I have served in the Gulf and been in Iraq and If Fred thinks we killed millions and anything we do makes the terrorists actions pale "into insignificance" I am the perfect person to set him straight. I was involved in the "Air" side of things, please pm me with any queries instead of dragging a thread about what I think is a good film into a political discussion based on what you are told by the media
Nello. You are quite right, and my apologies for continuing your original thread on an unrelated subject. Once again, I couldn't stop myself from reacting to Fred's uninformed, sensationalist, media-fuelled, second hand opinions on Iraq which both you and I know are wrong. (I've been here since 2003).
I'll shut up now, so crack on with a good thread.......
Well I haven't seen United 93, but I watched Flight 93 the other week on DVD, same story different makers?? Thought it was going to be really good, but was a bit dissapointed. Off course no one can tell the real story, so there has to be room for 'artistic license', still found it a bit too Hollywood for me, good ole American Hero in evidence without doubt. Still it doesn't take away the fact that had I been on that plane, don't know if I would have had the nerve to do what those guys did.
I started this thread as a way of letting people know that United 93 is what I conside to be a well made film about a tragic loss.
But the thread has now been hijacked and turned into a discussion on the war in Iraq. I have served in the Gulf and been in Iraq and If Fred thinks we killed millions and anything we do makes the terrorists actions pale "into insignificance" I am the perfect person to set him straight. I was involved in the "Air" side of things, please pm me with any queries instead of dragging a thread about what I think is a good film into a political discussion based on what you are told by the media
So what exactly is the difference between a group of people who fight to take back control of a plane which has been hijacked and a group of people who fight to take back control of a country which has been hijacked then?
Arn't they both heros?
To answer your post (in part) .. I refer you to my previous post.
Are you seriously suggesting that the people onboard Flight 93 who were put in a situation not of their making, having known what was going on and seen people killed in front of them, and after all that fighting back against the hijackers are the same as Iraqi Insurgents ?? .. Insurgents who plant roadside bombs and sneak away like cowards or behead people in the most barbaric manner and then put it on the Internet ?? .. Are you ??
Perhaps you would like to meet these heroes yourself, I have been into Iraq and have experience on what you talk about with no knowledge, if you would like to meet these people you think are heroes (and most probably end up on Al Jazeera) I will gladly pay your air fare to Iraq so you can gain first hand knowledge for yourself. Or perhaps you would like to visit Ken Bigleys relatives and describe his killers as heroes ?? .. PM me when you would like to go and I will pay your fare and thats a promise, I think you will find the majority of Iraqis more than happy that Saddam has gone and Iraq is governed by Iraqis now in case you hadnt noticed, they even have their own parliament *gasp*
If you want to make a political point please do it on a separate thread or take me up on my offer, like I said before I started this thread to highlight what I thought was a good film about a tragic event in which the people fought back in an attempt to save their lives, to me thats heroic. I see nothing heroic in kidnapping people and beheading them, do you ??
Nello. You are quite right, and my apologies for continuing your original thread on an unrelated subject. Once again, I couldn't stop myself from reacting to Fred's uninformed, sensationalist, media-fuelled, second hand opinions on Iraq which both you and I know are wrong. (I've been here since 2003).
I don't pay much attention to the western media, I was reading an interesting article in this mornings arab News (http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=84467&d=28&m=6&y=2006) about how the Bush administration uses the media to spread misinformation.
There is an interesting bit on casualty figures in paragraph 7 you should look at as well.
I don't pay much attention to the western media, I was reading an interesting article in this mornings arab News (http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=84467&d=28&m=6&y=2006) about how the Bush administration uses the media to spread misinformation.
There is an interesting bit on casualty figures in paragraph 7 you should look at as well.
and the arab news isnt full of its own misinformation?????
Sorry Fred,
Would this be the Same Arab Media that whipped up the Muslim World over the Cartoons published in Denmark but publishes anti jewish cartoons on a daily basis in certain Arab Papers ?? .. I have seen for myself.
Seems to me that to get a balanced view you should perhaps listen to both sides .. or see for yourself .. just a thought.
Having just put a political comment here after criticising Fred for it I am going to get my coat and leave this thread to hopefully get back to the original topic.
Having just put a political comment here after criticising Fred for it I am going to get my coat and leave this thread to hopefully get back to the original topic.
Your first post was political, political propaganda. "For Evil to triumph Good Men just need do Nothing", I take it the good is us and the evil is them.
The American government knew 9/11 was coming, they expected it because they caused it, it was what the CIA call "blowback" and they knew there was going to be blowback.
Those people you call "evil" wern't always terrorists, when they were lopping various body parts off Russians in Afghanistan they were called freedom fighters while Nelson Mandela was on Americas list of terrorists. Meanwhile America tricked Saddam Hussein into invading Kuwait and used forged satelite photos to convince Saudi Arabia that he was going to invade them next so they would let them build bases there.
The American government knew all along that when the Saudi "freedom fighters" realised that while they were doing Americas dirty work lopping bits off Russians America sneaked in and occupied Saudi there would be blowback, they knew and they didn't care, they were counting on it. Feedom fighter bacame terrorist, ally became enemy and America got to invade a couple of countries.
"For Evil to triumph Good Men just need do Nothing".
luskentyre
29-Jun-06, 01:17
So what exactly is the difference between a group of people who fight to take back control of a plane which has been hijacked and a group of people who fight to take back control of a country which has been hijacked then?
Arn't they both heros?
I don't think you can equate those two things at all. The former example involves people merely trying to save their own lives. Whatever their motivation, the latter involves extremists with no regard/respect for life, who are in no immediate danger.
Frankly I think it's insulting to try and compare the two.
[quote=fred]Your first post was political, political propaganda. "For Evil to triumph Good Men just need do Nothing", I take it the good is us and the evil is them.
My first post related to a film and was not political in any way it was simply a recommendation to see a film I thought was relevant to an actual event in which people died and yes I think people who get aboard an aircraft with the intention of hijacking it and crashing it into whatever target they had is pretty evil .. and I am probably not alone in that .. What would you call it ?? .. :roll:
As for the rest of the drivel you spouted about Saddam being tricked into invading Iraq etc .. Are you serious ?? .. I think someone who stands up for Saddam and that mentions the hijackers in the same sentence as the word hero while alleging those involved in 9/11 are somehow "Freedom Fighters" is pretty delusional .. :mad:
[quote=fred]Your first post was political, political propaganda. "For Evil to triumph Good Men just need do Nothing", I take it the good is us and the evil is them.
My first post related to a film and was not political in any way it was simply a recommendation to see a film I thought was relevant to an actual event in which people died and yes I think people who get aboard an aircraft with the intention of hijacking it and crashing it into whatever target they had is pretty evil .. and I am probably not alone in that .. What would you call it ?? .. :roll:
As for the rest of the drivel you spouted about Saddam being tricked into invading Iraq etc .. Are you serious ?? .. I think someone who stands up for Saddam and that mentions the hijackers in the same sentence as the word hero while alleging those involved in 9/11 are somehow "Freedom Fighters" is pretty delusional .. :mad:Nello, you simply do not understand. Every evil in the World is controlled secretly by America. They pull the strings and the rest of the World just dances in accordance with which ever strings are pulled.
Except for the wise politically astute few, all the rest of the people of the World, including the leaders of all it's Nations and Organisations, are so brain-dead that they simple do not see what is going on under their noses.
Before you know it somebody will be telling you that it was the Americans who kidnapped and murdered the Russian Embassy Staff in order to ensnare the Russians in Iraq. Nothing, of course, will be said about the rights and wrongs of President Putin’s Orders to his ex-employees from what was the KGB to eliminate the people who carried out the assassinations.
Only the Americans and we British are capable of doing anything wrong, the rest of the peoples of the World are simply out poor victims who have been cruelly oppressed and slaughtered so we can Control the World and enslave the people. Anything which is contrary to that view is considered to be propaganda only to be believed by the stupid or the politically naive.
If a plane is flying at 35,000ft and it drops 700ft then it is flying at 34,300ft, the plane later climed to over 40,000ft.
Research in Canada after 9/11 proved the probability of a cell phone connecting from a commercial airliner at cruising altitude to be less than 1%, there were 10 cellphone calls reported from flight 93, one lasting 13 minutes.
Something doesn't add up.I will ask again! If the "Official Version" is a total invention then what made the plane crash? Or perhaps it didn't crash and the whole thing was a figment of somebody's imagination.
To simplify things, I have dismissed the theory that there were no pilots and the whole thing was done by either magic or smoke and mirrors.
[quote=JAWS][quote=Nello]Nello, you simply do not understand. Every evil in the World is controlled secretly by America. They pull the strings and the rest of the World just dances in accordance with which ever strings are pulled.
Except for the wise politically astute few, all the rest of the people of the World, including the leaders of all it's Nations and Organisations, are so brain-dead that they simple do not see what is going on under their noses.
Before you know it somebody will be telling you that it was the Americans who kidnapped and murdered the Russian Embassy Staff in order to ensnare the Russians in Iraq. Nothing, of course, will be said about the rights and wrongs of President Putin’s Orders to his ex-employees from what was the KGB to eliminate the people who carried out the assassinations.
Only the Americans and we British are capable of doing anything wrong, the rest of the peoples of the World are simply out poor victims who have been cruelly oppressed and slaughtered so we can Control the World and enslave the people. Anything which is contrary to that view is considered to be propaganda only to be believed by the stupid or the politically naive.
I know .. but I like a good discussion !! .. Freds views have so many holes in them you could drive a tank through them. Still we are entitled to our point of view. I would like to take his/her point of view apart but at the end of the day I have learned never to argue with people that naive as they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
P.S .. I STILL THINK UNITED 93 IS A GOOD FILM !! .. ;)
I don't think you can equate those two things at all. The former example involves people merely trying to save their own lives. Whatever their motivation, the latter involves extremists with no regard/respect for life, who are in no immediate danger.
Frankly I think it's insulting to try and compare the two.
Extremists with no regard/respect for life who are in no immediate danger?
Like this one you mean?
The ongoing air campaign and harsh economic sanctions have prevented the rebuilding of the water supply and other infrastructure. UNICEF has estimated that ten years of sanctions have killed an estimated 500,000 children. Asked in a 60 Minutes interview about the level of civilian deaths in 1996, then Secretary of State Madeline replied, “we think the price is worth it.”
[quote=fred]Your first post was political, political propaganda. "For Evil to triumph Good Men just need do Nothing", I take it the good is us and the evil is them.
My first post related to a film and was not political in any way it was simply a recommendation to see a film I thought was relevant to an actual event in which people died and yes I think people who get aboard an aircraft with the intention of hijacking it and crashing it into whatever target they had is pretty evil .. and I am probably not alone in that .. What would you call it ?? .. :roll:
Oh I call it evil as well, I call a lot of things evil. It's just as evil for a Muslim to kill a Christian as it is for a Christian to kill a Muslim as far as I'm concerned, we seem to have killed an awful lot of Muslims without declaring it evil though.
As for the rest of the drivel you spouted about Saddam being tricked into invading Iraq etc .. Are you serious ?? .. I think someone who stands up for Saddam and that mentions the hijackers in the same sentence as the word hero while alleging those involved in 9/11 are somehow "Freedom Fighters" is pretty delusional .. :mad:
Well yes I am serious, that is what happened, America did trick Iraq into invading Kuwait there is no doubt about that. I can't see how you can be surprised, when you look back at Americas history of intervention all over the world, the Middle East, Vietnam, Korea, South America, Africa, Palestine, they have a very long history of causing local conflicts to further their own interests, why should this be any different?
Now I think you should go back and look again at what I wrote, I didn't call the hijackers freedom fighters, the American government and press called them freedom fighters when they were fighting Russians in Afghanistan. It didn't seem to matter how many attrocities they committed then, then they were heros, Afghanistan had been occupied by a foreign power so anything goes.
Why is it good for Muslims to kill Russians but bad for them to kill Americans?
I will ask again! If the "Official Version" is a total invention then what made the plane crash? Or perhaps it didn't crash and the whole thing was a figment of somebody's imagination.
All I said was that cell phones don't work on planes at 35,000ft. From what I know about cell phones it doesn't surprise me.
George Brims
30-Jun-06, 01:36
Cell phones do work on planes at 35,000 feet. Not very well or very reliably, but they do work. You have heard of a thing called "windows" haven't you? The wavelength of cell phone transmissions is pretty short (less than a foot) so the windows on a plane are small enough to let the signals in and out of the cabin (compare that to the mesh in a microwave oven window which has tiny holes so you can see your food bubbling but not irradiate your head).
There have been a number of cases of people using cell phones on passenger aircraft and getting in trouble for refusing to stop when asked to do so by the crew. On one occasion, a really obnoxious yuppie had to be threatened with assault by a number of fellow passengers on a Honolulu-LAX flight before he would put the phone away. I was a little disappointed when he capitulated. I wanted to see what the huge Hawaiian guy next to me would do to him! He demanded to see the captain, who came back and threatened to have him arrested at LAX if he caused any more trouble.
All I said was that cell phones don't work on planes at 35,000ft. From what I know about cell phones it doesn't surprise me.So presumably, if the passengers could not receive reports of the other hijackings via their cellphones they must have received the information by some other means. I am assuming that the use of crystal balls at 35,000 feet is even less likely then the lack of cellphone reception.
That being the case, how are they supposed to have known to fight back to take control of the plane, the normal thing is to sit tight and wait for the plane to land. There must have been some reason why they didn't just do that unless they all decided that risking killing themselves and everybody else on board was the ultimate act of defiance. .
Something caused the plane to crash and if the Official Version is the only one which explains what happened then why should it be disbelieved.
For an explanation to be dismissed as impossible whilst suggesting no other explanation is hardly a convincing argument.
[QUOTE=Nello]
Oh I call it evil as well, I call a lot of things evil. It's just as evil for a Muslim to kill a Christian as it is for a Christian to kill a Muslim as far as I'm concerned, we seem to have killed an awful lot of Muslims without declaring it evil though.
Why is it good for Muslims to kill Russians but bad for them to kill Americans?If that is how you see things,fred, then why are you not as vocal in conemning the Christian Russians for the wholesale slaughter of the Muslim Chechnyans? Perhaps it is only wrong when it is the Americans and we Brits.
Is there some difference which is not clear to me and, I would suspect, many other people?
The passengers on board were using the aircrafts phone system to phone relatives and that is how they were informed of what was happening regarding the Twin Towers or are we suggesting ALL the relatives were lying ??
I have already PM'd Fred over the views expressed and received a reply and feel I cant comment here on the forum regarding those views having done so privately, so i will ignore Freds comments in total.
I know a little about this situation having worked in Air Traffic Control and can say that the four digit transponder or "squawk" never transmitted the Hijack code (all aircraft under Radar Control are issued a four number code or "Squawk" which identifies them on Radar) which is why Air Traffic Controllers took so long to ascertain that United 93 was under the terrorists control. In an emergency the pilots set this code which indicates a hijack without voice comms being necessary. This indicates that the Flight Deck was stormed quickly. The fact that the passengers were able to formulate a plan to storm the flight deck indicates to me that they were in one location and able to communicate relatively freely. The relatives confirm they were using the aircraft phone and so couldnt have been watched too closely. The fact that they got to the cockpit and were overheard by Air Traffic Control says they were perhaps left to their own devices largely while the hijackers concentrated on flying the jet. Where does it say in the report that personal mobiles were used ??, I work in Telecommunications and they just wouldnt work for various reasons, (look at the Mobile Phone masts, any aerials point up ?? .. ;) ) and as they ARE capable of interfering with avionics onboard they would perhaps have been noticed if contact on them was attempted.
The end result is those poor souls are now gone having been put in a situation not of their making and they went out fighting, may we all have the same strength if it comes to it .. The topic of this thread is the Film made about that, not the conspiracy theories or Religion or Iraq.
Watch the Film and See for yourself.
Nello, if I remember correctly without checking, the hijackers were missing one of their accomplices and were “short-handed”. The passengers, instead of being kept in their seats as is the normal practice were all forced to the rear of the plane in one large group presumably in the belief that confining them to one small area would make them easier to control.
Had they been left in their seats should the hijacker move up and down the isle at some stage there would have been passengers who were out of sight behind him with the obvious risk that would pose.
Crowding them together would mean that there could be whispered conversations and plans formed which would have been impossible had they remained seated. Hatching a secret plan with somebody four rows away on the opposite side of the plane would obviously be impossible.
The problem about the Official Version lies in it’s very description. It is the “Official Version”, therefore it must be a lie and a Cover Up, what else could it be?
The problem about the Official Version lies in it’s very description. It is the “Official Version”, therefore it must be a lie and a Cover Up, what else could it be?[/quote]
Exactly .. I remember having had a few beers one afternoon listening to a guy who seemed convinced everything was a conspiracy, just to see if he would bite I remarked that I thought Interflora had something to do with Diana's accident (think about it) and he actually considered it !!, it was only after someone else pointed out my smiling mug to him that he twigged .. Unbelievable !! .. We also convinced him that the word gullible does not appear in the dictionary and he went to look !! .. just goes to show that certain people will believe anything .. ;)
I have already PM'd Fred over the views expressed and received a reply and feel I cant comment here on the forum regarding those views having done so privately, so i will ignore Freds comments in total.
.
Did he ask you to book his ticket? Did he say he would love to speak to real people in Iraq and ask them what their thoughts are? did he have his bag packed he was so eager to experience the real thing....no? im so surprised i was hoping you could leave him there
[QUOTE=fred]If that is how you see things,fred, then why are you not as vocal in conemning the Christian Russians for the wholesale slaughter of the Muslim Chechnyans? Perhaps it is only wrong when it is the Americans and we Brits.
Is there some difference which is not clear to me and, I would suspect, many other people?
What makes you think I don't condemn the Christian Russians?
There are a lot of similarities between the situation in Chechnya and the events leading up to 9/11, infact Muslim groups who had faught in Afghanistan were involved there as well, they were called "rebels" in that one, not as good as "freedom fighter" but still not "terrorists".
The Chechen rebels were fighting against an imperialistic power with superior military might who had occupied their country because they wanted their oil. They fought back any way they could, they took 1,000 children hostage at a school in Russia.
Same story, I don' t look at it any differently, do you?
For an explanation to be dismissed as impossible whilst suggesting no other explanation is hardly a convincing argument.
The research data (http://physics911.ca/org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9) shows that cell phones don't work from a plane at 35,000ft.
The 9/11 commission report (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.pdf) (pdf file) says that cell phone calls were made from flight 93.
One of them must be wrong and based on my understanding of how cell phones work I know which one I believe.
George Brims
30-Jun-06, 23:45
Hmm. You're calling that "The research data". Actually it's "Some research data", and it's on a pro-conspiracy web site. Perhaps it is part of a conspiracy to convince us of the conspiracy? Perhaps there's a deeper conspiracy to divert us from some other conspiracy that the government has now cooked up?
Did he ask you to book his ticket? Did he say he would love to speak to real people in Iraq and ask them what their thoughts are? did he have his bag packed he was so eager to experience the real thing....no? im so surprised i was hoping you could leave him there
No .. but the offer is still open.
I cant see what Fred posts anymore as he/ she is on my ignore list.
No .. but the offer is still open.
I cant see what Fred posts anymore as he/ she is on my ignore list.
probably for the best. it was a thread about a film you saw after all.
probably for the best. it was a thread about a film you saw after all.
That was my reasoning. The current discussion should have been on a seperate thread, I suggested this to Fred but for some reason it continued so I bugged out.
celtic 302
01-Jul-06, 00:29
"war never ends something, it only begins it", R.Scott Bakker
I have'nt seen the film, and i dont plan to. somebody is using the 9/11 attacks as a way too make money, and i think thats wrong. I ask everyone who has posted on this thread to answer me this, if it was ur realative who was killed during 9/11, would u go see the film?, or if there was a film on the 7/7 event, would u go see that? i think not.
someone on the first page said something about going down fighting. if what i heard is true, it was a german man who tried to conquer the terrorists. also, somebody on the first page mentioned the iraq war, and i would like to say somethin. dont make acussations about the war when u dont know anythin about it. well not the real truth.
dont make acussations about the war when u dont know anythin about it. well not the real truth.
Do you? Do I, Does Fred? Does anyone?
If you do some research about the film you will find that the director met with all the relatives of the people depicted in the film and they consented so if it was my relative yes I would allow it to be made and to go see it. You compare it with 7/7 and while it is true they are both tragic events the film United 93 shows the courage displayed by the passengers by fighting back against the hi-jackers something which was denied those victims on 7/7. I have seen United 93 .. have you ?? .. the film makes no political points about the hijackers or the Iraq War or The Bush administration .. it depicts a sequence of events.
You say a German man conquered the terrorists .. dont know where you heard that but try going into google and searching for "United Flight 93" and "Todd Beamer" .. in fact if you had done that before posting you would be more informed.
*sigh* .. So what do you know about the Iraq War ?? .. Do you know the real truth ?? .. I served in the Gulf on two seperate occasions and have been into Iraq as well as being based in Saudi and Kuwait and I dont know the real truth .. the reality though for me was going to a funeral for a squadron member .. if you served you may know something about that if you havent then you are talking about something you know nothing about, watching it on TV does not count.
[QUOTE=JAWS]
What makes you think I don't condemn the Christian Russians?
There are a lot of similarities between the situation in Chechnya and the events leading up to 9/11, infact Muslim groups who had faught in Afghanistan were involved there as well, they were called "rebels" in that one, not as good as "freedom fighter" but still not "terrorists".
The Chechen rebels were fighting against an imperialistic power with superior military might who had occupied their country because they wanted their oil. They fought back any way they could, they took 1,000 children hostage at a school in Russia.
Same story, I don' t look at it any differently, do you?So it's the Russians who are intent on controling Oil Supplies. I thought only the Americans and the Brits were engaged in that sort of behaviour.
If you are as concerned about the behaviour of Countries other than America and Britain why do you not spend as much time and effort conemning them?
If Bush or Blair made an Official Statement that those who beheaded British or American Citizens should not be caught and brought to trial but that the Secret Services should "Eliminate" them you would, from past posts, express outrage. You have often done so about far less serious matters.
Putin very publicly Ordered the successors of the KGB to do exactly that. I notice that his doing so seems to have escaped your intense sense of morality and justice.
Obviously only the Americans and Brits are worthy of condemnation when it comes to dealing with Terrorists. Identical acts by other countries are conveniently ignored as not worthy of comment.
Muslim groups who had faught in Afghanistan were involved there as well, they were called "rebels" in that one, not as good as "freedom fighter" but still not "terrorists".I really must do something about my memory, I really must stop imagining things. I seem to have imagined that the Chechnyens who were involved in the odd minor incidents involving a Theatre in Moscow and a School in Beslan were described in the Secret Controlled Western Media as “Chechen Terrorists”.
In fact I seem remember there being a great deal of condemnation expressed over their actions.
Do I see any difference between Iraq and Chechnya? The main thing I notice is that the Media and the Activists are spectacularly silent about what is happening in Chechnya. When was the last demonstration about the behaviour of the Russian Armed Forces in Chechnya? When did you last see a News Report from Chechnya?
Could it be that the Media only go where it’s comparatively safe and avoid going where the real dangers are?
The research data (http://physics911.ca/org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9) shows that cell phones don't work from a plane at 35,000ft.
The 9/11 commission report (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.pdf) (pdf file) says that cell phone calls were made from flight 93.
One of them must be wrong and based on my understanding of how cell phones work I know which one I believe.For those interested enough to find out about the background of the person carrying out the Research Data on cellphones in aeroplanes the following sites give an insight as to his impartiality on the subject.
The person doing the Research is Alexander Keewatin Dewdney. Information on his background can be found at
http://july.fixedreference.org/en/20040724/wikipedia/Alexander_Dewdney
That page leads to
http://july.fixedreference.org/en/20040724/wikipedia/September_11,_2001_attacks
which gives all the information you need on his particular Conspiracy Theory about Flight 93 and about his other Conspiracy Theories surrounding many, many other matters pertaining thereto.
To put your mind at rest, fred, as to what caused the crash, all is explained by Dewdney.
It would appear that the passengers were thwarted by the brilliant actions of the terrorists (sorry fred, heroic freedom fighters) who threw the plane around preventing the passengers ever getting into the cockpit. They then, for some unexplained reason, decided to abandon whatever their intended aim was and fly the plane into the ground in the middle of nowhere.
Personally, there being a fight for the controls seems a far more likely explanation of the plane lurching all over the place and being flown into the ground.
That still does not explain how the passengers became aware of what had happened with the other hijacks. Could it be that they were specially trained in telepathy.
The Conspiracy Theorists on Flight 93 have now been reduced to trying to convince people that the passengers were totally uninvolved in the crash. This would mean that all their relatives are liars and part of a Conspiracy to fool the World into seeing them as Heroes, which fred, no doubt, will readily assure you no American could ever be,
This leads to the true ending of the incident whereby the true Heroes, the Terrorists, bravely prevent the passengers from achieving their publicity seeking aim by flying the plane into the ground themselves.
Sorry, fred, I think the original version was much more realistic, it had a much more realistic plot!
Oh yes, and I also know the trick of not being able to find that which you intend not to find. I've done a great deal of Research in the Subject.
I would publish my findings here but for some reason I just simply cannot seem to find them!
I really must do something about my memory, I really must stop imagining things. I seem to have imagined that the Chechnyens who were involved in the odd minor incidents involving a Theatre in Moscow and a School in Beslan were described in the Secret Controlled Western Media as “Chechen Terrorists”.
In fact I seem remember there being a great deal of condemnation expressed over their actions.
Things had changed by 2002 and 2004. I don't remember it making the headlines that 10 of those taking 1,000 schoolchildren hostage were Arabs belonging to groups trained, armed and financed by the CIA in Afghanistan. Mind you they kept quiet about Al Qaeda being trained, armed and financed by the CIA in Afghanistan too.
Do I see any difference between Iraq and Chechnya? The main thing I notice is that the Media and the Activists are spectacularly silent about what is happening in Chechnya. When was the last demonstration about the behaviour of the Russian Armed Forces in Chechnya? When did you last see a News Report from Chechnya?
Could it be that the Media only go where it’s comparatively safe and avoid going where the real dangers are?
I see plenty of news reports about Chechnya, I've been reading about five Russian diplomats murdered in Iraq by Chechnyan Muslims. However as the level of violence in Chechnya is nowhere near the level of violence in Iraq at the moment it's hardly surprising there isn't the same news coverage.
There are differences between Chechnya and Iraq, mainly that Chechnya has generally been considered a part of Russia for a long time whereas America has no claim over Iraq whatsoever.
There is one big similarity though, one thing that ties the Americans in Iraq, the Isralies in Palestine, the Russians in Chechnya. In every case the troops believe they are fighting an enemy which is inferior and a threat to their country, hate and fear, those are the common denominator. In Vietnam they called them "gooks", in Iraq they call them "haji" but in every case the people of a different nation are dehumanised and demonised. Just as in the first post of this thread the phrase "for good to triumph over evil" was used with no thought whatsoever as to what constitutes good or evil, it was just taken for granted that we are good with God on our side and they are evil.
Inherent racism, that is the common denominator.
Things had changed by 2002 and 2004. I don't remember it making the headlines that 10 of those taking 1,000 schoolchildren hostage were Arabs belonging to groups trained, armed and financed by the CIA in Afghanistan. Mind you they kept quiet about Al Qaeda being trained, armed and financed by the CIA in Afghanistan too.
I see plenty of news reports about Chechnya, I've been reading about five Russian diplomats murdered in Iraq by Chechnyan Muslims. However as the level of violence in Chechnya is nowhere near the level of violence in Iraq at the moment it's hardly surprising there isn't the same news coverage.
There are differences between Chechnya and Iraq, mainly that Chechnya has generally been considered a part of Russia for a long time whereas America has no claim over Iraq whatsoever.
There is one big similarity though, one thing that ties the Americans in Iraq, the Isralies in Palestine, the Russians in Chechnya. In every case the troops believe they are fighting an enemy which is inferior and a threat to their country, hate and fear, those are the common denominator. In Vietnam they called them "gooks", in Iraq they call them "haji" but in every case the people of a different nation are dehumanised and demonised. Just as in the first post of this thread the phrase "for good to triumph over evil" was used with no thought whatsoever as to what constitutes good or evil, it was just taken for granted that we are good with God on our side and they are evil.
Inherent racism, that is the common denominator.
Oil? Religion? Racism? You missed out Politics but that is not to be mentioned.
Oh yes, the Russian Diplomats. But Russia was against the War in Iraq and as we all know, the insurgency is about throwing "Foreign Occupying Forces" out of Iraq. So beheading Russian Diplomats will force the Americans out of Iraq? Suddenly it becomes about Chechnya as well, I didn't know we were involved in that along with the Russians!
As for Beslan, the Russians have said all along that there were Muslims from outwith Chechnya involved there.
You try to convince people that only the Americans have ever Trained or Armed anybody and that the only clandestine organisation in the World is the CIA.
Whatever were those nice friendly people in the KGB doing, teaching people how to knit?
The Russians misjudged the situation over their Diplomats. They believed the story that the “Terror Groups” were only concerned about those involved in Iraq and that the Diplomats would eventually be returned. They were wrong, but my money is on the fact that it will not happen a second time.
Putin was once the Head of the KGB and you don’t get to that position without a very ruthless streak. His Orders, which no Western Leader could issue without loud screams about Human Rights and the Right to a Trial, to the Russian Secret Service is to find them and kill them. No question of arrest or capture, just an instruction to find and execute, and I suspect it will not be a quick death.
The last time Russians were held hostage in Lebanon and threatened with execution I had to admire the Kremlin's negotiating style.
They took a close relative of the Leader of the Terrorists, Mutilated him and then posted the body back to the Leader one part at a time.
The hostages were released unharmed. That is what I call a successful negotiating technique. Perhaps we should ask them for some lessons in such methods.
The violence in Chechnya has subsided for the simple reason that there is little left to destroy and large numbers of the people there have already fled into neighbouring States to escape it and are living in Refugee Camps. That situation has been in existence for many years. Of course, there are no horrific TV Pictures to show people so it is of no great concern.
I do so like the way you try to identify the Fire Brigade and the Arsonist because they both are concerned with the effects of fire. Fortunately, most people can tell which of them is interested in destruction and which has an interest in prevention.
None of your points does one thing to explain what happened on Flight 93 if the Official Version is untrue.
How did the passengers find out about the other hijacks, why did many family members lie about getting calls from cellphones and what made the place crash where it did, in the middle of nowhere in particular?
If there is such an obvious and blatant error in the fact that cellphones would not work under the circumstances why has this only been noticed by so few people, or is this just another case where the whole World is involved in a conspiracy of silence?
Could it be that the CIA have secretly been involved in “eliminating” all the people with an intimate knowledge of the workings of cellphones in relation to aircraft?
As you are well aware fred, they are capable with getting away with anything so many thousands of Cellphone Experts would pose no problem for them at all.
Oil? Religion? Racism? You missed out Politics but that is not to be mentioned.
How come you always have to argue what I don't say not what I say?
Cell phone calls can not be made from a plane at 35,000ft, not only are there very sound technical reasons why they don't work but experimental data confirms it.
There is a recording of a cell phone call said to be made from flight 93 to the emergency services, the emergency services were in Illinois while the plane was in Philidelphia, it dosn't add up, if you dial 911 in Philidelphia you get the Philidelphia emergency services.
Yes racism, I talk about a lot of things but at that time I was talking about racism, the fact I did not say anything about a number of other things at the same time is no argument whatsoever that what I said wasn't true. Everyone seems to assume two things, that we are superior to the Arabs therefore have a right to occupy their countries and that what we do is good, "collateral damage" is justified while when they kill civillians it is evil.
How come you always have to argue what I don't say not what I say?
Cell phone calls can not be made from a plane at 35,000ft, not only are there very sound technical reasons why they don't work but experimental data confirms it.
There is a recording of a cell phone call said to be made from flight 93 to the emergency services, the emergency services were in Illinois while the plane was in Philidelphia, it dosn't add up, if you dial 911 in Philidelphia you get the Philidelphia emergency services.
Yes racism, I talk about a lot of things but at that time I was talking about racism, the fact I did not say anything about a number of other things at the same time is no argument whatsoever that what I said wasn't true. Everyone seems to assume two things, that we are superior to the Arabs therefore have a right to occupy their countries and that what we do is good, "collateral damage" is justified while when they kill civillians it is evil.In answer to your first question, what people carefully avoid saying often tells you far more than what they insist on saying.
If you make a statement that something which has happened is impossible then what has happened must have occurred in some other way. All I am asking is for clarification of the method by which the passengers on Flight 93 became aware of what had happened elsewhere if they were unable to obtain the information by cellphone.
The Experimental Data quoted proves absolutely nothing except that one person, who had a vested interest for the sake of confirming his own Theory, managed not to get a cellphone to work under conditions of his own choosing.
All that "proves" is that under the conditions chosen by a person who wished to "prove" cellphones would not work from a plane managed not to get a cellphone to work.
Again it would appear that, apart from a handful of people, everybody else in the world who has dealings with the Technical side of cellphones are so stupid that they fail to see what you claim is a massive and obvious nonsense.
Do you expect people to accept that those people really are that stupid?
Your comments on contacting the Emergency Services does not stand up either, It is possible for somebody to dial the emergency services on a cellphone and end up connected to the Emergency Services in a completely different area or even at the opposite end of a Country.
Such things, if you do enough research, are perfectly explainable and certainly do add up.
However, your knowledge of how cellphones operate obviously far exceeds mine.
Iraq has been introduced into Flight 93, Afghanistan, the Russian Diplomats, Vietnam, Oil, Religion, Race and many other things in attempts to show that those people who wish to portray America and Britain are the scourge of the World who will go to any lengths to trample all others underfoot.
The only thing you seem never to have mentioned is the political reasons why certain people and groups would prefer people to accept that point of view.
I still would like to know what the alternative to the explanations of the use of cellphones and the passengers fighting to retake control of the aircraft caused the plane to crash as it did.
Simply saying that the method explained did not happen does not explain what did happen.
Until a different and plausible explanation can be given then the Official explanation is the only one which can be accepted because it is simply the only one available, there being no others.
If you make a statement that something which has happened is impossible then what has happened must have occurred in some other way. All I am asking is for clarification of the method by which the passengers on Flight 93 became aware of what had happened elsewhere if they were unable to obtain the information by cellphone.
Here is an alternate theory, if I don't present an alternate theory you just claim that without one the impossible must be true and if I do present one you just accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist so I'm damned if I do and I'm damned if I don't.
There was contact between the plane and the ground via airphone. There was one 13 minute call to an airphone operator and probably other calls which have been attributed to cell phones. To use an airphone you have to register your credit card before the flight but one person who had registered could let others use it.
We know that some one in authority knew about 9/11 well in advance because they had time to rig demolition charges in the WTC, so they knew one of the planes was going to hit the White House, didn't want that one to succeed and put a small bomb on board.
They didn't know the passengers would attempt to take back the plane and needed a reason for the crash hence the supposed cellphone calls such as this one, a transcript of the call supposedly made by Mark Bringham to his mother:
Caller: "Mom? This is Mark Brigham."
Caller: "I want you to know that I love you. I'm on a flight from Newark to San Francisco and there are three guys who have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb."
Alice: "Who are these guys?
Caller: (after a pause) "You believe me, don't you?
Alice: "Yes, Mark. I believe you. But who are these guys?
(After another pause the line went dead.)
Air traffic control also picked up a broadcast on the planes frequency of someone with an Arabic accent telling the passengers that there was a bomb on board, it was assumed that the pilot pressed the wrong button, could be someone wanted the world to know the hijackers had a bomb.
I don't know that that is how it happened, nobody knows what happened, it's an alternate theory, another possibility. It does fit the known facts, such as cellphones not working from 35,000ft, the cockpit voice recorder stopped working 3 minutes before the plane crashed, debris found 8 miles away. These are things the official version fails to explain.
Here is an alternate theory, if I don't present an alternate theory you just claim that without one the impossible must be true and if I do present one you just accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist so I'm damned if I do and I'm damned if I don't.
There was contact between the plane and the ground via airphone. There was one 13 minute call to an airphone operator and probably other calls which have been attributed to cell phones. To use an airphone you have to register your credit card before the flight but one person who had registered could let others use it.
We know that some one in authority knew about 9/11 well in advance because they had time to rig demolition charges in the WTC, so they knew one of the planes was going to hit the White House, didn't want that one to succeed and put a small bomb on board.
They didn't know the passengers would attempt to take back the plane and needed a reason for the crash hence the supposed cellphone calls such as this one, a transcript of the call supposedly made by Mark Bringham to his mother:
Air traffic control also picked up a broadcast on the planes frequency of someone with an Arabic accent telling the passengers that there was a bomb on board, it was assumed that the pilot pressed the wrong button, could be someone wanted the world to know the hijackers had a bomb.
I don't know that that is how it happened, nobody knows what happened, it's an alternate theory, another possibility. It does fit the known facts, such as cellphones not working from 35,000ft, the cockpit voice recorder stopped working 3 minutes before the plane crashed, debris found 8 miles away. These are things the official version fails to explain.Assuming I accept all the explanations to be true, then i am left with one major problem.
For something which was so meticulously planned in advance there seem to be an awful lot of silly and obvious mistakes.
Fancy the organisers of such a complicated and devious plan to invent the hijack of four planes to so much damage forgetting that cellphones do not supposedly work from aircraft.
To organise such a huge deception involving aircraft, ground crew, air traffic control, the emergency services and heaven only knows who else and nobody realises that a story about cellphones being used from an aircraft supposedly would not work.
Not only that, but all the aircrews, cabin staff, ground crew, air traffic control personnel and all those involved in the cellphone industry don't let the cat out of the bag.
All apart from one person, connected to none of those, who has his own particular different theory who manages not to get a cellphone to work from an aircraft of his choosing, at a time and place of his choosing, under conditions of his choosing and with people of his choosing.
Prosecution, Defence, Judge and Jury all the same person and a guilty verdict as a result of a fair trial?
Now fancy that.
Oh yes, and Osama broadcasting to the whole World that he was the person who personally chose the hijackers himself.
Could it be possible that he was put up to that as part of the whole devious deception? If Flight 93 was an impossible scenario, setting aside the rest of the deception involving demolition charges in the Twin Towers and planes not really crashing into the Pentagon, would he not have said so?
Surely it would have served his purpose better to convince the World, especially those he wished to join him, that America had invented the whole thing to turn people against his supporters?
Or is he too so stupid to realise he is being tricked by America?
Poor dear man, he must be so simple even I almost feel sorry for him.
Not only that, but all the aircrews, cabin staff, ground crew, air traffic control personnel and all those involved in the cellphone industry don't let the cat out of the bag.
I've read quite a lot on the subject and not seen one person involved in the aircraft or cellphone industries saying that cell phones work at 35,000ft but I've seen plenty saying they don't. The transmitters are designed not to transmit into the air for obvious reasons, the power is directed where it is needed, the only signals that go up are leakage and reflections at greatly reduced power. The aluminium body of an aircraft acts as a shield, some signal can pass through the windows, at greatly reduced power. Even if the plane were directly over a transmitter, in which case it would be completely shielded by the plane body, at 6.75 miles up it would be very close to the absolute maximum range under ideal conditions of 8 miles in a rural area. In an urban area transmitters work at a reduced power so as not to interfere with each other and have a range of less than a mile. At 10,000ft a connection would be a fluke, at 35,000ft a near impossibility, several connections? You must be joking.
[/QUOTE]
Ok fred
so on United Airlines flight 93 ten passengers made phone calls and two crew members. Are you telling me that all these phone calls were fake? That all the relatives that spoke to their loved ones on board this plane were fooled?
In Vietnam they called them "gooks", in Iraq they call them "haji" but in every case the people of a different nation are dehumanised and demonised.
Inherent racism, that is the common denominator.
Sorry to once again question your obvious vast personal experience of the Middle East, Fred, but out here the term 'Haji' is used with great pride by Muslims who have made the 'Haj' visit to Meccah. Many add it to their name on return home, and some of my Arabic friends prefer it when I refer to them as 'Haji' like a nickname, as a term of endearment and familiarity.
Was it another website report you gleaned that information from?
I've read quite a lot on the subject and not seen one person involved in the aircraft or cellphone industries saying that cell phones work at 35,000ft but I've seen plenty saying they don't. The transmitters are designed not to transmit into the air for obvious reasons, the power is directed where it is needed, the only signals that go up are leakage and reflections at greatly reduced power. The aluminium body of an aircraft acts as a shield, some signal can pass through the windows, at greatly reduced power. Even if the plane were directly over a transmitter, in which case it would be completely shielded by the plane body, at 6.75 miles up it would be very close to the absolute maximum range under ideal conditions of 8 miles in a rural area. In an urban area transmitters work at a reduced power so as not to interfere with each other and have a range of less than a mile. At 10,000ft a connection would be a fluke, at 35,000ft a near impossibility, several connections? You must be joking.
[/QUOTE]Then why has this "fact" not been shouted from the roof-tops? There are enough Countries who would just love the humiliate America and many more, especially in Europe, who would have found such information of great use in their opposition to Iraq.
Many of the Arab Nations would not hesitate to publish such information and I have no doubt that the Iranian President would fall over himself in the rush to tell the whole World.
Am I the only one who finds their silence on the matter strange, and very strange indeed?
And stranger still, not a peep about it from Osama himself!
Could it be that everybody around them are too stupid to know about such "facts" about cellphones?
If the transmissions from cellphones and the ground transmitters will not reach aircraft why have the likes of Osama stopped using them to prevent their location being pinpointed from aircraft?
Ok fred
so on United Airlines flight 93 ten passengers made phone calls and two crew members. Are you telling me that all these phone calls were fake? That all the relatives that spoke to their loved ones on board this plane were fooled?Now, now, squidge. Don't pretend you don't know they were all actors and the whole thing was staged in Hollywood using stuntmen. Sorry, and women too! ;)
It's surprising how realistic those Computer Generated Images can be!
If you look carefully on some of the scenes from 9/11 you can see the Jedi Knight with his Light Sabre. [lol]
Don’t want to get involved in the debate, however if I may I will provide some empirical evidence – I was on a flight from Riyadh to Dammam (Saudi Arabia) last week and some woman who had not switched her mobile off received a call and had a conversation mid-flight.
Don’t want to get involved in the debate, however if I may I will provide some empirical evidence – I was on a flight from Riyadh to Dammam (Saudi Arabia) last week and some woman who had not switched her mobile off received a call and had a conversation mid-flight.Now, now, scotsboy, you know that's impossible. Did they not warn you to stay off the strong coffee when you are flying, it makes you hallucinate!
Of course another explanation is that it was indeed a ruse. Created because “they” knew I would happen upon this discussion, so “they” got this woman a seat across from me on the plane and arranged for her phone to ring, and maybe that voice that everyone could hear on the other end was just a recording…….or something. Wouldn’t take much for them to do that……would it?
Ok fred
so on United Airlines flight 93 ten passengers made phone calls and two crew members. Are you telling me that all these phone calls were fake? That all the relatives that spoke to their loved ones on board this plane were fooled?
No I'm saying that most of the calls were made from an airphone, one of the passengers had registered his card and allowed other passengers to use it to say goodby to their loved ones, the calls were kept short so everyone could have a turn.
Sorry to once again question your obvious vast personal experience of the Middle East, Fred, but out here the term 'Haji' is used with great pride by Muslims who have made the 'Haj' visit to Meccah. Many add it to their name on return home, and some of my Arabic friends prefer it when I refer to them as 'Haji' like a nickname, as a term of endearment and familiarity.
I am well aware of what the word "haji" means to a Muslim, I am also well aware of what it means to an American soldier, they have adopted the word to mean much the same as "gook" or "Charlie" did in Vietnam.
Was it another website report you gleaned that information from?
Oh I've seen the word used in a number of reports it's getting to be common usage now, even getting into the odd dictionary (http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/haji/) with loads of citations.
If that isn't enough for you you can watch the video (http://www.nothingtoxic.com/uploads/56d584e215ab2958eed449f386c71751.wmv) of an American soldier singing the song "Haji Girl". It depicts graphically the dehumanisation of the Iraqi people I was talking about, show it to your Arabic friends, see if they are endeared.
You mean you didn't know about the American slang meaning of "haji"? You just keep reading my posts, I'll keep you up to speed.
Don’t want to get involved in the debate, however if I may I will provide some empirical evidence – I was on a flight from Riyadh to Dammam (Saudi Arabia) last week and some woman who had not switched her mobile off received a call and had a conversation mid-flight.
What altitude were you at?
Mid flight, so I would assume between 25 - 30, 000 feet.
Mid flight, so I would assume between 25 - 30, 000 feet.
Scotsboy I am sorry, but if Fred is right, and he always thinks he is, I think you are being a bitty economical with the truth [lol]
I am not saying he is right or wrong - simply what I experienced;)
The simple fact remains that if people did not communicate from Flight 93 by cellphone than literally hundreds of ordinary, common or garden people must have either connived or been tricked into being involved in a huge conspiracy to lie to the world.
How many of you would be tricked into believing that a stranger pretending to be your nearest and dearest was the real thing?
Perhaps your nearest and dearest was part of the conspiracy and was never on a plane. Maybe they were sitting somewhere phoning from a cosy little place somewhere in the sun having agreed never to see any of their families and friends again.
Could it be that they were all actors and nobody at all noticed that the places they were from and the people they knew never existed?
Perhaps the “dead” were secretly spirited home and nobody ever noticed their strange “resurrection”.
The more you consider the intricacies of creating such a web of deceit to more you realise how preposterous the whole idea is.
Osama bin Laden himself has stated that he chose all those involved in the Hijackings himself. Are we supposed to believe that he was involved in a massive scam to place the blame on him?
Has he himself ever questioned the “Official Version” of what happened?
Would it not prove his purpose very well to show that Bush and America had engineered the whole thing for propaganda purposes?
Or are we to believe that he is that stupid that he cannot see when he has been manipulated against his own interests?
I have my own opinion of Osama bin Laden and many things have been said about him but “stupid” is not one of them and even I have more respect for him than that.
Osama bin Laden and America are both agreed on what happened on 9/11 and not one detail has been questioned by either.
Given the choice that either Osama and America are both engaged in the same massive cover up or that other explanations are fanciful I know which I believe.
Unless somebody can prove a conspiracy between Osama and Bush then I am forced to accept their version and not the wishful thinking of others.
Scotsboy, basically you are being called either a liar or a fraud, neither of which I am willing to accept without proof!
To be fair Jaws, I don't think Fred has called me a liar - he just asked what altitude the plane was at.
Osama bin Laden himself has stated that he chose all those involved in the Hijackings himself. Are we supposed to believe that he was involved in a massive scam to place the blame on him?
Are we supposed to believe that America would stop looking for the man responsible for 9/11?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/07/04/MNGAHJOS611.DTL
Scotsboy, basically you are being called either a liar or a fraud, neither of which I am willing to accept without proof!
Would you quote the post in which I called Scotsboy a liar?
Scotsboy didn't say cell phone, he said "mobile". Scotsboy said he didn't want an argument so I didn't argue with him but still you accuse me of calling him a liar.
The call Scotsboy mentioned was an incoming call, there were many attempts to place calls to passengers on flight 93, not one got through. Can you explain to me why if so many calls could could get out of flight 93 not one could get in?
Can you explain to me why if so many calls could could get out of flight 93 not one could get in?
Can you clarify for me exactly what the implications of your question is. Clearly you have a theory and if i havent trawled through all this stuff diligently enough and missed it - im sorry but i dont know what you are getting at or suggesting or implying. What do you think happened?
Sorry fred, I was not accusing you of calling scotsboy a liar, I was referring to the phrase "economical with the truth" which I take as "Diplomatic Speak" for not telling the whole truth.
I am willing to accept that I might have erred in my interpretation but I take the phrase to mean a lie by omission or as being intentionally misleading.
If that was not what Golach meant then I withdraw the comment and offer my apologies for my error.
Fred, you are quite right, I do not believe that America would give up seeking the person responsible for 9/11.
To use the fact that one particular unit has been closed down as an indication that they have done so I find rather implausible.
I assume from your interpretation of that as indicating that Bin Laden was in no way involved rather surprising, especially as he himself has indicated that he was.
Unless, that is, Bin Laden is a willing participant in the America’s devious scheme. Either that or he is a fraud and an accomplished liar because he himself has said that he personally chose the participants.
The only other explanation is that it was not he who recorded the message, in which case it must cast doubt on every other claim he has made
Could it be that even his supporters have been duped into following an impostor?
I actually think Fred has raised a few interesting points. On a few occasions I have forgotten to switch my mobile off during a flight, I have never received a call – either by good fortune or the inability for it to pick up the signal. I am sure this has happened to many people, and I have never seen a call going through to a mobile prior to last week. I am also pretty certain we are all familiar with the beeps of messages and calls coming through to passengers immediately upon landing – I assume that some of those phones must have been left on during the flight.
Does anyone know anything about how the signal transmission/reception on mobiles? Is it possible that something like skywave interference could cause freak conditions which permit signals to be picked up?
I actually think Fred has raised a few interesting points. On a few occasions I have forgotten to switch my mobile off during a flight, I have never received a call – either by good fortune or the inability for it to pick up the signal. I am sure this has happened to many people, and I have never seen a call going through to a mobile prior to last week. I am also pretty certain we are all familiar with the beeps of messages and calls coming through to passengers immediately upon landing – I assume that some of those phones must have been left on during the flight.
Does anyone know anything about how the signal transmission/reception on mobiles? Is it possible that something like skywave interference could cause freak conditions which permit signals to be picked up?
There are a number of possibilities, one is that the woman was using a satelite phone. Another is that the aircraft was fitted with Aircell, a cell phone base station on the plane which links to the ground through satelite. The technology is there all tried and tested they're just waiting for them to alter the rules to let them be used, strangely it's opposition from passengers that is holding things up. Another possibility is that cell phone technology has advanced a great deal in the last 5 years, phones getting more powerful all the time. In 2001 the vast majority of phones in America were still analogue, they were just switching to digital, while I suspect that Saudi Arabia has had the latest technology from the start.
Your woman was very lucky, the penalty for using a cell phone on a plane in Saudi Arabia is 20 lashes.
Can you clarify for me exactly what the implications of your question is. Clearly you have a theory and if i havent trawled through all this stuff diligently enough and missed it - im sorry but i dont know what you are getting at or suggesting or implying. What do you think happened?
Well now Squidge I think it's my love of animals that makes me see things differently to other people. When I was younger and watched the cowboy films I'd notice that a cowboy rode hundreds of miles across a desert and the horse tied up outside the saloon was the same horse that had been pulling a wagon in the town he'd left four days ago. The film makers just use the same horses over and over again thinking nobody will notice, nobody else seems to but me. Then I'd get to wondering why, when the cowboy had ridden across a thousand miles of desert and over the Rocky Mountains howcome the houses were all made of wood? There wasn't a tree for hundreds of miles, it's all sand and rocks, all they needed was a bag of cement and they could have built a propper house.
Nobody else even thinks about these things, they just get engrossed in the film and it's all real to them, that's what this thread is all about, a film. It's when I read the official Commission script and it says things like:
"The passengers continued their assault and at 10:02:23, a hijacker said, "Pull it down! Pull it down!" The hijackers remained at the controls but must have judged that the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them. The airplane headed down.; the control wheel was turned hard to the right. The airplane rolled onto its back, and one of the hijackers began shouting "Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest." With sounds of the passengers counterattacking continuing, the aircraft plowed into an empty field in Shanksville".
Then I get to wondering just how the passengers managed to keep on ramming the cockpit door with that drinks trolley when the plane had just turned upside down and I know that it's just a story, a work of fiction but everyone else seems to think it's real.
What happened on and what happened to that plane we just do not know, that it crashed there is no doubt and that some passengers fought heroicaly against the hijackers there is no doubt but just how much of the detail which goes to make the story is fact is anyones guesse. There are an awfull lot of things that just don't add up though, the cell phone thing is just a small part of it, not that important compared to some of the other inconsistancies, it's just that JAWS wanted to argue about it it's getting so much attention.
Blazing Sporrans
07-Jul-06, 22:41
I think it's too easy to get absorbed in the minor details though. Of course we don't know EXACTLY what happened on board the plane, however I think the original thread here was to the effect that it was a well made film, when it could eaily have been far too Hollywood, too Stars 'n' Stripes and too treacle - it wasn't like that at all. As long as films of this genre make you think a bit about how the lives of real people were touched and affected, then they've succeeded.
Btw Fred - I'm sad enough to notice the trivia you mention too - it's a curse, not a gift. (My wife couldn't believe I knew that Bruce Willis was dead in the Sixth Sense so early on in the film. I had to write it down for her though, so I could show it at the end and not spoil her enjoyment by having to reveal the plot. Only one film ending ever surprised me...... Jacob's Ladder.)
I assume from your interpretation of that as indicating that Bin Laden was in no way involved rather surprising, especially as he himself has indicated that he was.
Unless, that is, Bin Laden is a willing participant in the America’s devious scheme. Either that or he is a fraud and an accomplished liar because he himself has said that he personally chose the participants.
The only other explanation is that it was not he who recorded the message, in which case it must cast doubt on every other claim he has made
Could it be that even his supporters have been duped into following an impostor?
Work it out for yourself.
This is Bin Laden in the tape released by the pentagon in December 2001, where he talks about planning 9/11, which you can watch here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/nation/121301-10v.htm):
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/binfakevb.jpg
This is Bin Laden in a tape broadcast by Aljazeera in December 2001:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1725000/images/_1729740_obl300afp.jpg
Just shortly before he died (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html)
Despite being dead he surfaced again just before the 2004 presidential elections giving Bush a 6 point lead.
Here (http://prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/250406_b_Laden.htm) is how they planned the April 2006 Bin Laden tape, this is fiction as well, just thought I'd better mention it.
I am well aware of what the word "haji" means to a Muslim, I am also well aware of what it means to an American soldier, they have adopted the word to mean much the same as "gook" or "Charlie" did in Vietnam.
Oh I've seen the word used in a number of reports it's getting to be common usage now, even getting into the odd dictionary (http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/haji/) with loads of citations.
If that isn't enough for you you can watch the video (http://www.nothingtoxic.com/uploads/56d584e215ab2958eed449f386c71751.wmv) of an American soldier singing the song "Haji Girl". It depicts graphically the dehumanisation of the Iraqi people I was talking about, show it to your Arabic friends, see if they are endeared.
You mean you didn't know about the American slang meaning of "haji"? You just keep reading my posts, I'll keep you up to speed.
So a few US soldiers have decided to come up with a derogatory nickname for Iraqis and sing a song about them....... No, you're right, I wasn't aware of this. Maybe because the population here isn't actually too bothered about some dirt-digging by sensationalist media looking for a story while the rest of us get on with helping the people and building the infrastructure, for which the vast majority are very grateful.
Countries have always come up with slang names for other races. Let's pick Frogs, Krauts, Spicks, Wops, Diegos, Nips, Chinks, Jundis, Limeys, Gaijins to choose but a few. (Just last year, someone called me a Teuchter!!!) And believe me, the Arabs give as good as they get from the 'Infidels'. If that's part of your argument then you're getting to the end of a pretty thin thread.
And as for making a video of it, I have several examples of singing Arab militants about to end the lives of westerners by blowing them up!
I'd rather not rely on you to keep me 'up to speed' with Iraq events, Fred. I prefer to see facts for myself on the ground here, and if Nello buys your air ticket I'd be happy to show you around the country. You could speak to a lot of Iraqis who are as disgusted with the world's media feeding off soundbites and negative 'stories' as they were with the Saddam regime. You'd find it very enlightening!
By the way Fred, I dont think you ever told us how long you've spent out here to give such detailed and, supposedly, accurate accounts of what's happening. Surely such solid opinions couldn't ALL have come from the internet?
The old argument of "I dont have to be there to know what's going on", is the answer of the gullible, the ignorant or the scared..............
So now all is clear. Bin Laden is dead. Bin laden is alive. Bin laden is an impostor.
Will the real Osama Bin Laden lie down please until the next Presidential Election!
PhilR, you simply do not understand. You are supposed to believe that the Americans and the British are some sort of Human Sub-species, devoid of all moral worth, who see all other Nationalities, Races and Creeds as not being of the same pure blood as the Master Race.
In order to preserve the Purity of the Master Race they must be Exterminated and all trace of them wiped from the face of the Earth.
So a few US soldiers have decided to come up with a derogatory nickname for Iraqis and sing a song about them....... No, you're right, I wasn't aware of this. Maybe because the population here isn't actually too bothered about some dirt-digging by sensationalist media looking for a story while the rest of us get on with helping the people and building the infrastructure, for which the vast majority are very grateful.
A few? No not a few, the "few rotten apples" routine doesn't wash this time.
Countries have always come up with slang names for other races. Let's pick Frogs, Krauts, Spicks, Wops, Diegos, Nips, Chinks, Jundis, Limeys, Gaijins to choose but a few. (Just last year, someone called me a Teuchter!!!) And believe me, the Arabs give as good as they get from the 'Infidels'. If that's part of your argument then you're getting to the end of a pretty thin thread.
But it is a part of my argument, the rest of my argument includes the horific abuse of prisoners at Abhu Graib, a masacre at Haditha, the rape of a 15 year old Iraqi girl and the murder of her entire family and much much more. A few rotten apples? No, not even the tip of the iceberg, rampant racism not just tollerated but encouraged by the American military commanders.
The old argument of "I dont have to be there to know what's going on", is the answer of the gullible, the ignorant or the scared..............
Says who? You?
Try looking through this site (http://www.brusselstribunal.org/). It's not written by journalists, it's written by a wide range of diplomats and academics from all over the world. Read the statements, statements written by real Iraqis inside Iraq, statements made by people who know what is happening all over Iraq, all over the world. Find out what is going on and more importantly find out why. Unless you want to just go on believing whatever lie the government happens to be telling you at the moment.
Now what is it you're affraid of? Affraid people might see through all the John Wayne flag waving patriotic fighting for freedom and democracy God is on our side propaganda, see through the lies and excuses and see our invasion of Iraq for what it was? Or are you affraid you might find out you were the gullible ignorant one all along?
Here are some sites relating to Flight 93 which make interesting reading.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/14/wpit14.xml
The widow’s invented description of the non-existent phone-call from Flight 93.
http://www.911dossier.co.uk/pen01.html
Good source for some of the Conspiracy Theories surrounding Flight 93. It does, however, pose some very interesting questions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4904600.stm
BBC News – Transcript of Cockpit Tape covering the last half hour of Flight 93.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/13/wuaf13.xml
A description of the background noises etc. other than the speech in the transcript.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/17/wcia117.xml
The Vice President states that the Military were authorised By the President to shoot Flight 93 down if necessary.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/10/UA93/Peerless201001.html
http://www.williambowles.info/911/flight_93.html
Two of the sites claiming that Flight 93 was shot down by the US Air Force.
Just type in “Flight 93 shot down” or Flight 93 Shanksville and you can take your pick of the Theories.
It is necessary to plant the seed of doubt by “rubbishing” one small piece of what is supposed to have happened in order to make it easier to convince people that the rest is false.
It’s a version of the old trick used by Lawyers to find one utterly irrelevant detail in your testimony which is inaccurate in order to persuade the Jury that you cannot even be trusted to give your own name without lying.
Personally I would prefer the version that Flight 93 had been shot down to be the correct version. At least it would show that somebody had the guts to have made the right decision at long last.
That is what should have been happening since the very first nutter stood up on a plane and said, “This is a Hijack!”
It would have made it a far less attractive idea as an attention getter.
In truth, whilst pondering the question of the Cellphone Quandary has provided a little amusement, it is totally irrelevant to what actually caused Flight 93 to crash.
The only part the phone-calls ever did was provide a scenario whereby the passengers became aware of what the other planes had been used for and that the passengers on Flight 93 didn’t behave like lambs going to slaughter.
Other than that cellphones have no more relevance to what happened than the shade of the colour of the Pilot’s eyes.
And finally, http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/
This is an excellent site for “Build your own Conspiracy” enthusiasts! It has alternative Theories for just about everything you can think of.
So now all is clear. Bin Laden is dead. Bin laden is alive. Bin laden is an impostor.
Well it's clear to me that the Bin Laden in the tape released by the Pentagon is not the same person as the Bin Laden in the tape released by Aljazeera.
So if the American government will stoop to forging a videotape to fool the public into believing that the official version of 9/11 is the truth what else wouldn't they stoop to? Fake the odd cell phone call from flight 93 to the emergency services maybe?
Here are some sites relating to Flight 93 which make interesting reading.
Going off into one of your "conspiracy theory" rants everytime one of your arguments falls flat is no substitute intelligent debate.
Going off into one of your "conspiracy theory" rants everytime one of your arguments falls flat is no substitute intelligent debate.
Not in the least. I was just wondering why cellphones working or not on an plane is so relevant to what happened.
The only time I would personally worry about it is it the Pilot announced the flight was going to be late and wanted to tell somebody not to sit around the airport for ages.
Other than that, why is it so important that the cellphones on Flight 93 would not work.
You seem to be the only one who is so concerned that they should not. Everybody else seems to think that either they would or are totally indifferent about the subject.
Why is it that you seemed to be so concerned that they couldn't possibly have worked.
There must be some reason why it is so important. I'm sure everybody would like to be informed of the reason.
If there is no reason for claiming they could not have possibly worked then cellphones really are as irrelevant as the colour of the Pilot's eyes.
Why the insistence that they would not work? It must be so important that people believe it. If not, why the insistence that they wouldn't work?
Do tell us why the cellphones not working is so important for us to believe.
I would so love to hear an intelligent answer why we should all be concerned about if the passengers made calls on their cellphones or not.
If they didn't then what does that change with the outcome?
The plane crashed, that does not seem to be in doubt. What else is there to debate? Does anybody really care if the passengers made phonecalls? I certainly don't care. If they did or didn't doesn't really change anything!
Please put us out of our misery, just why should the calls from cellphones be so important?
Blazing Sporrans
09-Jul-06, 07:15
Try looking through this site (http://www.brusselstribunal.org/). It's not written by journalists, it's written by a wide range of diplomats and academics from all over the world. Read the statements, statements written by real Iraqis inside Iraq, statements made by people who know what is happening all over Iraq, all over the world. Find out what is going on and more importantly find out why. Unless you want to just go on believing whatever lie the government happens to be telling you at the moment.
Now what is it you're affraid of? Afraid people might see through all the John Wayne flag waving patriotic fighting for freedom and democracy God is on our side propaganda, see through the lies and excuses and see our invasion of Iraq for what it was? Or are you affraid you might find out you were the gullible ignorant one all along?
-v-
I'd rather not rely on you to keep me 'up to speed' with Iraq events, Fred. I prefer to see facts for myself on the ground here, and if Nello buys your air ticket I'd be happy to show you around the country. You could speak to a lot of Iraqis who are as disgusted with the world's media feeding off soundbites and negative 'stories' as they were with the Saddam regime. You'd find it very enlightening!
I'm fairly neutral in this debate (I think) and I don't wish to be intellectually battered as a result of saying this fred, however PhilR seems to be speaking from his on the ground experience in Iraq while you quote from numerous sources (well researched articles too, in general). However if I were you, I'd also be keeping one eye on what the agenda is of the website creators/contributors whom you quote. Of course there's always the theory that says 'just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean to say they're not out to get you'. There - I've just defeated my own point!!! :eek:
Fred wrote: There are a number of possibilities, one is that the woman was using a satelite phone.
Thoria satellite phones are widely used in Saudi, particulary in remote areas - not sure they actually work inside though.
Another thing (not related to my Saudi experience) dont the phones in the USA work on a different frequency/system - i.e. not GSM (it is GSM in Saudi), would that make a difference?
-v-
I'm fairly neutral in this debate (I think) and I don't wish to be intellectually battered as a result of saying this fred, however PhilR seems to be speaking from his on the ground experience in Iraq while you quote from numerous sources (well researched articles too, in general). However if I were you, I'd also be keeping one eye on what the agenda is of the website creators/contributors whom you quote...... :
Very well put Blazing Sporrans, and thank you. The one thing Fred is consistant on is his blind refusal to believe that his sources, even 'diplomats and academics', can possibly have thei